Download PDF Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer
Based on the Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer specifics that our company offer, you could not be so confused to be right here and to be member. Get now the soft file of this book Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer and also save it to be yours. You saving could lead you to evoke the convenience of you in reading this book Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer Even this is types of soft file. You can actually make better opportunity to get this Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer as the recommended book to read.
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer
Download PDF Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer
Exactly how if your day is begun by reviewing a publication Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer Yet, it is in your device? Everyone will certainly always touch as well as us their gizmo when awakening as well as in early morning activities. This is why, we mean you to likewise read a publication Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer If you still perplexed how to obtain the book for your gizmo, you can adhere to the method below. As right here, our company offer Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer in this internet site.
As we mentioned previously, the technology assists us to always identify that life will certainly be consistently less complicated. Checking out e-book Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer behavior is additionally among the perks to obtain today. Why? Innovation can be made use of to provide the publication Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer in only soft documents system that could be opened every single time you desire and also all over you require without bringing this Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer prints in your hand.
Those are several of the benefits to take when getting this Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer by online. But, just how is the means to obtain the soft file? It's very ideal for you to see this page considering that you can obtain the link web page to download and install guide Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer Merely click the web link provided in this short article and goes downloading. It will certainly not take much time to obtain this e-book Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer, like when you require to go for book shop.
This is likewise one of the reasons by getting the soft documents of this Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer by online. You may not require more times to invest to visit guide store and search for them. In some cases, you additionally do not discover the publication Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer that you are looking for. It will squander the moment. Yet below, when you see this page, it will be so easy to obtain and download the book Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer It will certainly not take often times as we state previously. You could do it while doing something else in your home and even in your office. So very easy! So, are you doubt? Simply practice exactly what we provide below and also read Orthodoxy And Heresy In Earliest Christianity, By Walter Bauer what you love to read!
- Sales Rank: #859874 in Books
- Published on: 1996-10
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 9.00" h x 6.00" w x .75" l, .95 pounds
- Binding: Paperback
- 326 pages
Language Notes
Text: English (translation)
Original Language: German
Most helpful customer reviews
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful.
Five Stars
By robert chamberlin
Great copy of Bauer's observations about early Christianity.
41 of 47 people found the following review helpful.
A More 'Generous' Review
By J. Ungureanu
Operative among many modern historians of the early church is a skeptical attitude toward an allegedly suppressive ecclesiastical power. We see such attitudes first fomenting among the Reformers and iconoclasts of the sixteenth century; however, it was not until the nineteenth century that it acquired a wide audience in the academe. Indeed, Philip Jenkins argued that studying 'deviant' forms of Christianity began enticing scholarly discussion in the nineteenth century. Scholars such as H.L. Mansel (d. 1871), J.B. Lightfoot (d. 1889), and J.H. Newman (d. 1890) were fascinated by ancient heretics. Mansel, for example, in his Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries, provided one of the earliest scholarly treatments of the movements of Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, and others. Lightfoot, a well-known biblical commentator, also argued that references to Gnostic thought could be found in the New Testament, especially in the Pauline Epistles. And Newman, shortly before his conversion to Roman Catholicism, published an essay on the development and continuity of Christian doctrine in the first through sixth centuries. Such skeptical attitudes culminated in the assertion that narratives of orthodoxy in the first-century are later constructions, and that neither orthodox Christianity, nor its accepted texts, originally held any exclusivity. Such an assertion is central to Walter Bauer's influential thesis in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity.
First published in 1934, Bauer divides his work into two major parts. The first half of the work discusses the rise and development of Christianity in Edessa, Egypt, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Rome; the other half is dedicated to issues that are more general in nature. Bauer closes each chapter with a succinct proposition, allegedly drawn and supported by the numerous sources he examines. In the first place, Bauer begins by arguing, based on the records of the Edessene Chronicle, that the earliest forms of Christianity existing in Edessa before the fourth-century was predominately heterodox, that is, forms led by the heretics Marcion, Bar Daisan, and Mani (p. 22).
Passing Edessa to Egypt, Bauer argues that, no less than at Edessa, heresy predominated early Egyptian Christianity. He reads the Gospel of Egyptians and the Gospel of the Hebrews as evidence of Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians living side by side, "resting on syncretistic-gnostic foundations" (p. 53). Indeed, most recognized figures of early Christianity in second-century Alexandria, he tells us, were gnostics rather than orthodox (pp. 48-49).
In Asia Minor, orthodox leaders Ignatius and Polycarp were, according to Bauer, unsuccessful in battling and eliminating heresy in their parishes. Based on their epistles, Bauer concludes that only a minority governed orthodox Christianity, while the majority of Christians in Asia Minor were unencumbered by an onerous ecclesiastical church before the fourth-century (pp. 65-69).
In the remaining chapters of the first half, Bauer postulates two crucial propositions: (1) In earliest Christianity, orthodoxy represented the majority of Christians in Rome (p. 108). (2) Rome succeeded in becoming the epitome of established orthodoxy through "persuasive and polemical tactics" (p. 111). He grounds these claims in the fact that orthodox Roman Christians utilized the letter of 1 Clement as an instrument of refutation for any anti-orthodox Christianity. Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, Hegesippus, Ireaneus, and Eusebius all held the letter in the highest esteem, and even quoted it as a call to orthodoxy (p. 103). Thus Bauer reads 1 Clement as evidence of Rome "enlarging its own sphere of influence" (p. 98).
In Chapter 6, Bauer explores what he calls "Rome's persuasive and polemical tactics." According to Bauer, one way Rome succeeded in becoming the epitome of established orthodoxy is through its traditional associations with Peter and Paul. The Apostolic Fathers, such as Ignatius, Dionysius, and others, repeatedly appeal to apostolic tradition, preserving their ancestral customs. However, the heretics also came up with their own apostolic traditions. Thus the Roman church had to find other modes of persuasion. As the letter of I Clement shows, Rome gained strength through its successful interventions in the affairs of other churches. But other sources reveal, according to Bauer, that financial donations or material gifts, compassionate attitude toward repentant sinners, and effective leadership and tight organization under a single bishop gave the Roman church the ability to extend its boundaries and sphere of influence. Rome was successful because it centralized its power, unlike other forms of Christianity. Bauer concludes that in the course of the early Christian centuries, the so-called heretical groups remained divided and even fought among themselves. As a result, they were finally routed, one after another, by the so-called orthodox Christians.
In the second half of the work, Bauer deals with some of the more general consequences of his research. How did orthodox Christians react to heretics? Bauer points out that Eusebius records numerous acerbic, aggressive, and anti-heretical polemics by Apollonius, Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and many others (pp. 138-42). He concludes, "Defamation of the enemy perhaps plays a greater role in these circles than proof from scripture" (p. 145). How dominant was heresy in the second-century? Based on literary production, Bauer asserts, "heretics considerably outnumbered the orthodox" (p. 194). Finally, What impact should this have on our understanding of Apostolic Christianity? Bauer answers that in the beginning there was no "pure" form of Christianity; only much later, in the fourth-century, did orthodox Christians begin drawing lines of demarcation. Indeed, Jesus himself was the original heretic, and Paul "was the only heresiarch known to the apostolic age" (p. 236). In short, in the first two Christian centuries, orthodoxy and heresy were not recognized as primary and secondary, and that in many regions what came to be known in the ecclesiastical tradition as "heresy" was in fact the remnant of original Christianity.
It has become exceedingly difficult to be original in evaluating Bauer's work, for since its publication a veritable flood of monographs, articles, and scholarly discussions have taken place. The general assessment and reception of the work, as the appendices of the 1964 edition of the work indicates, has been overwhelmingly extolling. However, Bauer's work is not without its criticisms. Therefore I shall delimit evaluative remarks to areas in his analysis that resemble leaps in judgment, and then suggest two areas of research I believe merit fuller investigation.
That Bauer's thesis was controversial in its use of evidence is not surprising. As soon as Bauer published his 1934 edition, Patristic scholar Walter V�lker published a reprimanding review in the 1935 issue of Zeitschrift f�r Kirchengeschichte (Journal of Church History). V�lker's general assessment of Bauer's thesis: Bauer "has made rich use of his imagination, and the result is that in many passages his evidence cannot stand up in the face of careful scrutiny" (400). More specifically, V�lker objects Bauer's conclusion that the earliest form of Christianity was Marcion, arguing that this conclusion is "at very best brilliantly witty conjectures" (401). In other words, many of Bauer's conclusions are simply non-sequiturs. For example, Bauer argues that Marcionism was one of the earliest forms of Christianity in Edessa. However, even if that were true, that does not support his general conclusion that heresy preceded orthodoxy. At best, the evidence only shows that the Marcion heresy-- which was, according to other early sources, itself a departure from orthodoxy (cf. Tertullian, Adv Marc 1.1; Epiphanius, Panarion 42.1.1-2.8)--was taken to the region of Edessa before the orthodox church had established its influence there. Furthermore, does Polycarp not mentioning a "bishop" in his letter to the Philippian church really show that the bishop there was a "heretic" (pp. 73-74)? That hardly seems to be the case; the only evidence Bauer presents for this claim is his "intuition" and a conflation of multiple sources.
In his chapter on Egypt, Bauer concludes that Egyptian Christianity existed apart from ecclesiastical structures, exhibiting during the second-century a gnosticism that ultimately succumbed under the authority of fourth-century, orthodox Alexandrian bishops. Other scholars have accused Bauer's conclusions here as largely based on an "argument from silence," but it is also a gross over-simplification of the historical milieu. That is, the setting, and evidence, is simply too complex to conclude that there was only one form--whether orthodox or heterodox--of Christianity existing at one place at one time. It was Colin H. Roberts, in his 1977 Schwiech Lectures of the British Academy, who rebuked Bauer on this point. Roberts adds, furthermore, that most of our gnostic manuscripts from Egypt were "written in the fourth and fifth centuries when orthodoxy was at the height of power." Thus, not only has Bauer simplified the rise and development of Christianity in Egypt, but the majority of the evidence of Egyptian Christianity cannot possibly support Bauer's conclusions.
We saw earlier how Bauer's reading of 1 Clement lead him to the conclusion that Macedonia, soon after the Pauline ministry, began espousing various forms of Christianity. But according to H.E.W. Turner, Bauer's reconstruction of the situation is "at best non-proven." With regard to Rome, Turner maintains that "it is regrettable that Bauer did not attempt nay minute analysis of the early traditions...comparable to his treatment of the history of the other great sees." Since there were many reasons why a Christian might wish to visit Rome in the second century, there is "nothing surprising" about the "convergence of orthodox church leaders upon Rome (the names of many non-orthodox figures also are connected with that city), and it "certainly fails to establish the special significance which Bauer appears to assign it." In sum, Turner suggests that Bauer's "fatal weakness [is]...a persistent tendency to over-simplify problems, combined with the ruthless treatment of such evidence as fails to support his case," adding that "[h]istory seldom unfolds itself in so orderly a fashion" as Bauer has supposed.
Another scholar, A.I.C. Heron, has questioned Bauer's reconstruction of early Christian history. Recognizing that 1 Clement is the key to Bauer's theory that the victory of orthodoxy was the victory of Roman authority over the churches, Heron declared that Bauer's interpretation of that letter is inadequate on three counts: (1) The analysis of Rome's motives are including the desire to extend its influence depends more on late second-century evidence than it does on 1 Clement. (2) The description of the situation supposed to be prevailing at Corinth has no support in the text. (3) The grounds for locating the writing of the letter in the context of the struggle with heresy do not exist. Bauer's interpretation if 1 Clement is contradicted by so many features in the text itself that Heron rejects it entirely.
Although Bauer certainly displays an admirable control of sources, his overall methodology has come under serious question in modern scholarship. His epistemological assumption throughout, for example, is to act as the "disinterested judge," and maintain the dictum audiatur et altera pars (p. xxi). But historical facts are never independent of interpretation, and much of Bauer's interpretive reconstructions smacks of the anti-Catholic bias that was so prevalent in German Protestant scholarship in the 1930s. At best, it seems like the only valid point in Bauer's thesis is that there was a diversity of belief in the first-century. I. Howard Marshall's main contention with Bauer, for instance, is that he "has the effrontery to label the second century as `earliest Christianity.'"
Finally, Lewis Ayres, in an issue of Journal of Early Christian Studies entirely dedicated to demonstrating the complexity of early Christian history, and thus repudiating Bauer's thesis, has provided a very helpful recent overview of Bauer's work. Put simply, Ayres claims that Bauer's thesis has been rejected in two distinct ways: (1) most of Bauer's examples have turned out to be unconvincing as scholarship on the second and third centuries has progressed; (2) most significant scholarship on the development of Christian belief has rejected the idea that we can narrate a monolithic story of heresy becoming orthodoxy.
Let me add a couple final remarks before concluding. First, What is heresy? I suggest that "heresy," as a concept, was first articulated in an early Jewish context. On the basis of such early sources as the Mandate of Hermes, Justin's First Apology, Didache, and Didascalia Apostolorum, it may be argued that definitions of heresy were "essentially Jewish and to a great extent traditional." In other words, our earliest sources reveal "heresy" as a thoroughly early Jewish construction. In early rabbinic literature, terms such as minim, kofer ba-ikkar, and blasphemia creatoris, would ultimately evolve to frame the context of the hairesis for the early Christian church. Indeed, this should occasion no surprise, as the majority of modern scholars now recognize that formative Christianity was in the context of first-century, Palestinian Judaism.
Second, How did heresy develop? Recent studies of late antiquity suggests that motives for conversion in early Christianity runs parallel to patterns of conversion in non-Christian religions: namely, by "wonderful acts." What the writings of Eusebius, Justin, Ireanaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and even the Apostle Paul shows is that conversion was the result of "signs, marvels, and miracles" (cf. Acts 2.22; 2.43) Yet, as Ramsay MacMullen observes, "There is no saying, however, out of our tiny corpus of evidence, what aspects of church doctrine in practice worked to attract non-Christians especially, or what especially worked to drive them away." I should like to suggest that this piece of evidence shows that some of the early heresies developed inevitably from uneducated, lay masses, who were converted neither by appeals to scripture, nor by philosophical argument, but by means of the miraculous. Indeed, this seems to be a particular pattern within Christian history. It was this oversight, for example, that fueled the Reformation. As a child, Calvin made a striking observation about the ignorance of his fellow parishioners:
"As the Feast of St. Stephen drew near, they would adorn them all alike with garlands and necklaces, the murderers who stoned him, in the same fashion as the martyr. When the poor women saw the murderers decked out in this way, they mistook them for Stephen's companions, and presented each with his own candle. Even worse, they did the same with the devil who struggled against St. Michael."
Continuing research, then, into the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, and Christianity and late antique paganism, will enable a more helpful framework for understanding the rise and development of orthodoxy and heresy in formative Christianity.
The work of Bauer has undoubtedly been influential. That so many scholars are still interested in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, nearly a century after its publication, demonstrates its enduring importance. Bauer's work has provided a starting point for further research, leading scholars to explore more carefully Christian origins and the development of its distinctive theologies. However, due in large part to new archeological discoveries, and increased scholarly interest in the field of Christian origins, many of Bauer's examples have turned out to be unpersuasive, and that monolithic narratives about orthodoxy, the Roman church, or heresy, fail to accurately portray the complexities and diversity of early Christian history.
51 of 54 people found the following review helpful.
Want to know about "primitive" Christianity?
By Paul Stevenson
Many conservative Christians say they want to return to pure, primitive New Testament Christianity. In the United States this is most often heard from Protestant fundamentalists. But many Catholics and Orthodox Christians also believe that their version of Christianity is the original one.
However, if you want to see what *real* early Christianity was like, you have to look at ancient sources. A fascinating one is the Odes of Solomon, a collection of first century Palestinian hymns in Syriac (Aramaic). But for a more synthetic scholarly approach, Walter Bauer's book is one of the best. It is important to remember that "orthodoxy" is defined differently by different groups. Whatever your group believes is orthodox; whatever other groups believe is heresy. For many centuries, "orthodox" in the West has meant "Roman Catholic." But well before this version of orthodoxy existed, and for many centuries after it began, there were other Christianities.
Jewish Christianity and Gnosticism probably have the claim to being the oldest forms of Christianity. Marcionism, starting in the second century CE, quickly became the most widespread form of Christianity, and it remained so for centuries. Local varieties, such as that of the Syriac-speaking Bardaisan in Edessa, also sprang up. Eventually, though, the local variety of Christianity that sprang up in Rome managed to spread most effectively. Initially this was due to the natural organizational skills that characterized Roman culture. After Christianity was legalized in the Empire, Roman Christianity could avail itself of the resources of the state to aid its spread. (Even so, this only worked within the Empire. Outside of it, East Syriac Christianity was even bigger than Roman Catholicism for several centuries. See The Church of the East: A Concise History.)
Bauer takes us on a long guided tour of early varieties of Christianity. He begins in Edessa and Egypt, "so as to obtain a glimpse into the emergence and the original condition of Christianity in regions other than those that the New Testament depicts as affected by this religion" (p. xxii). He then surveys the development of Christianity in other areas around the Mediterranean world. In each case he discusses what can be gleaned from ancient documents about the progress of Christianity in the local milieu, and how "orthodoxy" eventually became prominent.
Bauer's last chapter summarizes the advantages Roman Christianity was able to make use of as it pressed itself onto populations around the Mediterranean. He has telling statements, such as, "The form of Christian belief and life which was successful was that supported by the strongest organization..." (p. 231). With relation to the original Jewish Christianity in Palestine: "Thus, if one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly, the apostle Paul was the only heresiarch known to the apostolic age--the only one who was so considered in that period, at least from one particular perspective" (p. 236). However, the Jewish Christians--called "Judaists" by Bauer--were too inflexible in dealing with would-be gentile converts, while Paul was quite adaptive. "Thus the Judaists become an instructive example of how even one who preserves the old position can become a 'heretic' if the development moves sufficiently far beyond him" (p. 236).
Much has been written on this topic since Bauer's time, but his book remains a classic in the area. If you have a serious interest in the early Christianity, you owe it to yourself to get Bauer's perspective.
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer PDF
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer EPub
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer Doc
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer iBooks
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer rtf
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer Mobipocket
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer Kindle
