The Bauer Thesis

This was a new one to me. But it was enlightening.

Walter Bauer was a German theologian. He published a work in 1934 with a German title I won't bore you with. The 1971 translation called it Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. At that time, the predominant historians' view of Christianity was that orthodoxy had reigned in Christianity from the beginning. That is, there was a "standard" set of doctrine that was considered right, and that doctrine was always the center point. So, for instance, when the Council of Nicaea met in 325, they met to address existing error, not to establish new doctrine. They addressed the Arian heresy and other items. (The Arian heresy, for those asking, was the first challenge to the Doctrine of the Trinity.) In other words, the standard view was that the Trinity (in this example) was established doctrine and the Church got together to address the error, not establish the doctrine. Well, Bauer challenged that notion. Bauer argued that what orthodoxy calls "heresy" today was present, in Bauer's words, "early and strong" in various geographical locations of Christendom in the Early Church. These "heresies" were not considered heretical, but orthodox where they were located. It was only when the Church came to power that these heresies were declared heretical, and that was primarily on the basis of the notions of the leadership as opposed to some sort of agreed upon basis (such as biblical authority, etc.). So Bauer argued that the Early Church favored diversity rather than orthodoxy.

Now, Bauer's thesis has been addressed multiple times by multiple scholars regarding multiple problems. Bauer, for instance, ignores the New Testament entirely in his work. He didn't consider it of much value. Much of his argument is from silence (such as the lack of Early Church documentation). There is a lot of assuming in his work. He referred to the Apostle Paul as "the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age." But it is largely due to Bauer that you hear so often these days that "The Roman Catholic Church made those things up" and "There is no such thing as orthodoxy." Those who question orthodox Christianity do so largely on the basis of a faulty thesis from Bauer who started with the premise that the New Testament was largely fabricated by the Roman Catholic Church and that Paul was an arch-heretic. His "scholarship" ignored existing evidence and lacked (quite obviously) new evidence that contradicts his views. Still, you'll find voices of certainty that argue the Church has never been orthodox, that diversity has ruled Christian theology since the beginning, and that the only reason we have this "narrow view" of what is orthodox (including outlandish beliefs like the Resurrection, the Trinity, and such) is because the Roman Catholic Church came into power (thanks to Constantine) and there you have it.

Here, try this. The next time someone tells you that there is no such thing as orthodoxy, that the Church historically has had widely diverse views, that things like the Trinity were made up by a limited group that was in power (the Church, the Roman Catholics, or, even laughably, Constantine himself, as examples), ask them for sources. You'll most certainly find that all such sources are either nonexistent or all after Bauer's thesis because if you examine anything written in the centuries before Bauer, you'll find amazing concurrence that there is indeed orthodox Christian doctrine and always has been.