On “The Heresy of Orthodoxy,” Part Three

I resume my critique of the Andreas J. Köstenberger’s and Michael J. Kruger’s The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity has Reshaped our Understanding of Early Christianity (Wheaton, ILL: Crossway, 2010) with the final chapter of the first section of the book: “Heresy in the New Testament: How Early Was It?” The chapter essentially minimizes the observable differences between various texts within the NT and among early Christian leaders (Peter, Paul, James). I am not going to argue with K&K much on this topic, except to say that the interpretation of the evidence depends on one’s presuppositions, for the most part, about the book of Acts. Early in their discussion, they say, “Assuming the historical accuracy of Luke’s account…” (p. 75). Doing so leads to an opinion of the early church and its leadership as harmonious and united. My own view is that Acts is a relatively late text (80 CE at the earliest but possibly even later) that has little interest in an accurate portrayal of the early history of the church. Acts minimizes the conflicts that we see more transparently in Paul’s letters; thus, one who considers Acts reliable will be inclined also to minimize these conflicts.

However, my primary objection to this chapter is with the assumptions K&K attribute to proponents of the Bauer-Ehrman thesis. They complain strongly about the “anti-supernatural bias in Bauer’s historical method” (102). “What we are arguing,” they write, “is that the Bauer-Ehrman thesis is wrong not just because these scholars’ interpretation of the data is wrong, but because their interpretation proceeds on the basis of a flawed interpretive paradigm” (101). First, I don’t consider Bauer-Ehrman’s “anti-supernatural” approach to be a “bias” but a choice of methodology—namely, the application of historical-scientific principles to the data, a little something biblical scholars have been attempting to do since the Enlightenment. Second, it is disingenuous of K&K to criticize Bauer-Ehrman proponents for having an “anti-supernatural bias” when they operate under a clearly supernatural bias. This is evident throughout the book, but to provide one example: “The Bauer-Erhman thesis insufficiently recognizes that at the core, power was a function of divine truth, appropriately apprehended by selected human messengers, rather than truth being a function of human power” (101). My problem with this perspective is that the positing of divine guidance or interference in historical events precludes thorough historical analysis. “Because God made it so” is not a scholarly argument.

The detrimental effect of this perspective is most apparent in K&K’s discussion of the canon, the focus of the second section of the book, “Picking the Books: Tracing the Development of the New Testament Canon.” Here they make the argument that canon is not strictly a late development combining disparate texts, nor a reaction to Marcionism, but a natural outgrowth of Jesus’ mission to inaugurate a new covenant: “canon is inherent to and derives its function from the concept of covenant” (112).  But, more importantly, the canon process was not as haphazard as Ehrman et al claim; indeed, it had divine guidance: “the canon is a phenomenon that developed not so much because of formal church decisions (though the vital role of the church cannot be discounted), but because of something that was already inherent to these particular books—the power of the Holy Spirit” (123). The role of the Holy Spirit is emphasized throughout this chapter—e.g., “the church plays a vital role, by the help of the Holy Spirit, receiving and recognizing the books God has given” (108 n. 10); “The function of the apostolate was to make sure that the message of Christ was firmly and accurately preserved for future generations, through the help of the Holy Spirit, whether written by its members directly or through a close follower of theirs” (117); and, “Theologians have historically affirmed that the critical link between the covenant books and the covenant community is the work of the Holy Spirit” (122).

I realize I shouldn’t be surprised that a book aimed at the evangelical market would invoke divine guidance for developments in church history, but it just strikes me as so archaic, a throwback to times when the only explanation needed to make or refute any argument is that “the Bible tells me so.” The Bauer-Ehrman “anti-supernatural bias” allows, at least, for the consideration of tangible, measurable, provable factors in (for example) the canon selection process. Perhaps there are flaws in some arguments made by Bauer-Ehrman theorists—maybe orthodoxy was not influenced by Marcion, maybe the NT writers did self-consciously write their texts as scripture—but to credit the formation of the NT to the Holy Spirit is hardly an effective refutation of these arguments.

Nevermind how problematic it is to invoke divine inspiration for a book that has taken so many forms over great time and distance—if the 27-book modern Bible is the correct one, then why did the Holy Spirit allow eastern churches to include 3 Corinthians and eliminate Revelation for so long?  Is it a different Holy Spirit that established the 35-book canon of the Ethiopian church? And why did the Holy Spirit guide Paul only for the (chronologically) 2nd and 4th letters to the Corinthians? It is unclear also how the Holy Spirit could work through such champions of orthodoxy as the author of 2 Clement when he uses texts that became canonical but not when he uses those that became non-canonical (whether the sayings he uses are from the Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of the Hebrews, or even oral tradition).

The real frustration for me in reading K&K’s discussion of the canon is that it illustrates vividly how futile it is for K&K to write a book refuting the Bauer-Ehrman thesis if they refuse to interact with it on the same methodological plane. Like other anti-CA apologists, the authors write only for an audience already disinclined to embrace the views of the Bart Ehrmans of the world, and those who are attracted to Ehrman’s works will not pick up this book.