In today’s cultural climate, pluralism and perspectivalism reign (Kӧstenberger & Kruger, p. 16). The reliance on personal experience has caused traditional thought to be challenged. An overlying paradigm of diversity (p. 18) has compelled “true” orthodoxy to be challenged, and as a result, heresy is seen as the “new orthodoxy” (p. 16,). In The Heresy of Orthodoxy, Kӧstenberger and Kruger (K2) provide a fair examination of the Bauer thesis which lays its foundation on the major urban centers of the first and early second centuries. The Bauer thesis, as popularized by Ehrman, argues that diversity – not unification - was present in early Christianity; “heresy preceded orthodoxy” (p. 17).
K2 examines the Bauer-Ehrman thesis in three parts: pluralism …show more content…
They explicate “legitimate” and “illegitimate” theological diversity in the New Testament (p. 100). Although the New Testament has legitimate diversity, K2 argues that the message of the New Testament is “divine in origin and therefore unchanging and essentially immutable” (p. 100). They believe that legitimate diversity “does not detract from core beliefs”, however this reliance on God’s message in the gospel is an assumption not justified by K2. Argument: “…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
In Part 2 of The Heresy of Orthodoxy, K2 describes the development of the New Testament canon, where they begin with the meaning of canon in early Christianity. K2 explains that the idea of canon cannot be used to describe the early use of New Testament texts because these texts were not considered “canon” until after their recognition (p. 107). K2 agrees that the “major NT texts chose themselves; the NT canon chose itself” due to the “activity of the Holy Spirit” (p. 123). Again, this connection to the supernatural lacks …show more content…
AD 150” (p. 127). This portrays that users of the Bauer model are misinterpreting available historical data (p. 127). Liturgical reading was found to be an important factor in which texts acquired “theological authority” (p. 135). K2 gives examples of the many New Testament books that were being used as “authoritative documents” in the church (p. 149).
In establishing the boundaries of apocryphal books and the limits of the canon, K2 demonstrates that the boundaries of the canon amongst different groups varied (p. 151). Maybe PUT FIRST SECOND THIRD. Christians restricted the canon to books that were from the apostolic time, and therefore “closed” (p. 175). This shows that K2 assumes that early Christians were not “open”, and did not receive later, “apocryphal” texts as
K2 examines the Bauer-Ehrman thesis in three parts: pluralism …show more content…
They explicate “legitimate” and “illegitimate” theological diversity in the New Testament (p. 100). Although the New Testament has legitimate diversity, K2 argues that the message of the New Testament is “divine in origin and therefore unchanging and essentially immutable” (p. 100). They believe that legitimate diversity “does not detract from core beliefs”, however this reliance on God’s message in the gospel is an assumption not justified by K2. Argument: “…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
In Part 2 of The Heresy of Orthodoxy, K2 describes the development of the New Testament canon, where they begin with the meaning of canon in early Christianity. K2 explains that the idea of canon cannot be used to describe the early use of New Testament texts because these texts were not considered “canon” until after their recognition (p. 107). K2 agrees that the “major NT texts chose themselves; the NT canon chose itself” due to the “activity of the Holy Spirit” (p. 123). Again, this connection to the supernatural lacks …show more content…
AD 150” (p. 127). This portrays that users of the Bauer model are misinterpreting available historical data (p. 127). Liturgical reading was found to be an important factor in which texts acquired “theological authority” (p. 135). K2 gives examples of the many New Testament books that were being used as “authoritative documents” in the church (p. 149).
In establishing the boundaries of apocryphal books and the limits of the canon, K2 demonstrates that the boundaries of the canon amongst different groups varied (p. 151). Maybe PUT FIRST SECOND THIRD. Christians restricted the canon to books that were from the apostolic time, and therefore “closed” (p. 175). This shows that K2 assumes that early Christians were not “open”, and did not receive later, “apocryphal” texts as