Proto-orthodox Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ignatius of Antioch, one of the Apostolic Fathers, was the third Patriarch of Antioch, and was considered a student of John the Apostle. En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which are examples of very early Christian theology, including modification of the sabbath, promotion of the bishop, and critique of so-called "Judaizers".

Proto-orthodox Christianity is a term, coined by New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, used to describe the Early Christian movement which was the precursor of Christian orthodoxy. Ehrman argues that this group, which became prominent by the end of the 3rd century, "stifled its opposition, it claimed that its views had always been the majority position and that its rivals were, and always had been, ‘heretics,’ who willfully ‘chose’ to reject the ‘true belief’."[1] Critics such as Larry W. Hurtado argue for the traditional view that proto-orthodox Christianity arose directly from the immediate followers of Jesus.

The basics of proto-orthodox Christianity states the four Gospels tell us everything we need to know about Jesus’ life, death, and his resurrection. They were the ones who handed down the entire New Testament that is still accepted as part of cannon today. Along with the scriptures, they are responsible for passing the hierarchy in church that we see today. Similar to what we believe now about Jesus, they believed that Christ was both divine as well as a human being. Not half and half or anything like that, but fully both. Along with this belief of Christ they stressed the Holy Trinity, which is the Father (God), the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; “three persons, but only one God, the mystery at the heart of traditional Christian faith”.[2] Although these seem common within Christianity today, they had some practices and aspects that aren’t particular common today.

Martyrdom was a huge part of proto-orthodox Christianity. This was made famous so to speak by Ignatius who was the bishop of Antioch in the beginning of the second century. He sort of set the tone for martyrdom when he himself became a martyr for the faith. He was captured by Romans for “Christian activities” (137). Common in those times, he was fed to the wild beast. He was proud to die and didn’t now want to be saved. He hoped that the beasts would tear him completely apart in hopes that he would be “able to attain to God”.[3] Following Ignatius it was seen as a privilege to die for faith. In fact martyrdom became a way to tell the true believers from the heretics. If someone wasn’t willing to die for what they believed, they were seen as not dedicated to the faith.

Another facet of the faith was the structure of the church. It was very common as it is today that the church had a leader. Ignatius wrote several letters to several churches instructing them to let the leaders (usually the Bishops) handle all the problems within the church. The members were supposed to listen to the Bishops as they were the leaders. “Be subject to the Bishop as to the commandment…We are clearly obligated to look upon the bishop as the Lord himself… You should do nothing apart from the bishop”.[4] The role of the bishop paved the way for hierarchy in the church that we see often today.

Another aspect important to mention about proto-orthodox Christianity is their views on Jews and Jewish practices. An important book for them was The Epistle of Barnabas. This book informed “true” Christians that the Jews in fact did not know how to interpret their own bible. It told that Jews took several thing in the Old Testament such as what they should not eat, keeping the Sabbath holy and fasting, literally rather than knowing the true meaning. The author felt that Jesus was the reason the Old Testament was even written and that “Christians not Jews are the heirs of the promises made to patriarchs of Israel. They felt that “the Jews had always adhered to a false religion”.[5]

Ehrman's position[edit]

In order to form a New Testament canon of uniquely Christian works, proto-orthodox Christians went through a process that was complete in the West by the beginning of the 5th century.[6] Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, in his Easter letter of 367, listed the same twenty-seven New Testament books as found in the Canon of Trent. The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[7]

To Ehrman, "Proto-orthodox Christians argued that Jesus Christ was both divine and human, that he was one being instead of two, and that he had taught his disciples the truth." [8] This view that he is "a unity of both divine and human" (the Hypostatic union) is opposed to both Adoptionism (that Jesus was only human) and Docetism (that Christ was only divine).

For Ehrman, in the canonical gospels, Jesus is characterized as a Jewish faith healer who ministered to the most despised people of the local culture. Reports of miracle working were not uncommon during an era “in the ancient world [where] most people believed in miracles, or at least in their possibility.”[9] Although most faith healers profited from their miracles, Jesus wandered about healing the poor and disreputable.[citation needed]


The traditional Christian view is that orthodoxy emerged to codify and defend the traditions inherited from the Apostles themselves. Hurtado argues that Ehrman's "proto-orthodox" Christianity was linked to, and reliant upon, the earliest Christian expression of the faith in the Apostolic Age: a remarkable extent early-second-century protoorthodox devotion to Jesus represents a concern to preserve, respect, promote, and develop what were by then becoming traditional expressions of belief and reverence, and that had originated in earlier years of the Christian movement. That is, proto-orthodox faith tended to affirm and develop devotional and confessional traditions... Arland Hultgren has shown that the roots of this appreciation of traditions of faith actually go back deeply and widely into first-century Christianity.[10]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Bart D. EhrmanThe New Testament: A Historical Introduction, p. 7.
  2. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. "On the Road to Nicaea." Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. 136. Print.
  3. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. "On the Road to Nicaea." Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. 137. Print.
  4. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. "On the Road to Nicaea." Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. 141. Print.
  5. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. "On the Road to Nicaea." Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. 145. Print.
  6. ^ Wikisource-logo.svg "Canon of the New Testament". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. : "So at the close of the first decade of the fifth century the entire Western Church was in possession of the full Canon of the New Testament. In the East, where, with the exception of the Edessene Syrian Church, approximate completeness had long obtained without the aid of formal enactments, opinions were still somewhat divided on the Apocalypse. But for the Catholic Church as a whole the content of the New Testament was definitely fixed, and the discussion closed."
  7. ^ McDonald & Sanders' The Canon Debate, Appendix D-2, note 19: "Revelation was added later in 419 at the subsequent synod of Carthage."
  8. ^ Bart D. Ehrman The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, p. 7.
  9. ^ E. P. Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus
  10. ^ Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity., William B Eerdmans Publishing, 2005, p.495