# Bauer Theory of the Early Church



## Justified (Mar 6, 2015)

I was wondering if any of you are familiar with Bauer's theory of early Christianity. His thesis is basically that the early church was a mess and full of _christianities_, and that essentially one won out. He also states that their really was no unified tradition, heresy, or orthodoxy in the early church. 

Those who are familiar and are well-informed on the subject, what is your critique? Do you have any helpful books to address the problem?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 6, 2015)

Best book debunking this thesis is Andreas Kostenberger/Michael Kruger _The Heresy of Orthodoxy_, which seems to be _entirely_ about this question, from what I can see. Of course, the Bauer thesis has made a comeback in the work of Bart Ehrman. I know of no one who has so thoroughly debunked Ehrman as Michael Kruger. It is also tangentially dealt with in Kruger's book _Canon Revisited_. But on the specific question you are looking at, the former book is right on target.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 6, 2015)

I guess I am confused, since we have councils, even earlier then Nicea, that would state the opposite. Also, just reading the fathers (which is what my previous study is; I'm up to the 5th century! Finally!) it seems that there was the obvious consensus that Christ is God (since the Church worshiped Christ), that the only way of salvation is through Christ (since the apostles creed was primarily a baptismal confession in the early church), and that imputation was in fact taught (letter to Diognetus). Also, there was a common practice of worship I.E. liturgy (Eusibius speaks of the Didache and the Apostolic Tradition by Hyppolytus). If you take time to read the fathers and early church writings, you would conclude that there is more of a catholicity about the church then some sort of "western-shoot 'em up-from the hip-gun slinging" diversity. As a matter of fact, Arianism was more popular then the Nicene party during the years 325-370's. This would be contradictory to such statements as you have provided. 

I think I just get a little upset when people make such claims. 

Also, think about this: Not only is there definitive truth externally to the contrary of this person's claim, but there is definitive truth internally (within the realm of who God is). When saying this, I think of what Jesus said in Matthew:



> 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



No matter what people say about the early church, nothing and no one prevailed against the Church's united proclamation: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Sometimes I find these people a distraction or an annoyance more then anything else.


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 6, 2015)

greenbaggins said:


> Best book debunking this thesis is Andreas Kostenberger/Michael Kruger _The Heresy of Orthodoxy_, which seems to be _entirely_ about this question, from what I can see. Of course, the Bauer thesis has made a comeback in the work of Bart Ehrman. I know of no one who has so thoroughly debunked Ehrman as Michael Kruger. It is also tangentially dealt with in Kruger's book _Canon Revisited_. But on the specific question you are looking at, the former book is right on target.



Exactly the one I was going to recommend. I second it!


----------



## Ben_Ives (Mar 8, 2015)

People reading what I am writing, please listen: in Church History, most notably Jesuits have a vested interest in defending the lie of apostolic succession. At every given opportunity they will seek to poison the truth. 
Please remember that Christ said, "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" Luke 21:33. Please do not approach the study of Church History with the false premise that in the lack of evidence or information, all the surviving documents and evidence are able to present an accurate portrayal of the, "early church".

Please approach Church History, on the basis that the Word of God is the truth. Please therefore feel free to examine the so called, "early church leaders" like Cyprian, Cornelius and the like in the light of God's Holy and inerrant word. The only documents we have which have survived besides the Bible are filled with the confused thoughts of men from the period of the second and third century. Please remember that these "early church fathers" could speak in koine Greek, which was the original language that the Apostle Paul wrote in. Cyprian's epistles were written in koine Greek. So the argument that these men were ignorant, and, "just didn't know any better" doesn't stack up against logic. The Jesuit will tell you when approaching to be careful not to be, "anachronistic". He will tell you that to consider the "early church leaders" in the light of God's word, is to view them through the lens of knowledge gleaned from the reformation. But all that happened at the reformation was the Bible was read in the languages of the common people, en-mass due to the invention of the printing press. However these, "early church leaders" were reading the scriptures in the original languages, and therefore do not have the excuse of ignorance.

Didn't the Apostle Paul predict that as soon as he departed, "ravening wolves" would come into the church to devour the flock? Didn't he predict false teachers? Ask yourself if an educated man on reading the scriptures in koine Greek himself, with no translation issues could fail to understand the plain meaning of them, if he was a born-again spirit filled believer? Who is the person who leads us into all truth? It is the Holy Spirit. A true Christian in that time period, would have had the Spirits guiding. So please don't feel awkward to examine these dodgy early church members in the light of God's word.

What actually happened during the second century, was that false teachers entered the congregations, and immediately sought to establish a distinction between the people and formed, "the clergy", which were Priests. The first critical error to occur was a priesthood which believed they were closer to God than the laity, and acted as mediators between God and man. This constitution was formed by the end of the second century. The priests sacrificed the Eucharist, and absolved the sins of the people. What a person is taught in reflection on the surviving church documents is the evolution of a cult which believed man has the power to absolve sin, and that the catholic church was the only true church, and was universal, and given divine authority as an institution itself. This catholic church believed that it was the one true church. By the middle of the third century, Cyprian taught that the unforgivable sin was schism. He taught that if a man died a martyrs death, refusing to deny Christ under torture by the Roman Empire, yet said man had been excommunicated by the catholic church, the person would be certainly damned in hell. He said there was no salvation outside the catholic church.

As I said, Jesuits will scold you for being anachronistic, but in truth, all the benefit of the future reformation was to be found in the Bible in its original language, which these men had. They had the Word of God, and as such we can judge them in the light of it, and know that the Bishops of Rome were never regenerated men. Those who were in the system where there had developed a distinction between the laity and a priesthood-clergy had formed, had created for themselves the office of, "Monarchical Bishop", which is an unscriptural office.

An excellent author on this is HARNACK, who is denounced by Jesuits operating on Wikipedia. The Jesuits seek to destroy the credit of anyone who attacks the legitimacy of Rome. They have done the same to Alberto Riviera. HARNACK is brilliant reading, a true excellent theologian and Church historian, and can give you a great understanding of this early period.


----------



## Phil D. (Mar 8, 2015)

Ben_Ives said:


> HARNACK is brilliant reading, a true excellent theologian and Church historian



The same Harnack that rejected the historicity of Gospel of John, criticized the Apostle'a and Nicene Creeds as well as Reformational Confessions, and promoted the Social Gospel?


----------



## psycheives (Mar 8, 2015)

I concur with my brothers that The Heresy of Orthodoxy is the book to read on the subject. To summarize in case some don't have time to read it: Bauer, Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels are been huge proponents of "the Bauer Thesis" and promote this view via History Channel, etc. Their error is in refusing to use the earliest sources of Christianity to formulate their theory. So they started with 2nd century texts and ignored the Biblical Scriptures and first century texts.

Here is a simplified run down of how to refute the Bauer thesis:

1st century:
The NT is written and it matches the OT and fulfills with OT prophecy
Early church fathers also wrote in support of Christian orthodoxy and lived at the same time as the Apostles. We have their writings going into the 2nd century - Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, the Didache, Diognetus
Simon of Samaria was one of the earliest heretics but he was not teaching FULL blown Gnosticism (which had not developed yet). He only taught "ontological dualism" from Platonism. This is NOT Gnosticism.

2nd century:
Gnosticism DEVELOPED using Christianity as a basis with guys like Valentinus (~115-165) and Marcion (departed from Christianity ~145AD, excommunicated from church and died 160).
But these guys can be shown to use Christianity as their BASIS and their teachings are a DEPARTURE from Orthodoxy. They didn't exist first. Marcion was the son of a Bishop. He wasn't Gnostic first. He was raised with Christianity.

So their entire thesis can be disproven based with earlier dates of Christian NT Scriptures compared to Vanentinus/Marcion.
The Christian Scriptures are usually dated approx. 44AD to 96AD. Marcion/Valentinus developed as a corruption of Christianity that arose at the earliest around 115-145. These Gnostic teachings cannot be established to have existed prior to the Scriptures. Certainly never before 44AD, when the Book of James is thought to have been written. And since we consider Christianity to be a fulfillment of the OT scriptures, certainly there is no chance they pre-date the OT Scriptures.


----------



## Ben_Ives (Mar 8, 2015)

Phil D. said:


> Ben_Ives said:
> 
> 
> > HARNACK is brilliant reading, a true excellent theologian and Church historian
> ...



Hi Phil,

Look what you are saying is a misunderstanding. Bible Scholars agree that Matthew, Mark & Luke retell the life of Christ Chronologically, while John is not. How many times did Christ enter the temple and turn over tables? In Matt, Mark and Luke it was once. In John it was twice - because the same event is retold twice, once at the beginning of John and once nearer the end. That's all HARNACK meant. So don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, when the bathwater is drinkable anyway.

I don't believe in the Universal Catholic Church, the same way I don't believe in universal atonement. I believe in Limited Atonement like HARNACK, and Calvin. I can understand anyone feeling uncomfortable saying they believe in the catholic church in a creed. I certainly don't like saying that.

He is being misrepresented, and the only reason he is attacked, is because he ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS the legal and rational basis for apostolic succession. In any event, even if what you are saying is given the greatest possible weight, and we accept it - good men can still make mistakes like Luther on James, and still produce great work. HARNACK's book "THE CONSTITUTION AND LAW OF THE CHURCH" is BRILLIANT.

Please provide evidence that HARNACK is as you say. Remember all his works are in German and have been translated into English, so whatever you read in the English may have a slightly different emphasis based on translation.


----------



## Justified (Mar 8, 2015)

Thanks to all for your recommendations. I'll put them on the reading list!


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 9, 2015)

Ben_Ives said:


> I don't believe in the Universal Catholic Church, the same way I don't believe in universal atonement.



Wow... And you're on a confessional board? Putting the body of Christ up with universal atonement AND rejecting the body of Christ? It would be too easy to prove without a doubt from scripture that there is IN FACT a catholic (universal) Church.


----------



## Phil D. (Mar 9, 2015)

Ben_Ives said:


> Please provide evidence that HARNACK is as you say.



You evidently have done very little reading of or about Harnack, or if you have and largely agree with him you are not a confessional believer. Google (including Google Books) phrases like "Harnack liberal" "Harnack resurrection" "Harnack creed" etc.


----------



## Ben_Ives (Mar 11, 2015)

Phil D. said:


> Ben_Ives said:
> 
> 
> > Please provide evidence that HARNACK is as you say.
> ...



Well I've read most of "THE CONSTITUTION AND LAW OF THE CHURCH" and it seems fine to me sorry. The other volume I have is, "The expansion of Christianity" Vol III. 
I'd reinforce HARNCK by saying that Louis Berkhof's, "Systematic Theology" says exactly the same thing about Cyprian, that he was the father of Episcopalianism. Berkhof simply stated the office of the monarchical bishop had evolved and was never an office based on scripture.

Any argument I would have liked to have brought out of HARNACK, regarding the early departure of the Church from the truth (as warned by Paul in Acts 20); is contained in Berkhof. I'm assuming no one has been able to find any mud to throw at Berkhof on Google, he is highly recommended everywhere. HARNACK simply treated the subject in a more biographical way than Berkhof's precise writing style. 

To be perfectly honest, I can't see anything wrong with HARNACK. If there is a quote of his we could discus here, or on another thread it might be a reason to learn from him.


----------



## Ben_Ives (Mar 11, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Ben_Ives said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe in the Universal Catholic Church, the same way I don't believe in universal atonement.
> ...



Hi Andrew,

I'm sorry if we have misunderstood each other. I'm referring to those who were contained in the covenant of redemption as being the church. What I should have said was that I don't believe the rights to the keys of heaven belongs to the Catholic Church, I believe it belongs to the invisible church. I don't think Catholic church conveys the meaning of the invisable church to my ears. So in the Constantanopal / Nicean creed the words, "the Holy Catholic Church" makes me feel uncomfortable, because I get the impression sometimes that it sounds like the general fellowship congregation is generically holy.

Is there anywhere, that we refer to the invisible church as the Catholic Church? Since making my earlier post I've read Berkhof's teaching on the church.


----------



## JP Wallace (Mar 11, 2015)

Ben 

I think you need to take another look at von Harnack's orthodoxy. I'll confess I have not read him, but a brief google search uncovered his lectures given in Berlin, here are some extracts

'Our authorities for the message which Jesus Christ delivered are—apart from certain important statements made by Paul—the first three Gospels. Everything that we know, independently of these Gospels, about Jesus’ history and his teaching, may be easily put on a small sheet of paper, so little does it come to. In particular, the fourth Gospel, which does not emanate or profess to emanate from the apostle John, cannot be taken as an historical authority in the ordinary meaning of the word. *The author of it acted with sovereign freedom, transposed events and put them in a strange light, drew up the discourses himself, and illustrated great thoughts by imaginary situations.* Although, therefore, his work i*s not altogether devoid of a real, if scarcely recognisable, traditional element, it can hardly make any claim to be considered an authority for Jesus’ history; only little of what he says can be accepted, and that little with caution.* On the other hand, it is an authority of the first rank for answering the question, What vivid views of Jesus’ person, what kind of light and warmth, did the Gospel disengage?


----------



## Phil D. (Mar 11, 2015)

Ben_Ives said:


> If there is a quote of his we could discus here, or on another thread it might be a reason to learn from him.



I'm not really interested in an extended discussion about Harnack. You recommended him as "a true excellent theologian." While he may have made some useful contributions on some select issues, I would submit that the following quotation from Harnack sufficiently shows how fatally flawed his overall theology was.

"To reject the Old Testament in the second century was a mistake the church rightly resisted; to retain it in the sixteenth century was a fate from which the Reformation could not escape; but still to preserve it in the nineteenth century as one of the canonical documents of Protestantism is the result of religious and ecclesiastical paralysis." (_Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God_)

Nor is this merely a misunderstanding due to translational issues, as you also suggested might be the case. Many scholars have noted Harnack's wholesale disregard of the Old Testament's abiding authority. Walter Kaiser remarked, 

"Few Christians have opted for such a total disparagement of the Old Testament as did the second century heretic Marcion, or the twentieth century spokesman Adolph Harnack." (_Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament_)


----------



## Ben_Ives (Mar 20, 2015)

Phil D. said:


> Ben_Ives said:
> 
> 
> > If there is a quote of his we could discus here, or on another thread it might be a reason to learn from him.
> ...



Well in response to those extremely controversial quotes, I'm glad I didn't make them as they demonstrate a blindness to the truth. If those are genuine quotes of Harnack, then basically he has made me a liar from the grave! 

His book on the early church really helped fill in some missing pieces on the origins of Catholicism. If I had time, I'd go through his books here and try and give an explanation why I so highly rated him. He demonstrates that the bishop of Rome didn't claim to be a direct descendant from Peter until I think about 260. I had read some other stuff of his that sounded great. 

But Phil D, you are quoting Marcion not Harnack there, and I don't know who wrote (Towards Rediscovering the Old Testament) was written by, but if we wanted to be strict about it, neither of those quotes directly condemn Harnack like what Paul Wallace has been able to refer us to. If we wanted to give Harnack the benifit of any possible doubt, you could read what Paul Wallace quoted, with the impression that whom Harnack was referring to as the author of John, was in fact God and he wasn't referring to John at all.

In fact I'm not so sure what he is even saying there, if we understood him properly, couldn't be possibly considered as referring to mining the book of John for information of a specific kind. The worst thing I think he says is, "illustrated great thoughts by imaginary situations." Of course if he is suggesting that the man John created his gospel as a work of his own imagination, then you would have to do as you say and regard him as talking absolute heresy. What if by understanding the term, "born again" he considered that an imaginary situation? Not to say that literally a man cannot be spiritually born again - I'm not suggesting that. What I'm saying is, perhaps Christ's use of allegory is what Harnack is referring to? So he would not be denying the teachings of Jesus, he would be describing perhaps a peculiar way in which the Holy Ghost chose to speak through the Apostle John. Harnack in that quote, if we take him to be referring to God himself as the writer of John, you have to assume he is not denying its inspired, but that John has been communicated in a peculiar way. 

"is not altogether devoid of a real, if scarcely recognizable, traditional element, it can hardly make any claim to be considered an authority for Jesus’ history; only little of what he says can be accepted, and that little with caution."

What did Harnack mean by "Jesus' history?" is he suggesting it contradicts the other 3 gospels, or is he saying that it presents events in a haphazard way (which I'm informed it does), as it has the sermon on the mount told spread out through the entire gospel. So in the other gospels it is reported as on sermon, but in John there are parts of it all over the place. Perhaps this is precisely what Harnack is referring to and NOTHING ELSE. Given what else he goes on to say about, "On the other hand, it is an authority of the first rank for answering the question, What vivid views of Jesus’ person, what kind of light and warmth, did the Gospel disengage? " He is hardly dismissing it as worthless.

I'm fairly sure that all that Harnack is simply saying is that the Gospel of John presents information in a non-chronological manner, which is useless for any bearing on pinning down the events of Christ's life chronologically. If that's all he meant, could we prove that's not entirely what he meant, as he isn't here to defend himself?

I think you would need to read that large quote in context. I don't have time to go on any further. My browser here just deleted another 100 words I added. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - thats fine. But perhaps Harnack meant John is useless in mapping the life of Christ chronologically? Is it true that there are aspects of the sermon of the mount told throughout the book of John, but in the other gospels, it is told all at once? What about the clearing of the temple, isn't that recorded twice in John?


----------



## Phil D. (Mar 20, 2015)

Ben_Ives said:


> But Phil D, you are quoting Marcion not Harnack there,



Ben, no offense, but I have to say your lack of scholarly acumen on this whole issue is rather startling. _Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God _is the title of a book Harnack wrote_. _Marcion lived in the 2nd century - how could he possibly have made the statement regarding the relevancy of the Old Testament in 19th century Protestantism?


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 20, 2015)

Ben_Ives said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> > Ben_Ives said:
> ...



Did you know many scholars also accept Synoptic Gospels to be not strictly chronological either. Rather at times they are arranged topically. They follow conventions of ancient Greco Roman biographies. If I am not mistaken, it is from John's Gospel that we understand Jesus' ministry to be 3 years. Harnock, on the other hand goes too far. The extended version of that quotes leads any one who reads it to say he thought John was made up and the pool of siloam was not an actual place but an allegory. Of course that pool as since been discovered giving credence to the historicity of John and his Gospel being an eye witness, something Harnock seems to emphatically deny, as he does so with miracles. Hardly a decent scholarly source one can cite in our favor for a historical Jesus.


----------



## Ben_Ives (Mar 20, 2015)

Phil D. said:


> Ben_Ives said:
> 
> 
> > But Phil D, you are quoting Marcion not Harnack there,
> ...



Ok fair comment. I think I'll have to fall on my sword here.

I'm surprised that someone who attacked the credibility of the papacy so well, could write such rubbish. Last night when I wrote that I was going to mention that Justin Martyr allegedly wrote Marcion a letter (now lost but referred to by Irenaes) rebuking him for heresy. The person who inserted the quote never said it was written by Harnack. (EDIT: Sorry I can see now that he actually did) I thought it was a book written about Marcion saying how bad he was, and then the other quote just put Harnack side by side with whoever wrote that.

My apologies.


----------



## Ben_Ives (Mar 20, 2015)

arap said:


> Ben_Ives said:
> 
> 
> > Phil D. said:
> ...



Yes I don't accept that at all, I'm a fundamentalist in the sense that all the historical Biblical accounts are to be taken as factual. I caused a bit of an uproar at my college for emailing the old testament lecturer and telling him, that teaching the Hebrew in in Genesis is open to the interpretation of millions of years was harmful to the cause of Christ. I refused to back down and took the penalty. I refused to have a meeting about it on the basis I had done something wrong. They deserve all the respect for being lecturers but they don't have authority on interpreting scripture. 

I had hoped that Harnack had been slandered because his history of early Christianity was so helpful, I just assumed he'd been character assassinated. Thanks for correcting me on that !


----------

