Taylor begins his excursion by going back to the critically-recognized seven authentic epistles of Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) plus the sermon summaries in the book of Acts, examining the presentations of the gospel data in order to determine if there were any significant changes from earlier to later versions. Also, the early forms of defending these gospel data were viewed as to how Christianity was presented during the early phases of the proclamation.
Moving to the earliest Patristic writings, Taylor employed only those texts that most scholars hold to be genuinely composed by the named author, thereby avoiding pseudo-works. Then working in reverse chronological order from Origen (ca. 250) back to Clement of Rome (ca. 95), the same question was viewed again, namely, whether there were any identifiable changes in the gospel proclamation with regard to the requirements for being considered as a Christian, as well as how this teaching was defended.
But were there aberrant treatments of the gospel message that were perhaps destroyed by those who favored the orthodox teachings? Taylor addresses these subjects, as well. The existence of the Nag Hammadi texts (being chiefly gnostic in nature) along with a few other ancient writings may be very helpful here in determining some of these questions. For example, what were the original dates of these compositions?
And along with key Ebionite, Docetist, or Marcionite teachings and works, do any of these writings predate Paul, or the early creeds and Acts sermon summaries, or even those seven key epistles of Paul, all of which critical scholars freely admit? Were there known Ebionite, Docetist, or Marcionite teachings found among the very earliest sources, that would predate Paul’s conversion, as there are with the earliest Christian creeds? Which were the most authoritative sources, based on eyewitness testimony, such as that of the Apostle Paul himself, or that Paul gathered from the Apostles Peter or James the brother of Jesus when he visited Jerusalem a mere five years after the crucifixion of Jesus (Gal 1:18–20)? Which writings were original, and which ones were derivative?
Taylor also spends significant time on root cause analysis—a secular tool used to identify the point(s) at which a person or group deviated from the established standard, policy, or administrative control. This tool identified four key points of deviation by the Ebionite, Docetist, and Marcionite teachings with respect to Paul’s gospel message. This would indicate that the teachings of each of these three groups were inconsistent with the earliest teachings of Christianity. They were also written much later.
Because Taylor’s research examined this period of AD 30–250, the research establishes that it easily predated Emperor Constantine’s life. Taylor’s thesis of “A Single Christianity” in chapter 3 presents a masterful presentation of the myriad witnesses to these orthodox facts. This addresses the potential question of whether or not a clear orthodoxy existed long before Constantine’s birth and the Council of Nicea. Therefore, Constantine and the gathering of the Nicean Council did not determine, order, or mandate what would be considered orthodoxy some three hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion.
Altogether, Taylor’s survey of variant Christianities indicates that orthodoxy was very clearly the earliest and best-established position. Resting as it does on Paul’s own eyewitness testimony of the risen Jesus, plus his interviews with Peter and James the brother of Jesus dated even by skeptical scholars at about five years after Jesus’ death (Gal 1:18–20), this is well-established. Then a second dialogue by Paul with the same two apostles again plus the Apostle John on the subject of the gospel data (Gal 2:1–10) was still prior to the writing of Paul’s first epistles, dating to just twenty or so years after the crucifixion, and once again accepted by skeptical scholars, clearly sets the mark here. The final verdict seems assured. Doug Taylor presents a clear guide through this landscape.
Gary R. Habermas
1. Tertullian, Apol. 50.
2. Unless otherwise noted, all references from the Ante-Nicene Fathers will be taken from the 1885 edition.
1
Introduction
Why Me?
Some topics are, well, just difficult to address. Religion is one of those broad categories where we see division and disagreement over what was, what is, and what is to come. My education and background, however, position me to be able to tackle the question of whether or not multiple Christianities existed before Constantine and the councils of the fourth century. The implications for the answer are very real and depending on how one answers determines whether or not we rightly or wrongly included or excluded certain beliefs related to what constituted the earliest Christianity. Again, why me, and what qualifies me to tackle this subject?
First, let’s address the elephant in the room: my education. I hold three masters degrees from seminary and a PhD in theology and apologetics. While completing my doctorate I picked up a cognate in church history, with particular interest in the earliest church. The degrees are good, but there has to be more than just academic study.
Second, when my wife and I first met, she was a third-generation Jehovah’s Witness. To say her family and I had some tense conversations over right belief would be an understatement. Some I handled well, and some not so much. The point here is that I have practical experience conversing with members of groups that would not be considered as following orthodox Christianity.
Finally, I worked for over a decade with Valvoline, and was involved in helping lead and manage the environmental, health, and safety for the Instant Oil Change side of the business. It was during my time at Valvoline that I was trained in the use of root cause analysis, a tool that looked to why undesirable conditions or events happened when there was already an established standard for how work was to be accomplished. Stated differently, the business had a management system that expressed how to “do work” while at the same time avoiding injuries, spills, and other operational disruptions. When an undesired event happened, like an injury, root cause analysis would enable us to examine our systems and determine if we had a gap that allowed the undesired event, or if someone deviated from the established system. This type of analysis is exactly what I intend to bring to the discussion of whether or not there were multiple Christianities prior to Constantine and the fourth-century councils.
Why Does This Matter?
The purpose of this text is to examine materials from AD 30–250, predominately from Christian sources but also including select non-Christian material in an effort to determine whether it was through the use of positive apologetics that the church grew. In recent history there have been claims that there were actually many different groups that taught very different things that were considered to be Christian. One such different teaching was that Jesus was just a man, but not God in any sense. Another held that Jesus was fully God but lacked any actual physical body. Yet a third suggested, depending on which source document is read, that there existed anywhere from two to nine deities. The question that deserves answering is whether or not these different groups would have been considered Christian by the earliest church.
From the very beginning of his text How Jesus Became God, Bart Ehrman states that the early church believed Jesus to be God, but since the late eighteenth century, historians have figured out that this is simply not correct.1 The difficulty with such a statement is that the claim has been made, but Ehrman did not identify where or how the church was wrong for so long.
Much work has already been done by Gary Habermas in establishing the minimal facts for both the resurrection and the deity of Christ. In a review of Debating Christian Theism, of Habermas’s minimal facts Angus Menuge states, “Habermas’s ‘minimal facts’ approach is not without its critics (some say it concedes too much to tendentious principles of biblical criticism), but it does explain why, over time, one skeptical alternative after another to the historical fact of the resurrection