Review of The Heresy of Orthodoxy

Andreas J. Köstenberger (professor of NT at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Michael J. Kruger (professor of NT at RTS in Charlotte, NC) team up to combat the Bauer-Ehrman hypothesis in The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity. 

Köstenberger-Kruger (KK) deal with three major arguments in the Bauer-Ehrman theory (BE).  The first leg of the argument is that according to BE there were multiple ‘Christianities.’  Said in another way, there was a “diversity of equally legitimate beliefs” (p. 33).  KK reasons that while there was diversity, it was minimal.  Rather a unity around key doctrines like monotheism, Jesus Christ as Lord, and the message of the Gospel was the norm.  KK goes on to demonstrate that all centers of Christianity in the Mediterranean World were more likely orthodox than heterodox.  KK operates on the assumption that the NT is authentic in its authorship, so the actual books of the NT themselves combat heresy and the themes of orthodoxy prevail. 

The second argument revolves around the assumption that books were picked to be in the canon, based on the superiority of the choosers.  In discussing the concept of the canon, KK brings in literary criticism to bolster his argument.  He suggests that Ancient Near East covenants predate the 4^th Century and the written documents that accompanied those covenants were expected.  Thus it would be no different for the New Testament introduction of the New Covenant.  This argument may have appeal to the postmodern.  While provocative, I’m not sure it was his best argument because it still does not solve the issue of the affirmation of the written documents entirely.  However, the nature of the OT and NT in the overall unity of God’s plan is seen.  The historical evidence proposed in chapter 5 was more convincing than that of the covenant community paradigm.  He argues that the NT canon was complete at the end of the apostolic age and it was some time before spurious books by real heretics were written.  A “closed” verses “open” canon is integral to BE theory.  KK argues that “closed” is integral to redemption itself and to the apostolic witnesses.

The third argument revolves around the copying of manuscripts and textual transmission.  This is the best-argued section.  He wrests the argument that variants are significant away from Ehrman, by pointing out that they are actually confirmation that we have the original in the multitude of manuscripts.  There is safety in the thousands of manuscripts that can be compared.  On page 229, KK quotes from Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus, “‘If [God] really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he miraculously inspired them in the first place.’  In other words, if God really inspired the New Testament there would be no scribal variations as all.  It is his commitment to this belief—a theological belief—that is driving his entire approach to textual variants.” 

The rapid acceptance of the Bauer-Ehrman position comes from an uncritical willingness to believe. It resonates with the philosophy of our day.  While it nearly died on the vine in the first part of the previous century, it has made major head way today.  

I would recommend this for the truly thoughtful person, who was open-minded to possible criticism of their postmodern position.  That being said, sometimes it is easier to disbelieve an abundance of evidence that is contrary to one’s own desired position.