Page 1 of 1

Were the proto-orthodox always the majority?

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:51 pm
by Jagd
Or is there evidence that they were a minority who "won out" and re-framed history in their favor, making it appear that they were always the majority? IIRC Justin Martyr said something to the effect that "there are Marcionites everywhere" and (also IIRC) Manichaeism was neck-and-neck with orthodox Christianity for a time. But let's keep this to the first centuries, since there also appears to be more major gnostic figures than proto-orthodox ones. Plus, the Nag-Hammadi library suggests there were tons of so-called gnostic gospels/books floating around during this period.

Re: Were the proto-orthodox always the majority?

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:16 am
by GakuseiDon
I've extracted passages from Justin Martyr where he notes other Christian groups:

Justin Martyr, First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

First Apology, Chap 26:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them.


First Apology, Chap 58:

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son. And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us, though they have no proof of what they say, but are carried away irrationally as lambs by a wolf, and become the prey of atheistical doctrines, and of devils.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

Dialogue with Trypho, Chap 35:

And Trypho said, "I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence." And I replied, "The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines...

There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin. (For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him. Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine.


Dialogue with Trypho, Chap 48:

But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and[nothing more] is proved[than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have[now] the same opinions as myself should say so

Dialogue with Trypho, Chap 80:

I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and[believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish....

For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines[delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae, Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are[only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.


Re: Were the proto-orthodox always the majority?

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:46 am
by rgprice
They almost certainly were not the majority prior to the 3rd century. A big part of the book I'm working on now address why they won out. A lot of it was due to the New Testament collection. That collection of writings was wielded as a weapon against all the other sects. Another is that they were fully monotheistic, which had a certain appeal to many elites. Another issue was happenstance in terms of personal connections, such as that between Lactantius and Constantine. Another, and an important one, was the orthodox reliance on prophecy as opposed to the denial of prophecy by many of the "Gnostics". Romans were huge believers in prophecy. The orthodox case relied heavily on showing that Jesus was foretold by the Jewish scriptures, while many of their opponents denied it.

But, as GakuseiDon points out, both Martyr and Irenaeus as well as others, essentially show that they were at one time in the minority. They chronical so many opponents, its clear that their position was not a majority one.

But its also important to point out, that there wasn't really ANY uniformity until the 4th century. Even when we use the label proto-orthodox, we have to remember that many of the ones we call proto-orthodox disagreed with each other as much or more than they disagreed with other "gnostic" opponents. There really wasn't a unified orthodoxy until Catholicism came along. The church fathers were certainly not all in agreement with each other across many major points. Would there by a physical resurrection or not? Was Mary really a virgin or not? Did Jesus have full-blooded siblings or not? Was the material world corrupt or not? Was the material world created directly by God or not? Was baptism necessary or not? Did Jesus ascend bodily to heaven or not? Were the Jews evil or not? Etc., etc. There were disagreements on all of these issues and more among the "church fathers".

Re: Were the proto-orthodox always the majority?

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:50 am
by Ken Olson
Jagd wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:51 pm Or is there evidence that they were a minority who "won out" and re-framed history in their favor, making it appear that they were always the majority? IIRC Justin Martyr said something to the effect that "there are Marcionites everywhere" and (also IIRC) Manichaeism was neck-and-neck with orthodox Christianity for a time. But let's keep this to the first centuries, since there also appears to be more major gnostic figures than proto-orthodox ones. Plus, the Nag-Hammadi library suggests there were tons of so-called gnostic gospels/books floating around during this period.
Bart Ehrman coined the term Proto-Orthodox in an attempt to create a neutral term that did not accept the narrative found in the church fathers, notably Eusebius, that the true teachings of Jesus were given by Jesus to his disciples and by them to the church which passed down the correct teaching. The word ὀρθοδοξία, sometimes translated as 'righteous' or 'correct opinion', but more accurately 'straight opinion', emphasizing that the truth has been passed down in a straight line and other (heterodox) opinions are corrupt later offshoots that are derived from orthodoxy but took a wrong turn somewhere. The term is not found in the New Testament and is rare in early Christian writings in general, but you can already see the concept in the book of Acts, where the true teachings are passed down by tradents who have received the Holy Spirit.

Ehrman's term is intended to reject or at least not to assume the orthodox church fathers account of themselves and to allow the possibility that other Christian beliefs may have been more widespread or more primitive than those later accepted as orthodox. I think there's still a problem with Ehrman's term in that it seems to assume there was a unified group of early christians who held a uniform set of opinions before those opinions were accepted as orthodox in the fourth century (when the church started holding Councils and the government became involved in enforcing orthodoxy). I don't think that's true. I think, for instance, that Arius' belief that the Son is subordinate to the Father only became heretical at the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century. I think it was widely held in the second and third century by Christians who were not considered among the heretics in their own time (actually, I think you could make a strong case that Paul was a subordinationist). Also, while later Trinitarians defended the doctrine of the Trinity by pointing out the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can all be found in the canonical New Testament, there is little or no emphasis on them being three equal persons in the Trinity. So the problem I have with the term Proto-Orthodox is that, while it allows that the opinions that were later accepted as Orthodox may not have been majority opinions in the early church, it seems to imply that there was, from an early date, a group that held the set of opinions later recognized as Orthodox, and I think the evidence for that is slim.

Best,

Ken

Re: Were the proto-orthodox always the majority?

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:12 am
by Secret Alias
There is a consistent homiletic etymology of the name 'Israel' which derives from the root yashar = straight, upright (which only works if the Hebrew doesn't distinguish between sin and shin viz. Samaritan Hebrew cf Num 23:10). I suspect orthodoxy has this etymology in mind too.