The Heresy of Orthodoxy
Andreas Kostenberger, Michael Kruger
How does the prevailing worldview impact our understanding of the Scriptures (or any writing, for that matter)? This is a classical hermeneutical question, and the question Kostenberger and Kruger set out to answer in this well written and impressively argued book. The authors divide their work into three parts; the first is to describe the Bauer-Ehrman thesis on the origin of the New Testament, the second is to come to an understanding of the origin of the New Testament (specifically in the area of deciding which books should have been included), and the third is to consider how the Baeur-Ehrman theory stacks up against the textual evidence.
The Bauer-Ehrman theory —a theory widely received and believed in the modern world— is essentially that there was no “single Christianity” after Jesus of Nazareth died. The Apostles, those who were closest to his teaching, instead of having one body of belief, actually had a wide range of belief. As they spread throughout the world, these various bodies of belief found voice through multiple schools. Eventually, however, through the power of the Roman state, one of these schools won over the remaining schools, and thus was born “orthodox Christianity.”
While there are a number of possible attacks against this theory, the authors direct their attack at the textual evidence. How well does the history of the New Testament as a text support the idea that there were multiple “christianities?”
The first question the author’s ask is: How diverse was early Christianity? The key here is how those who disagreed were handled. Was there simply an appeal to authority, or was there an appeal to a known body of belief, or an appeal to a written body such as the Scriptures? The authors show there was an appeal to a known body of belief and to a written body of Scriptures when early Christians faced disagreement on matters of theology. What’s remarkable about Christianity isn’t that there were multiple views of the Trinity, for instance, but rather that all the parties involved in the dispute appealed to the same set of authorities. This common appeal isn’t likely if there were actually many different traditions, or there were many different sets of Scripture to which an appeal could be made.
The second section of this book takes the argument in a different direction —what evidence do we have for the Early church recognizing a set of books as a “Canon?” While many people would like to insist that there was no “Canon” until at least 300 years after the resurrection of Christ, the reality is far different. The idea of forming a Canon came early in the Christian world, weaving a strong thread through the Christian experience.
In the final section, the author’s answer questions about the reliability of the manuscripts we have today. Here they marshal a great deal of evidence to show the manuscripts we have are close to, if not the same as, the manuscripts as they were originally recorded.
The resulting picture is of a world that accepts the idea that there were many different Christianities because it fits with our worldview, rather than because the actual evidence supports the idea. In our haste to find political correctness, we are leaving skid marks on the Scriptures.
What is truth? In a world in which at times right seems wrong—or even worse, where the lines between right and wrong are blurred to the point that we are no longer sure if there even is such a thing as right and wrong—Pilate’s question to Jesus takes on new urgency. Instead, all truth, including morality, becomes perspectival and subjective, a matter of nothing but personal preference and taste.1 In such a world, like in the days of the judges, everyone does what is right in his or her own eyes, but unlike in the days of the judges, this is not meant as an indictment but celebrated as the ultimate expression of truly enlightened humanity. -Introduction
It shows in our treatment of God’s Word.
Highly recommended.
