Jesus Before Constantine: The Church, Her Beliefs, and Her Apologetics

By Doug E. Taylor and Gary R. Habermas

That's now, but what about then? There is much diversity in Christianity today in terms of what constitutes necessary core beliefs, but what can we know about the earliest Christianity? Until the major councils began in the fourth century, were all who claimed to be Christian considered part of the church, or was there more to it than just claiming a name? Is there evidence for how the church understood core and necessary beliefs prior to Constantine's arrival in history and the Council of Nicea in AD 325?

This book examines such questions. Using only those materials that are accepted by most scholars on the subject, whether they are Christian or not, and focusing on the period from AD 30-250, a picture emerges showing what Christians held as a core belief as well as how flexible they were on this belief. Only after identifying where the church stood in this period can we begin to understand whether others such as Ebionites, Docetists, and Marcionites would have been accepted as Christian. A case is made based on writings from the church, the Nag Hammadi, and a completely secular tool from the twentieth century to find the conclusion to this question.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Aug 12, 2020
• ISBN: 9781725255258

Doug E. Taylor

Doug E. Taylor is assistant professor of Theology and Apologetics and the program coordinator for the Master of Arts in Apologetics at Luther Rice College and Seminary in Lithonia, Georgia. He is the author of WHY? A Believer’s Introduction to Defending the Faith (2011).

Book preview

9781725255234.kindle.jpg

Jesus Before Constantine

The Church, Her Beliefs, and Her Apologetics

Doug E. Taylor

Foreword by Gary R. Habermas

Jesus Before Constantine

The Church, Her Beliefs, and Her Apologetics

Copyright © 2020 Doug E. Taylor. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-7252-5523-4

hardcover isbn: 978-1-7252-5524-1

ebook isbn: 978-1-7252-5525-8

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 07/30/20

Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB), Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation Used by permission. www.Lockman.org

To my wife—the mother of my children, Kathryn

When you became a Christian your biological family essentially severed all ties with you because of the differences each of you understood with respect to the person of Jesus. Yet you have never wavered in your belief of the gospel message of the eternal deity, physical death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus. You have asked questions that made me dig deeper and look harder for not only what we as Christians believe, but also to know why we believe what we believe. Over the years you saw something in me that I never saw or could have imagined of myself, and it was you who encouraged me to pursue graduate school and my doctorate. Without you, this book would never have happened.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Figures

List of Abbreviations

Abstract

Foreword

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Establishing the SPAC

Chapter 3: Pursuing the SPAC

Chapter 4: From SPAC and Apologetics to Root Cause Analysis

Chapter 5: Concluding Observations and Thoughts

Appendix A: Crucifixion of Jesus

Appendix B: Resurrection of Jesus

Appendix C: Rule of Faith

Appendix D: Law and the Prophets

Appendix E: Root Cause Paths Considered and Rejected

Figures

4.1 Causal Factor Types and Problem Categories | 125

4.2 Major Root Cause Categories Irrelevant to This Research | 127

4.3 Major Root Cause Categories Relevant to This Research | 128

4.4 Root Cause Types and Root Causes | 129

4.5 Root Cause #1 | 130

4.6 Root Cause #2 | 133

4.7 Root Cause #3 | 135

4.8 Root Cause #4 | 137

List of Abbreviations

1 Apol. Justin Martyr, First Apology

1 Clem. First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

3 En. 3 Enoch

Apol. Aristides, Apology

Adv. haer. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses

Adv. Jud. Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews

Adv. Marc. Tertullian, Against Marcion

Adv. Prax. Tertullian, Against Celsus

Ag. Ap. Josephus, Against Apion

Apol. Tertullian, Apology

b. Ber. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakhot

b. Sota Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sotah

Contra Cels. Origen, Against Celsus

De bapt. Tertullian, On Baptism

De carn. Chr. Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ

De civ. Dei Augustine, The City of God

De jejun. Tertullian, On Morality

De mon. Tertullian, On Monogamy

De pat. Tertullian, On Patience

De praesc. haer. Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics

De princ. Origen, De Principiis

De res. Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh

De pud. Tertullian, On Modesty

De virg. Vel. Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins

Dem. Apol. Pr. Irenaeus, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching

Ep. Cyprian, Epistles

Hist. Eccl. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History

Ign. Eph. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

Ign. Mag. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

Ign. Rom. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

Ign. Smyr. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

J.W. Josephus, Jewish Wars

Misc. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies

Paed. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor

Pol. Phil. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

Prot. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen

Ref. Hippolytus, Refutatio

Strom. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata

Trypho Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho

Abstract

"The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed."¹ Why Christianity from its inception grew in numbers has remained a relatively stable and uncontested topic. Moreover, recent history has seen a move by some scholars to claim not one but multiple Christianities existed in the first three centuries. No study, however, has approached the growth of Christianity as being a result of positive apologetics and then defended that there was but one Christianity from the beginning through the use of root cause analysis. After proposing an early fixed understanding of those core beliefs that established one as being Christian, this study treats the characteristic teachings of Ebionites, Docetists, and Marcionites through the filter of root cause analysis toward supporting the claim that from the origin of Christianity there has been only one Christianity, and that Christianity grew through the use of a positive apologetic.²

Foreword

Over several decades of full-time study on the resurrection of Jesus, observing carefully the current state of this research since the late 1960s, I have observed many research trends. Several time periods during the past two thousand years going back to the earliest church have consistently received far less attention especially when compared to the latest trend—the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus during the latter two decades of the twentieth century. When major studies do emerge from these less-represented periods, they are often PhD dissertations that focus on minute questions that do not evoke as much interest.

Several crucially important time frames and topics exist and likewise need to be pursued. Making such efforts more important are the increasing number of studies during recent decades that claim that second-century AD Christianity in particular was partially or even widely divergent during this time. Some authors seek to give the impression that second-century Christianity basically presented a smorgasbord of historical and theological options, from which seekers could choose their preferred version, as if it were simply a matter of personal preference.

Into this suggested milieu has come a significant and impressive study by Doug Taylor, entitled Jesus before Constantine (Wipf and Stock, 2020). While a fair number of volumes address subjects from the writings of the early apostolic fathers into the mid-third century, many fewer texts are concerned chiefly with the role of resurrection texts written during this time. Frankly, this specialized theme through this particular time period receives less attention than other aspects of resurrection research. Perhaps it is deemed not to be exciting enough!

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 has been abandoned, leaving critics with shrinking cover to hide from Christ’s claim on their life.²

Habermas cites what he believes to be the most important minimal facts related to the resurrection as being Jesus’ death by crucifixion; that the disciples had experiences they believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus; that the disciples were transformed based on those experiences; there was very early preaching of the reported resurrection event in Jerusalem—the same location as the crucifixion of Jesus; the conversion of Paul; and the conversion of James, the half-brother of Jesus.³ The significance of this listing is that if all of Christianity hinges upon the resurrection then by way of the resurrection the deity and death aspects of the apologetic method are affirmed. Given Menuge’s comments about the strength of Habermas’s argumentation it would appear reasonable to expect to find these same strong arguments in the post-apostolic writings of the church.

Authors have on a large scale seemingly conflated Christianity such that what Christianity does or is supposed to do is understood to be what it is. Stated differently, one may think Christianity is supposed to be charitable, therefore being charitable makes it Christian—at least in the minds of some. Not unlike any other time in history personal biases have influenced how Christianity is understood today. This work is not intended to identify what Christianity does, rather what it was that constituted the most basic necessary belief in order to be considered Christian in the earliest church.

By returning to the period of the early church it will be possible to identify exactly what it was that the earliest followers of Jesus believed made them uniquely Christian, and that there were understood lines of demarcation between those who were Christian and those who merely claimed the title but followed a different gospel. More specifically, this text demonstrates the early church grew through the use of a positive apologetic. Because defensive apologetics only focuses on why a particular position is incorrect, it does not fill the void once its task is done. Defensive apologetics may reveal error in thought or belief, and it may lead one to theism, but defensive apologetics does not get someone from theism to the God of Christianity. It is the role of positive apologetics to establish the credibility of Christianity, in significant part by affirming the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Here we find apologetics leading from simple theism to the God of Christianity.

Three key arguments will be addressed. First, a distinction needs to be made between the root cause for the spread of Christianity and causal factors associated with this spread. Second, by looking to positive apologetics one finds justification for belief in and commendation of Christianity. Finally, when examining gnostic and what some consider to be heretical texts it will be demonstrated that each system of belief incorporated a significant change to one or more aspects of the deity, death, and resurrection reports as they related to Jesus.

What Are the Limits of This Work?

I will evaluate the growth of the church from a terminus a quo of AD 30 and terminus ad quem of AD 250. The terminus a quo allows for an early Letter to the Galatians (AD 49). In looking to the first two chapters of Galatians we find that Paul had converted to Christianity, then over seventeen years had made two trips to Jerusalem, both of which had occurred prior to the penning of the letter. Subtracting seventeen years would place Paul’s conversion at AD 32,⁴ necessitating a crucifixion dating of AD 30. The terminus ad quem has been selected to ensure a long enough period following the apostles yet early enough to avoid the influence of Constantine on the growth and polity of the church.

With the desire to build the strongest case possible for my argument, I will only include those seven texts of the Pauline corpus that are accepted by critical scholars (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) as authentic as well as those speeches and sermon summaries accepted from Acts. This is not to suggest a lack of value for the balance of the material now known as the New Testament; rather the intent is to build an inductive argument for the thesis using only those sources generally accepted by all scholars, inclusive of those who would question or challenge our beliefs. Additionally, because the Jewish Scriptures were in use at the same time as the accepted Pauline corpus those will be admitted where appropriate.

No anonymous or pseudo works will be included in this research with respect to Christian writings. By establishing this threshold it will prevent the use of sources known to be Christian yet with uncertainty in relation to the author.⁵ It is recognized that such inclusion by known authors is not a viable threshold with respect to gnostic texts and as such a select number of works included in The Nag Hammadi were included and examined as appropriate.

Because of the volume of work already completed by Gary Habermas, the minimal facts for the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus will be accepted as a very early teaching within the church without attempting to demonstrate the validity of the belief or teaching of the specific elements. Additionally, there will be no attempt to prove the historicity of Jesus as an individual.

Epistemology (Determining Belief vs. Opinion)

Methodology

The primary approach used was an evidential methodology. If evidence is objective in nature, then it should be available to all present and open to investigation by all others. Believing the early church taught the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus, a case will be made from the accepted Pauline corpus establishing a baseline for early teaching. The baseline will become known as the standard, policy, or administrative control (SPAC). If Momigliano’s rule that the historian searches for the original versus the derivative sources is to be applied here, then by identifying the original SPAC will enable the bifurcation of original versus derivative with respect to early Christian beliefs regarding what it was that made them what they were.⁶

Some may object that history is a lesser science and as such not reliable as a witness. Yet we rarely if ever see such a challenge to the use of history in any other field except metaphysics and the existence of God. Hegel stated the role of original history to be the penning of eyewitness testimony by those eyewitnesses, whereas critical reflective history emphasizes research focused on determining the truthfulness and credibility of particular historical sources.⁷ Thus a distinction is made between the event itself as being history and the record of that event as history. History is unable to be recreated as though it were operating in the field of one of the hard sciences. Relevant extant sources may therefore constitute evidence in relation to the research even though the historical element cannot be recreated. Almost as a cautionary statement Hegel said, What the historian puts into their mouths is no supposititious system of ideas, but an uncorrupted transcript of their intellectual and moral habitudes.⁸ The evidential methodology will therefore be grounded in what exists and not travel down a speculative path.

Bart Ehrman suggests historians appeal to evidence, preferring physical evidence, surviving products that can be traced back with relative certainty back to the person, and other kinds of evidence that are not from the person but about the person.⁹ Of importance here is Ehrman’s appeal to a relative certainty and not a requirement for mathematical or absolute certainty. Habermas stated that the focus of historians is on both the event and how that event has been recorded and interpreted.¹⁰

Root Cause Analysis

Through establishing a SPAC it will be possible to introduce a secondary methodological tool also evidential in nature: root cause analysis. Greater detail will be provided later, but here it suffices to state that root cause analysis is a systematic approach that attempts to identify why undesired or unintended events happened as compared to what was anticipated or expected. More specifically, I use the ABS root cause analysis methodology in assessing selected writings that either ran concurrently to or immediately following Paul and deviated from the established SPAC. Because it is anticipated that one will be able to clearly identify what it is that made Christianity the very thing it is, it is also believed that one can identify writings from the period in review that offered a change or variation to the Pauline teaching specifically as it relates to the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. By utilizing a non-theological tool to assess the writings of individuals who opposed Christianity or sought to offer a different version, the specific point(s) of deviation should be objectively identifiable without having to rely on theological presuppositions. Additionally, because using root cause methodology for assessing gaps or failures focuses on evidence rather than speculation and is commonly used by major corporations and government agencies in the United States,¹¹ the objectivity of the system has been well established in the secular community. No known works prior to this have sought to evaluate the differences in Christian teachings during this time span through the use of root cause analysis.

It is important for now to note that the use of root cause analysis is not merely a business tool. Rather it is a method for investigating historical conditions and events related to why virtually any undesired event happened. Speculation may be avoided but is not always completely preventable, and this method does address the inclusion of speculation in the course of an investigation. When speculation enters the investigation, the conclusions become more tentative. Because this research seeks to investigate historical events, ranges of plausibility are to be preferred in assessing offered root causes and interpretation of data rather than mathematical probabilities.

Equally important is that root cause analysis is designed to determine why a deviation or failure occurred and cannot be used as a tool to affirm why something happened correctly—a positive outcome—according to the established expectation. As such the role of root cause analysis in this research will be to aid in demonstrating not only objectivity with respect to the research, but also to assist in building a cogent argument that increases the plausibility of any offered conclusions.

Rationale

This work will employ both inductive and abductive approaches of argumentation, building from specific points of evidence to the best possible inferred conclusion. David Hume expressed concern over the use of the inductive method, and that concern must be addressed if the approach and conclusions are to be considered valid. The two issues associated with the Humean problem of induction in particular are with the concept of generalizing about the properties of a group of objects and presupposing that future events will happen as in the past. This work focuses on establishing a SPAC based on one specific individual rather than a collective and second, because of the definition used in determining what will constitute evidence, future events are not admissible for consideration. As a result, the problem of induction is avoided by focusing the research on the evidence.

Evidence is necessary for establishing matters of truth. In American jurisprudence, evidence broadly speaking is understood as testimony, physical objects, and documents materially relevant to the case at hand that are capable of demonstrating a fact without inference or presumption.¹² The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines evidence as information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true, while Webster’s considers evidence to be an outward sign or indicator of something that furnishes proof. The