I am coming to the latter parts of "Jesus Interrupted" and the author has a very though provoking chapter on the origins of Christian doctrine.
He describes the first 150 years after the death of Jesus to be something like a "wild west" of belief. Since the bible as we know it today was not canonized there were many different sects of Christianity and all of them had their own collections of Christian writings they held dear. They ranged from a belief that the Jewish God of the OT was the "mean" God and Jesus was the messiah and the "good" God sent to save humanity to the idea that Christ was the messiah but Christians were still Jews and had to follow Jewish customs and laws (keeping Kosher, Mosaic Law...).
He then goes on to make the assertion that the version of Christanity we have today did not survive because it was necessarily the "right" view but because it was the most popular. In my mind it seems like a modern analogy would be if Baptist managed to gain a large majority in the US and then declared all other denominations and writings to be heretical and "of the devil". In 200 years people would look back on Presbyterians like we look back on the above mentioned "heretical sects" of Christanity.
Now I know the "easy" answer here will be "God guided their selection" but I am looking for something a little more in depth from some of the members here who have a little bit better understanding of the historicity of the bible and not just the "the bible is 100% right and good" zombies.
Why were the heretical books considered heretical?
Dark_Lite is correct...in fact when the specific strain of Gnostics arose in the 100s, Irenaeus specifically argued that those who bore apostolic succession in accord with Christ's order were those who preserved the faith. Without the visible, authoritative body of the Church and the recognized bishops over those regions, then indeed the author of the book you are citing would have a point. But it does not sound to me, from what you have described out of this book, that this author did much research, and he seems to be trying to defeat Fundamentalism rather than authentic Christianity.
You have asked some good questions here: “Why were the heretical books considered heretical?” I’ll suggest some responses below but first we need to note that you have been reading Bart Ehrman who has moved from being an evangelical Christian to an agnostic.
Therefore, his book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) is promoting his agnostic thesis about early Christianity. Here’s a brief critique of Jesus, Interrupted by Ben Witherington III. Part of what Witherington writes is:
One of the problems however with some of Bart’s popular work, including this book, is that it does not follow the age old adage— “before you boil down, you need to have first boiled it up”. By this I mean Bart Ehrman, so far as I can see, and I would be glad to be proved wrong about this fact, has never done the necessary laboring in the scholarly vineyard to be in a position to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted from a position of long study and knowledge of New Testament Studies. He has never written a scholarly monograph on NT theology or exegesis. He has never written a scholarly commentary on any New Testament book whatsoever! His area of expertise is in textual criticism, and he has certainly written works like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which have been variously reviewed, not to mention severely critiqued by other textual critics such as Gordon D. Fee, and his own mentor Bruce Metzger (whom I also did some study with). He is thus, in the guild of the Society of Biblical Literature a specialist in text criticism, but even in this realm he does not represent what might be called a majority view on such matters.
I suggest that you also read scholarly books such as:
On a more popular level, one of the best books I have read to answer your question is Craig Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Here, Evans will provide you with a critique of questionable texts (chs. 3 & 4): The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Egerton Gospel, the Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Gospel of Mark. These are what you call "heretical Gospels."
The question of the heretical vs genuine books of early Christianity has become more prominent in recent years because of the sceptical conclusions of the liberal Jesus Seminar since its publication in 1993 of The Five Gospels (Polebridge Press of Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).
In this, it claimed that “eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him, according to the Jesus Seminar” (p. 5). It reached similar conclusions about the activities of Jesus.
Back to your question: “Why were the heretical books considered heretical?”
Let’s use the Gospels as examples. The simple answer is that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the word and deeds of Jesus that were conveyed by oral tradition until the books became canonical. If the texts did not agree with the eyewitness reports, they were regarded as heretical This oral tradition was capable of preserving the eyewitness testimony of the apostles and thus preserving the words and works of Jesus in a reliable form. However, it was also possible to create a tradition that was contrary to the eyewitness testimony. We see this in the Gnostic writings. I suggest a reading of chs. 10 & 11 of Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (details above). These are titled, “Models of Oral Tradition” and “Transmitting the Jesus Traditions.”
Down through the years, scholars have developed historical and literary criteria for assessing biblical literature, but these criteria are not used on a consistent basis by some sceptical scholars.
These criteria (based on Craig Evans 2007, p. 48ff) are:
Historical coherence, which means that the Gospel writers wrote about things that cohere with what we know about the historical context of Jesus’ life and ministry.
Multiple attestation refers to the sayings and deeds of Jesus that appear in two or more independent sources (e.g. Mark and Q – Q is the sayings’ source assumed to have been used by Matthew & Luke). With multiple attestation, it suggests that the material was circulated in a wide realm at an early date and was not invented by a single writer. There is a fair amount of material that is supported by multiple attestation.
Embarrassment. This should not be understood. It simply means that “material that potentially would have created awkwardness or embarrassment for the early church is not likely something that a Christian invented sometime after Easter. ‘Embarrassing’ sayings and actions are those that are known to reach back to the ministry of Jesus, and therefore, like it or not, they cannot be deleted from the Jesus data bank.” (Evans, 2007, p. 49).
Dissimilarity (which has involved a lot of discussion by scholars): It tries to exclude sayings and deeds of Jesus that may have originated in Jewish or early Christian circles. If a saying, say, is not dissimilar to both Jewish & Early Christian contexts, it is called “double dissimilarity”; there is no guarantee that the saying or deed originated with Jesus. Use of this criterion has been questioned by some scholars.
Semitisms and Palestinian background. “Sayings and deeds that reflect Hebrew or Aramaic language (Semitisms), or reflect first-century Palestine (geography, topography, customs, commerce) are what we should expect of authentic material” (Evans 2007, pp. 50-51).
Coherence or consistency refers to “material that is consistent with material judged authentic on the basis of the other criteria may also be regarded as authentic” (Evans 2007, p. 51).
Craig Evans concludes that
Here is where I think many skeptical scholars, especially among the prominent members of the Jesus Seminar, go wrong. They not only misapply some of the criteria (such as dissimilarity) and ignore or misunderstand others (such as Semitisms and Palestinian background), they tend to assume that sayings and deeds not supported by the criteria must be judged as inauthentic. This severe, skeptical method leads to limited results, results that can be badly skewed, if the starting points themselves are off-base and wrong-headed. The portrait of Jesus can be distorted badly through misapplication of the authenticity criteria to the New Testament Gospels. When the extracanonical Gospels and sources are thrown into the mix and treated as though they were as ancient and as reliable as the canonical Gospels, then the problem of distortion is taken to new levels (2007, p.51).
You might like to look up this article: “Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature,”by Pheme Perkins; Theological Studies, Vol. 69, 2008. It’s available from Questia.
You have asked some good questions here: “Why were the heretical books considered heretical?” I’ll suggest some responses below but first we need to note that you have been reading Bart Ehrman who has moved from being an evangelical Christian to an agnostic.
Therefore, his book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) is promoting his agnostic thesis about early Christianity. Here’s a brief critique of Jesus, Interrupted by Ben Witherington III. Part of what Witherington writes is:
One of the problems however with some of Bart’s popular work, including this book, is that it does not follow the age old adage— “before you boil down, you need to have first boiled it up”. By this I mean Bart Ehrman, so far as I can see, and I would be glad to be proved wrong about this fact, has never done the necessary laboring in the scholarly vineyard to be in a position to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted from a position of long study and knowledge of New Testament Studies. He has never written a scholarly monograph on NT theology or exegesis. He has never written a scholarly commentary on any New Testament book whatsoever! His area of expertise is in textual criticism, and he has certainly written works like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which have been variously reviewed, not to mention severely critiqued by other textual critics such as Gordon D. Fee, and his own mentor Bruce Metzger (whom I also did some study with). He is thus, in the guild of the Society of Biblical Literature a specialist in text criticism, but even in this realm he does not represent what might be called a majority view on such matters.
I suggest that you also read scholarly books such as:
On a more popular level, one of the best books I have read to answer your question is Craig Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Here, Evans will provide you with a critique of questionable texts (chs. 3 & 4): The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Egerton Gospel, the Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Gospel of Mark. These are what you call "heretical Gospels."
The question of the heretical vs genuine books of early Christianity has become more prominent in recent years because of the sceptical conclusions of the liberal Jesus Seminar since its publication in 1993 of The Five Gospels (Polebridge Press of Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).
In this, it claimed that “eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him, according to the Jesus Seminar” (p. 5). It reached similar conclusions about the activities of Jesus.
Back to your question: “Why were the heretical books considered heretical?”
Let’s use the Gospels as examples. The simple answer is that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the word and deeds of Jesus that were conveyed by oral tradition until the books became canonical. If the texts did not agree with the eyewitness reports, they were regarded as heretical This oral tradition was capable of preserving the eyewitness testimony of the apostles and thus preserving the words and works of Jesus in a reliable form. However, it was also possible to create a tradition that was contrary to the eyewitness testimony. We see this in the Gnostic writings. I suggest a reading of chs. 10 & 11 of Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (details above). These are titled, “Models of Oral Tradition” and “Transmitting the Jesus Traditions.”
Down through the years, scholars have developed historical and literary criteria for assessing biblical literature, but these criteria are not used on a consistent basis by some sceptical scholars.
These criteria (based on Craig Evans 2007, p. 48ff) are:
Historical coherence, which means that the Gospel writers wrote about things that cohere with what we know about the historical context of Jesus’ life and ministry.
Multiple attestation refers to the sayings and deeds of Jesus that appear in two or more independent sources (e.g. Mark and Q – Q is the sayings’ source assumed to have been used by Matthew & Luke). With multiple attestation, it suggests that the material was circulated in a wide realm at an early date and was not invented by a single writer. There is a fair amount of material that is supported by multiple attestation.
Embarrassment. This should not be understood. It simply means that “material that potentially would have created awkwardness or embarrassment for the early church is not likely something that a Christian invented sometime after Easter. ‘Embarrassing’ sayings and actions are those that are known to reach back to the ministry of Jesus, and therefore, like it or not, they cannot be deleted from the Jesus data bank.” (Evans, 2007, p. 49).
Dissimilarity (which has involved a lot of discussion by scholars): It tries to exclude sayings and deeds of Jesus that may have originated in Jewish or early Christian circles. If a saying, say, is not dissimilar to both Jewish & Early Christian contexts, it is called “double dissimilarity”; there is no guarantee that the saying or deed originated with Jesus. Use of this criterion has been questioned by some scholars.
Semitisms and Palestinian background. “Sayings and deeds that reflect Hebrew or Aramaic language (Semitisms), or reflect first-century Palestine (geography, topography, customs, commerce) are what we should expect of authentic material” (Evans 2007, pp. 50-51).
Coherence or consistency refers to “material that is consistent with material judged authentic on the basis of the other criteria may also be regarded as authentic” (Evans 2007, p. 51).
Craig Evans concludes that
Here is where I think many skeptical scholars, especially among the prominent members of the Jesus Seminar, go wrong. They not only misapply some of the criteria (such as dissimilarity) and ignore or misunderstand others (such as Semitisms and Palestinian background), they tend to assume that sayings and deeds not supported by the criteria must be judged as inauthentic. This severe, skeptical method leads to limited results, results that can be badly skewed, if the starting points themselves are off-base and wrong-headed. The portrait of Jesus can be distorted badly through misapplication of the authenticity criteria to the New Testament Gospels. When the extracanonical Gospels and sources are thrown into the mix and treated as though they were as ancient and as reliable as the canonical Gospels, then the problem of distortion is taken to new levels (2007, p.51).
You might like to look up this article: “Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature,”by Pheme Perkins; Theological Studies, Vol. 69, 2008. It’s available from Questia.
Sincerely, Spencer
P.S. I am trying to edit this because when I post it to the Forum, a double copy is provided. I hope it works this time.
Evans is a scholar in the same way mall cops are considered "law enforcement." The christian right lacks substance so it often creates these pseudo-scholars to give the appearance of reliable information when most of the time they are really just trying to sell cotton candy umbrellas. The core problem is a backwards approach because they do not let the best information form their conclusions. Instead, they try to force their pre-mature conclusions by selecting information they want instead of examining all information. Look at Evans critique of the op referenced author....it's nothing but a nicely dressed ad hom and offers no supporting evidence.
Moving on....the criteria given here isn't that bad but it's very incomplete. The fact the Oral Performance model is absent shows a presence of agenda motivations. However, unlike Evans I will qualify that charge by pointing out the Gospel of Thomas meets the criteria listed, but it's still disregarded. How can't that be? It's because the conclusions are trying to create the information instead of following a basic logical order. The Gospel of Thomas has multiple attestations, eyewitness accounts, and dates between 60 CE and 140 CE. It's more reliable than John for a reading of the historical Jesus yet it gets dissed. Also, the criteria of "Semitisms" is a weak smoke screen because it allows groups like Evan's to fabricate criteria then pretend circular reasoning isn't in play.
Originally Posted by OzSpen
Matthew, You have asked some good questions here: “Why were the h
eretical books considered heretical?” I’ll suggest some responses below but first we need to note that you have been reading Bart Ehrman who has moved from being an evangelical Christian to an agnostic.
Therefore, his book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) is promoting his agnostic thesis about early Christianity. Here’s a brief critique of Jesus, Interrupted by Ben Witherington III. Part of what Witherington writes is:
I suggest that you also read scholarly books such as:
On a more popular level, one of the best books I have read to answer your question is Craig Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Here, Evans will provide you with a critique of questionable texts (chs. 3 & 4): The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Egerton Gospel, the Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Gospel of Mark. These are what you call "heretical Gospels."
The question of the heretical vs genuine books of early Christianity has become more prominent in recent years because of the sceptical conclusions of the liberal Jesus Seminar since its publication in 1993 of The Five Gospels (Polebridge Press of Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).
In this, it claimed that “eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him, according to the Jesus Seminar” (p. 5). It reached similar conclusions about the activities of Jesus.
Back to your question: “Why were the heretical books considered heretical?”
Let’s use the Gospels as examples. The simple answer is that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the word and deeds of Jesus that were conveyed by oral tradition until the books became canonical. If the texts did not agree with the eyewitness reports, they were regarded as heretical This oral tradition was capable of preserving the eyewitness testimony of the apostles and thus preserving the words and works of Jesus in a reliable form. However, it was also possible to create a tradition that was contrary to the eyewitness testimony. We see this in the Gnostic writings. I suggest a reading of chs. 10 & 11 of Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (details above). These are titled, “Models of Oral Tradition” and “Transmitting the Jesus Traditions.”
Down through the years, scholars have developed historical and literary criteria for assessing biblical literature, but these criteria are not used on a consistent basis by some sceptical scholars.
These criteria (based on Craig Evans 2007, p. 48ff) are:
Historical coherence, which means that the Gospel writers wrote about things that cohere with what we know about the historical context of Jesus’ life and ministry.
Multiple attestation refers to the sayings and deeds of Jesus that appear in two or more independent sources (e.g. Mark and Q – Q is the sayings’ source assumed to have been used by Matthew & Luke). With multiple attestation, it suggests that the material was circulated in a wide realm at an early date and was not invented by a single writer. There is a fair amount of material that is supported by multiple attestation.
Embarrassment. This should not be understood. It simply means that “material that potentially would have created awkwardness or embarrassment for the early church is not likely something that a Christian invented sometime after Easter. ‘Embarrassing’ sayings and actions are those that are known to reach back to the ministry of Jesus, and therefore, like it or not, they cannot be deleted from the Jesus data bank.” (Evans, 2007, p. 49).
Dissimilarity (which has involved a lot of discussion by scholars): It tries to exclude sayings and deeds of Jesus that may have originated in Jewish or early Christian circles. If a saying, say, is not dissimilar to both Jewish & Early Christian contexts, it is called “double dissimilarity”; there is no guarantee that the saying or deed originated with Jesus. Use of this criterion has been questioned by some scholars.
Semitisms and Palestinian background. “Sayings and deeds that reflect Hebrew or Aramaic language (Semitisms), or reflect first-century Palestine (geography, topography, customs, commerce) are what we should expect of authentic material” (Evans 2007, pp. 50-51).
Coherence or consistency refers to “material that is consistent with material judged authentic on the basis of the other criteria may also be regarded as authentic” (Evans 2007, p. 51).
Craig Evans concludes that
[/indent]You might like to look up this article: “Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature,”by Pheme Perkins; Theological Studies, Vol. 69, 2008. It’s available from Questia.
To answer the op...it's fairly simple...it's a formal method of demonization. It's sister informal approach is seen on cf everyday...when arguments can't be addressed some use name calling to try and silence others.
He then goes on to make the assertion that the version of Christanity we have today did not survive because it was necessarily the "right" view but because it was the most popular. In my mind it seems like a modern analogy would be if Baptist managed to gain a large majority in the US and then declared all other denominations and writings to be heretical and "of the devil".
Exactly. The reason we have the 'version' of Christianity we have today is because of the 'accident' of history. What we have is largely the Pauline version. We could easily have had the Jamesian version.
Now I know the "easy" answer here will be "God guided their selection" but I am looking for something a little more in depth from some of the members here who have a little bit better understanding of the historicity of the bible and not just the "the bible is 100% right and good" zombies.
How about political. The reason Christianity survived is that it became 'political' and decided to side with the ruling elite of that day - Rome. It took the best part of 300 years but eventually Christianity became the religion of the State.
Erhman is one of any number of scholars who are racking over old coals. He really is a bit player though. The shackles of Christian conformity have been broken and there is some fresh air blowing through the sanctuary. Many Christians are still clinging to the old beliefs and find the cool breeze more like a tornado and are ducking for cover.
Why were the heretical books considered heretical?
Simply because the institutionalized Church is terrified you will no longer accept their particular doctrine and dogma and you might ask some embarrassing questions.
__________________ Not all those who wander are lost
Moving on....the criteria given here isn't that bad but it's very incomplete. The fact the Oral Performance model is absent shows a presence of agenda motivations. However, unlike Evans I will qualify that charge by pointing out the Gospel of Thomas meets the criteria listed, but it's still disregarded. How can't that be? It's because the conclusions are trying to create the information instead of following a basic logical order. The Gospel of Thomas has multiple attestations, eyewitness accounts, and dates between 60 CE and 140 CE. It's more reliable than John for a reading of the historical Jesus yet it gets dissed. Also, the criteria of "Semitisms" is a weak smoke screen because it allows groups like Evan's to fabricate criteria then pretend circular reasoning isn't in play.
You wouldn't by any means have an agenda, would you?
Linear Mode
