Précis: Bauer’s Forgotten Region: North African Christianity (David C Alexander and Edward L Smither)

A Précis of

Chapter 7 from Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts: Reconsidering the Bauer Thesis. edited by Paul A. Hartog, Pickwick Publications, Eugene, Oregon, 2015.

Alexander and Smither consider North African Christianity excluding Egypt and the surrounding areas. While this area is admittedly later than Bauer’s focus, they intend to use the area as a test case to look at Bauer’s assumptions and methods. Bauer worked on areas with much less thorough documentation as to how Christianity
arrived and in what form. The evidence for other competing and original forms under Bauer’s magnifying glass is also scant. North Africa, though about half-a-century later, is very well documented.

In sum, Christian emergence in Roman Africa manifested considerable diversity within

Précis: Apostolic Tradition and the Rule of Faith in Light of the Bauer Thesis (Bryan M Litfin)

A Précis of

Chapter 6 from Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts: Reconsidering the Bauer Thesis. edited by Paul A. Hartog, Pickwick Publications, Eugene, Oregon, 2015.

“Wide diversity of opinion about Jesus existed in the second and third centuries, and normative Christianity had not yet triumphed.” (p. 141) So in some places “What is now called ‘heresy’ did precede ‘orthodoxy’.” (p. 141) There is enough evidence of this in the post-Apostolic and ante-Nicene Fathers. However, Bauer’s Thesis requires that there was no consistent and and identifiably unique Christian confession or message

Précis: “Orthodoxy,” “Heresy,” and Complexity: Montanism as a Case Study (Rex D Butler)

“Orthodoxy,” “Heresy,” and Complexity: Montanism as a Case Study (Rex D Butler)

A Précis of

Chapter 5 from

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts: Reconsidering the Bauer Thesis. edited by Paul A. Hartog, Pickwick Publications, Eugene, Oregon, 2015.

The group of Christians that later became known as “orthodox” are known from documentary evidence to have existed early, throughout a very widespread area, and and very consistent in the expression of their beliefs. Groups that are known as heretics from the early ages are almost universally later, show up as local phenomena, and differ greatly from one another as well as from the orthodox.

While the term “orthodox” was not used in Scripture or in wide use by the post-Apostolic Fathers until the 4th century, the terms “heresy” and “schism” were in use to describe departures from a normative body of teaching/doctrine of Scripture which the Apostles and post-Apostolic Fathers defended. “Such references to heresy, however, do not disprove the existence of orthodoxy but, rather, presuppose it…. Prior to the linguistic delineation of ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy,’ Christian leaders nonetheless possessed and transmitted what they considered to be apostolic teachings and/or traditions….” (p. 117) And the body of these normative teachings is found in Scripture and in the documents of the early Church.

Butler examines Montanism in some detail because Bauer maintained that this movement was an example to fortify his thesis. However, Montanism was not early, beginning in the late 2nd century it comes after normative Christianity is already documented. Montanism in the late 2nd century is a purely local phenomenon, whereas normative Christianity is already established throughout the Mediterranean and the Near East. And while normative Christianity already has a body of accepted doctrine, Montanism maintained that it was new, and was itself open to new and divergent teachings.

“The new prophets’ messages were recorded, collected,and circulated; and, therefore, another, more serious charge was leveled against the Montanists: that they revered these writings as authoritative, like those written by the apostles.”(p. 125) Butler surveys the early church’s reaction to several of Montanism’s distinct teachings and practices-reaction to some of which was very mixed.

They were condemned as heretics, non-Christians, by assemblies prior to that of the Council of Iconium (ca. 230-235). Their non-biblical teaching on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was recognized as a false portrayal of the God of Scripture. Because they did not confess the Trinity accurately the Council of Iconium mandated that people coming from Montanism into the Church needed to be baptized. Their previous baptism in Montanism was not in the name of the true God even though they may have used the same words as Christ gave in Matthew 28. However the data about and from Montanism is more mixed than the declaration from the Council of Iconium might lead one to expect.

Butler reviews the reception of Montanism in North Africa, particularly by Tertullian, who embraced the New Prophecy, and in a writing titled the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas. The issue with this document is that it shows signs of Montanist influence, but it does not clearly embrace Montanism. There are clear statements by the editor that show the influence of the New Prophecy. But it may be that the brand of Montanism that came to Carthage was much more orthodox in its teachings than that of Asia Minor.

Butler states: “Elsewhere, I have argued that if Montanism were anything other than theologically orthodox, it would not have attracted the adherence of Tertullian, who was a committed Christian apologist and polemicist. The rejection of Montanism, therefore, resulted from other issues-not heterodoxy, but heteropraxy; not incorrect doctrines, but unacceptable practices.”(p. 138)

Thus Montanism was rejected as heretical in Asia Minor, but was considered generally orthodox in North Africa. This may be due to a number of factors, including significant differences in teaching and practice between the two Montanist movements at these different locations.

“The complexities involved in the history of Montanism should not necessarily be construed to support the Bauer Thesis, but they do demonstrate the diversity within normative Christianity during its early centuries.”(p. 140) This also demonstrates that two groups having the same name may not be the same in teaching and practice. Thus it would hazardous to conclude that the Montanism condemned in Asia Minor as anti-Trinitarian is the same Montanism embraced by Tertullian, who himself remained a staunch Trinitarian and defender of orthodoxy.

Précis: Baur to Bauer and Beyond: Early Jewish Christianity and Modern Scholarship (William Varner)

Baur to Bauer and Beyond: Early Jewish Christianity and Modern Scholarship (William Varner)

A Précis of

Chapter 5 from

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts: Reconsidering the Bauer Thesis. edited by Paul A. Hartog, Pickwick Publications, Eugene, Oregon, 2015

The development, distribution, and character of Jewish Christianity in the 1st century and following represents a significant oversight on the part of Bauer and those embracing his thesis. Georg Streker wrote an appendix to the 1971 English translation of Bauer’s work titled “On the Problem of Jewish Christianity.” He followed the Bauer Thesis closely, and his presentation has been promoted by Bart Ehrman.

Streker and Ehrman basically ignored the literature on early Jewish Christianity. Varner surveys the traditional understandings of early Jewish Christian history and the distinctions between the Nazarenes and the Ebionites in early Christian writings. Some of the main modern period works treating the subject are:

FJA Hort’s 1894 Judaistic Christianity (Internet Archive)

J. Daniélou’s 1958 The Theology of Jewish Christianity (Engl. Tr. 1964)

HJ Schoeps 1949 Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Engl. Tr. 1969) (Scribd link)

H Schonfield’s 1936 The History of Jewish Christianity (Internet Archive)

J Jocz 1949 The Jewish People and Jesus Christ

Varner traces the root of the Streker/Ehrman paradigm to Ferdinand Christian Baur’s Tübingen School Hypothesis. This view of church history uses selected aspects of the Clementine literature as its primary base. FC Baur pits Pauline (gentile) theology against Petrine (Jewish Christian) theology and finds a Hegelian synthesis of the two in Johannine theology. Varner turns to look at the common propositions between Baur, Bauer-Strecker, and Ehrman as well as their common neglect of widely documented contrary evidence in the early documents: for example, a focus exclusively on the Ebionites, neglecting mention of the Nazarenes and the historical migration and changes within Judaism and its ways of dealing with Jewish Christians after the destruction of the Temple and the failure of the Bar Kochba rebellion.

Varner then turns to present a summary of research on these questions that have been published after Ehrman’s first edition of Orthodoxy and Heresy (1996)  and his Lost Christianities (2003). This summary and the reading list points out many different helpful issues, particularly the need to be more accurate in describing the confessions and theologies of those casually labeled as Jewish or Jewish Christians in the first century.

“Erhman’s popular treatment of Jewish Christianity repeats the views of Strecker without directly acknowledging them. Ehrman’s discussion also suffers from a tendential bias by labeling all of early Jewish Christianity as ‘Ebionism.’ This is a patent anachronism that attaches to all early Jewish Christians the name of a group of Jewish believers that held aberrant views from the Jewish Christians known as ‘Nazarenes.’ Ignoring the important contributions of Justin Martyr, Ehrman does not even mention the ‘Nazarenes’ nor does he ever attempt to connect them with the pre-70 Jewish believers. By labeling them all as Ebionites, he prejudices the discussion to support his assumptions.” (p. 99)

Review: Michael Fox, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition, vol. 1.

Michael Fox, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition, vol. 1. Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA, 2015. 500 pages, $69.95.

Reviewer: Joe Abrahamson.

The Society for Biblical Literature published the first volume in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition. I've only read a little bit so far, and Inter Library Loan doesn't allow me the time to pour through it. But my preliminary observations are: Fox was a great teacher, and he is an excellent writer. Though the volume is highly technical Fox is very good at presenting the manuscript evidence and its contexts in an understandable way. All of the relevant quotations from the Versions are presented in the original language and in English translation. This means that the reader can see not only the Syriac, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, but also see how Fox understands them.  Fox is very good about laying out his reasoning for his textual decisions in a clear way. In this alone he has raised the bar for presentation to a better standard.

Typesetting of Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac are beautifully done in clear, legible fonts.

The volume is in three sections: Introduction; Textual Commentary with Critical Text; and the Critical Text of Proverbs.

The Introduction alone makes this a worthwhile addition to the library of anyone pursuing Old Testament Exegesis, even if one’s focus is on other biblical books. It is here where Fox lays out in a very lucid manner the assumptions, materials, processes, tools, and scope of the Textual-Critical task. While the focus is, of course, on the book of Proverbs the matter at hand is dealing with manuscripts and the texts they convey. “The primary goal of The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition (HBCE) is to reconstruct the corrected archetypes of biblical books.” (p. 2) This means the most reasonable reconstruction of the Hebrew text from which our current Hebrew text and the Versions are derived. Fox states that this goal is more of a process to follow and not an expectation that the Critical Text that results from this would be fully accurate. He states: “I wish to be clear that the text I have produced, however successful, never had physical existence. It is a construct. It can be defined as proto-M as it should have been, the text the authors and editors wanted us to read. This goal is heuristic: approachable but not wholly attainable.” (p. 4-5)

The advantage that Fox has given the reader in his presentation is that he has made his cases in such a way that the reader can evaluate Fox as well as the evidence and make clear arguments where one would agree or disagree with Fox’s textual decisions.

The Introduction

The seventy-five page Introduction focuses first on the nature of Textual Criticism, then on the Hebrew texts and how they are handled, with special focus on Ketiv and Qere. Fox gathers together examples of different functions of Ketiv and Qere into handy tables. These are useful presentations of the evidence, Fox’s understanding of them, and how he deals with them. Fox turns to discuss the Versions: The Septuagint, the Peshitta, the Vulgate, and the Targumim. In this section on the Versions Fox discusses the nature of the relationships between the Versions and the Hebrew text.

The final section of the Introduction covers Policies and Procedures covers how Fox applies the tools and vocabulary of Textual Criticism and to clarify some important distinctions in Textual Criticism that often make things very complicated. This includes such points as textual agreement does not necessarily mean support of a variant; the assumption that a scribe knew the vocabulary he was copying; the distinction between a real variant and one that existed only in the mind of a scribe (thus copied into a manuscript without actual manuscript evidence) and other issues.

The Textual Commentary with Critical Text

The page layout for this section is well planned. The Critical Text appears at the top of the even pages with the Textual commentary below it and on the facing even page. Just enough of the Critical Text is included on the top of the even pages to balance out with the Textual Commentary. This eases reading, reducing the need for page flipping.

As noted above, Fox presents the Versions in their original language as well as in English translation.  

The Critical Text of Proverbs

The Critical Text of Proverbs starts at the right back cover making access to just the book of Proverbs in Hebrew both natural and handy. The Critical Text itself is free from extraneous markings making it distraction free. The textual notes are at the bottom of each page of the Critical Text marked by chapter and verse numbers. These present brief summaries of the textual evidences for Fox’s textual decisions.

Summary

Textual Criticism is exegetical. The exegete always brings his or her philosophical and theological background to the task. I would suggest that an exegete’s ability to see these personal assumptions and make the relevant assumptions clear in the discussion of an exegetical issue is a degree to which an exegete’s work might be considered objective.

Textual Criticism is exegetical. Textual Criticism involves the interpretation of not only one particular text, but of multiple manuscripts and Versions, each of which exhibit their own exegetical framework to a greater or lesser extent.

From the opening paragraph in his Preface Fox distinguishes his Textual Critical task from that of theological exegesis. Throughout the Introduction and Textual Commentary Fox’s ability to keep  careful and clear distinctions between the data, evidence, and the reasoning for his decisions makes his work accessible and useful to faith groups who may differ strongly on these issues.

https://secure.aidcvt.com/sbl/ProdDetails.asp?ID=062401C&PG=1&Type=BL&PCS=SBL

Précis: Post-Bauer Scholarship on Gnosticism(s): The Current State of Our “Knowledge” (Carl B. Smith) (p. 60-88)

Post-Bauer Scholarship on Gnosticism(s): The Current State of Our “Knowledge” (Carl B. Smith) (p. 60-88)

A Précis of 

Chapter 3 from 

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts: Reconsidering the Bauer Thesis.  edited by Paul A. Hartog, Pickwick Publications, Eugene, Oregon, 2015.

Gnosticism as a pre-Christian religious movement holds a “crucial position in Bauer’s reconstruction. Essentially it was the heresy which preceded orthodoxy.”(p. 60-61) Bauer’s scholarship falls within the historical philosophy of the University of Göttingen’s Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. This school “postulated that Gnosticism was essentially the product of Eastern oriental influence which had deeply impacted the Hellenistic world and the later writings of the Old Testament and Judaism, as well as those of the New Testament and early Christianity.” (p. 77 my emphasis)

Smith reviews what was known about Gnosticism in Bauer’s time (particularly through writings of church fathers), the discoveries of “Gnostic” texts since his time, and the complex issues that have attended Gnostic studies as an academic field.

Smith focuses attention on the Nag Hammadi library discovery, publication, and the significant lack of unifying theme of the diverse works which might justify labeling the group of documents as Gnostic. Smith highlights three more discoveries of gnostic texts:

1. The Gospel of Mary,
2. the Secret Gospel of Mark, widely controversial because the text was seen by only one Scholar, Morton Smith of Columbia University. He published a scholarly work and a popular work on the manuscript and then the manuscript was lost. Many regard the gospel as inauthentic and others see it as an “important text in the transmission of Mark’s gospel.”(p. 66)
3. and the Gospel of Judas.

Smith discusses the issues surrounding the Gospel of Thomas and the scholarly work identifying Sethian Gnosticism. The difficulty is that there is that the documents and the early church fathers do not testify to a unified doctrinal structure. This is in fact a basic problem in the study of Gnosticism.

The term Gnosticism itself was coined in the 17th century by Henry More, a rationalist Platonist theologian involved in promoting a Platonic interpretation of Kabbalah. More used the term to designate a broad group of diverse non-Christian movements from the 2nd century. The term Gnosticism was not used by any of these ancient movements as a self-description of their systems of ideas and practices.

Acknowledging the inaccuracy of the term Gnosticism Smith presents a summary of the research on the social history of Gnostics and Gnosticism focusing on the most clearly discernable movement of Sethianism, then Basilides, and Valentinus. There are serious questions as to whether Valentinus belongs in this category.

Smith turns to discuss the basic questions, terminology, origins and definitions of Gnosticism. “That a variety of religious groups existed in the ancient world who claimed to possess a special knowledge or ‘gnosis’ is also undisputed; however, the term is so commonly used and in so widely diverse manners that it is not a helpful term to delineate any specific movement of antiquity.” (p. 79) The term gnostic is of greater utility, though primarily a pejorative. It may have been used for self-description, but caution is warranted against overgeneralizing.

Today there are four basic categories of views regarding Gnosticism: 1) abandon the term and look for more finely and measurably defined categories such as biblical demiurgy, 2) view Gnosticism as “a religion in its own right” … “a dualistic religion of alienation, protest, and transcendence, which, though multifarious, adapted itself readily to other religious traditions, perhaps in a parasitic manner.”(p. 81) 3) limit claims and research to carefully distinguish that can be more rigorously tested, and 4) “isolate those individuals, groups, and texts in the ancient world which called themselves ‘gnostik’..., identified themselves as possessors of ‘gnosis,’ or were perceived by their contemporaries as making these claims.” (p. 82)

What is known from their adversaries and from writings about individuals or movements that are categorized as Gnostic tends strongly to date from the 2nd century. This undermines the Bauer Thesis which depended on Gnosticism (loosely defined) preceding the development of Christianity.

Précis: Walter Bauer and the Apostolic Fathers (Paul A Hertog) (p. 34-59)

A Précis of

Chapter 2 from

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts: Reconsidering the Bauer Thesis. edited by Paul A. Hartog, Pickwick Publications, Eugene, Oregon, 2015.

Walter Bauer and the Apostolic Fathers (Paul A Hertog) (p. 34-59)

After a brief summary of Bauer and the applicable articles from the above list, Hertog evaluates ten specific claims which Bauer made from Polycarp and two claims made on the basis of I Clement, closing with a discussion on Normativity and Authority in the Apostolic Fathers.

Bauer’s arguments evaluated here:

1. Polycarp didn’t write a letter to Thessalonica, but he did to Philippi. This must mean that the Thessalonian church had been overtaken by heresy.
2. Polycarp wrote his inscription: “Polycarp and the elders with him” because, Bauer argued, there must have been some who were “against him.”
3. Since the address of Polycarp’s letter to Philippi does not include “bishop” there must have therefore been a gnostic anti-bishop present at Philippi.
4. Since Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians in 2.1 gives a warning against the “meaningless talk and the error of the crowd (ton pollon)” the use of the term “crowd (ton pollon)” must necessarily indicate a majority of church members who are gnostic.
5. Bauer argues that Polycarp wrote to the Philippians because of his anti-heretical drive, however the epistle states that he only wrote because they asked for particular advice. (ch. 3)
6. Bauer maintained that the Pastoral Epistles were written at a later date than Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, however Polycarp quotes I Tim 6:10, and other passages from the Pastoral Epistles.
7. Bauer maintained that there were no “sure traces of Galatians” to be found prior to Irenaeus, and that “uncertain traces are sharply limited to Polycarp.”
8. “Bauer emphasized the anti-heretical materials of” Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, however contextual readings of Bauer’s citations shows no specific doctrinal aberration, but rather moral lapses like greed.
9. Bauer asserted that when “peace” returned to the church of Antioch this meant “internal peace” from heresy rather than from external persecution.
10. Bauer (somewhat contradicting his claim in number 5 above) claimed that the letter was requested by “the orthodox contingency at Philippi” to fight against Docetism. But the letter is general and includes notes as to the motivation in Pol. Phil. 13.2.
11. Bauer argued:
1. 1 Clement is basically an appeal to the same tradition as other anti-heretical texts (which would imply that the normative faith is wider spread and earlier than the heresies-but that doesn’t bother him),
2. and since Corinth had division in Paul’s time,
3. and though there is no explicit mention of gnostic thought in 1 Clement,
4. therefore 1 Clement is a cleverly disguised anti-heretical document particularly focused on gnosticism.
12. Now that Bauer has demonstrated 1 Clement is anti-gnostic it can be further proved:
1. since 1 Clement was sent from Rome,
2. and we all know that Rome was a manipulative bishopric in the 2nd century with undue political influence (perhaps because it was bad later on at the Reformation?) and
3. undue financial gifts it therefore
4. “the undoubted Roman success was surely achieved by the employment of tactics which 1 Clement rather more conceals from us than reveals.” (p. 51--Bauer 111)
13. Bauer’s framing of the epistles of Polycarp and 1 Clement is evaluated.

Précis: The Bauer Thesis: An Overview (Rodney Decker) (p. 6-33)

The Bauer Thesis: An Overview (Rodney Decker) (p. 6-33)

A Précis of

Chapter 1 from

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts: Reconsidering the Bauer Thesis. edited by Paul A. Hartog, Pickwick Publications, Eugene, Oregon, 2015.

The current use and popularizing of the Bauer Thesis by Bart Ehrman in his scholarly and popularizing literature. A summary of Bauer’s Thesis and import from 1934 in Germany and Europe then in 1970 in America with the translation into English.

Decker’s summary:
“Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy argues that we cannot merely assume that orthodoxy came first and that heresy is a later deviation, for in doing so we ‘simply agree with the judgment of the anti-heretical fathers for the post-New Testament period’(xii). This is neither scientific nor fair since we are listening to only one voice-that of the winners; we do not allow the losers to speak for themselves. ‘Perhaps...certain manifestations of Christian life that the authors of the church renounce as “heresies” originally had not been such at all, but, at least here and there, were the only form of the new religion-that is, for those regions they were simply “Christianity.” The possibility also exists that their adherents constituted the majority’(xxii)”(p. 11)

Decker highlights Bauers actual lack of objectivity, outlines Bauer’s logical arrangement of evidence and points out the neglect of evidence known during Bauer’s time. Bauer starts with a geographical survey: Edessa, then Alexandria, Antioch, and Asia Minor, turning finally to Rome. Then Bauer turns to look at rhetorical usage of terms. Traditional literature playing the Gospels off one another and contrasting very selective sections of Paul with them. Bauer’s thesis maintains that Rome’s position came to predominate as orthodoxy through political power and financial influence.

“The essence, then, of Bauer’s thesis is twofold: in the beginning there were many varieties of Christianity(i.e., not a single, unified set of beliefs that later became what we know as ‘orthodoxy’), and second, it was the victory of one party, the church of Rome, which established the official dogma, suppressing all other competing views” (p. 16-17)

Decker turns to what he views as the most significant responses to Bauer. I’m including abstracts of Decker’s summaries as an aid to choosing sources.

H.E.W. Turner’s 1954 The Pattern of Christian Truth: emphasizing Bauer’s neglect of evidence and misuse of argument from silence and his “tendency to over-simplify problems, combined with the ruthless treatment of such evidence as fails to support his case.” (p. 18)

H.D. Betz’s 1965 “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Primitive Christianity” agrees with Bauer’s approach but points out to major areas of error: 1) Mischaracterized Egyptian evidence, 2) ignoring New Testament evidence of Paul’s assertions of orthodoxy.

G.C. Chapman’s 1970 “Some Theological Reflections on Walter Bauer’s Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum: A Review Article.”

Published just before the release of the English translation “Chapman targets two major tactics: Bauer’s numerous arguments from silence…, and his ‘habitually coercing ambiguous pieces of evidence’ to fit a preconceived theory.”(p. 19) Rejecting Bauer’s view of the political influence from Rome he also points out that Bauer blurred together different theological categories in the arrangement of his argument.

J Flora’s 1972 “A Critical Analysis of Walter Bauer’s Theory of Early Christian Orthodoxy and Heresy” levels four main criticisms: 1) Bauer misrepresents Paul. 2) Bauer was inordinately selective in “evidence cited and in the areas of the early church to be discussed.”(p. 20) 3) Bauer oversimplified the picture of the development of orthodoxy ignoring inconvenient evidence. 4) Bauer’s picture of Rome as a unified church with political power in the second century is also oversimplified and contrary to available evidence.

A.I.C. Heron’s 1973 “The interpretation of I Clement in Walter Bauer’s Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum” focuses specifically on “Bauer’s use of I Clement,”(p. 21) Bauer makes this epistle the cornerstone of his argument about the character and influence of Rome. Heron’s analysis results in him asking “Is the plausibility and attractiveness of the whole theory based upon its coherence with the available evidence, or is it rather based upon the power of Bauser’s synthesizing imagination?”(p. 21) According to Heron’s analysis the answer is clearly that it was Bauer’s imagination.

F. Norris’ 1976 “Ignatius, Polycarp, and I Clement: Walter Bauer Reconsidered” agrees with Bauer’s “critique of the traditional, orthodox theory of the origin of heresy”(23) but rejects Bauer’s reconstruction of the history because the theory lacks real evidence and was argued too often from silence.

C.H. Roberts’ 1977 Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Egypt. As part of this work Roberts shows that not only did Bauer argue from lack of evidence (that is, since there are no 2nd century orthodox writings there was therefore no orthodoxy in Egypt in the 2nd century) but new evidence since Bauer’s day demonstrates his grave mischaracterization of the church in 2nd century Egypt.

J McCue’s 1979 “Orthodoxy and Heresy: Walter Bauer and the Valentinians” is critical of “Bauer’s handling of the Valentinian gnostic data,” on which, McCue states “Bauer is simply wrong” (24). Bauer misunderstood/misrepresented Valentinianism in three main ways. 1)their self-understanding, 2)they were a very small minority, and 3)they developed later than, not prior to orthodoxy.

T.A. Robinson’s 1988 The Bauer Thesis Examined is the most thorough look at Bauer. This volume surveys the theory and literature comprehensively up to its publication. Robinson examined Bauer’s geographical method finding it faulty and wanting. He considers evidence which was available to Bauer but left out of Bauer’s treatment: particularly of Asia Minor. He concludes “Bauer’s reconstruction of the history of the early church in western Asia Minor is faulty-not just in minor details-but at critical junctures.”(26) “The failure of the thesis in the only area where it can be adequately tested casts suspicion on the other areas of Bauer’s investigation. Extreme caution should be exercised in granting to the Bauer Thesis insight into those areas for which inventive theses appear credible only because evidence is either too scarce or too mute to put anything to the test.”(26-27)

M. Desjardins 1991 “Bauer and Beyond: On Recent Scholarly Discussions of Αἵρεσις in the Early Christian Era” examines and synthesizes previous studies on the issue. Desjardins redirects the focus on what right belief would mean for early Christians in the context of 2nd Temple period teaching “arising from the church’s Jewish heritage, reflecting similar categories as the rabbis.”(27).  “This has obvious implications in support of a more traditional view in which ‘orthodoxy’ is original and ‘heresy’ later and derivative.”(27)

B.A. Pearson’s 2004 Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt gives a detailed look into one of Bauer’s primary geographical areas on which his thesis is established. While Pearson accepts the presence of diversity, his examination of the evidence leads him to conclude that the evidence (like The Preaching of Peter) demonstrates that orthodoxy existed prior to what Bauer lists as heresy for this area.

I.J Davidson’s 2004 The Birth of the Church points out a variety of evidence ignored by Bauer with a particular focus on the Roman evidence and discussion the nature of a body of belief that was considered true teaching in the context of early Christianity.

P. Treblico’s 2006 “Christian Communities in Western Asia Minor into the Early Second Century: Ignatius and Others as Witnesses against Bauer” points out 4 areas about “Bauer’s use of the Ignatian evidence with regard to Asia Minor.”(p. 29) These are 1)  that the orthodox position is earlier, 2) that Bauer is wrong to assume that Colossae and Hierapolis were heretical simply because Ignatius and John didn’t write to them, 3) that disagreeing with bishops in Ignatius is not automatically an issue of heresy against orthodoxy, and 4) that western Asia Minor did, in fact, have a good memory of and understanding of Paul through the period at issue.

A Köstenberger and M Kruger’s 2010 The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity. The first hundred pages examine the newer synthesis of what the authors call the “Bauer-Ehrman Thesis.” The authors examine the relationship between the current prevalence of postmodern attitudes and the popularity of Ehrman’s popularizing of Bauer. “The authors highlight the postmodern context, which praises subjective experience, diversity, pluralism, and an inclusivity that repudiates exclusive truth claims as ideological power ploys.”(p. 30) The authors point out that Bauer’s book presented the “earliest Christianity” by ignoring the actual evidence from the earliest Christians.