Scholars generally acknowledge that Christianity as we know it today was simply one among the many varying and competing sectarian beliefs amongst the early Christians in the first three centuries. This form of Christianity was, in fact, a minority faction in many localities and only much later did it attain dominance. Thus, in the first three centuries of Christianity, we are faced with a variety of competing beliefs and sects, with no one dominant or “orthodox” form of Christianity.
The prominent New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, explains :
Christianity in the second and third centuries was in a remarkable state of flux. To be sure, at no point in its history has the religion constituted a monolith. But the diverse manifestations of its first three hundred years — whether in terms of social structures, religious practices, or ideologies — have never been replicated. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the realm of theology. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in only one God ; others, however, claimed that there were two Gods ; yet others subscribed to 30, or 365, or more. Some Christians accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as a revelation of the one true God, the sacred possession of all believers ; others claimed that the scriptures had been inspired by an evil deity. Some Christians believed that God had created the world and was soon going to redeem it ; others said that God neither had created the world nor had ever had any dealings with it. Some Christians believed that Christ was somehow both a man and God ; others said that he was a man, but not God ; others claimed that he was God but not a man ; others insisted that he was a man who had been temporarily inhabited by God. Some Christians believed that Christ’s death had brought about the salvation of the world ; others claimed that his death had no bearing on salvation ; yet others alleged that he had never even died.1
In a later work, Ehrman further expands on this by saying :
In the earliest centuries of the church, a wide range of Christian groups advocated a variety of theological perspectives. Some groups, like the Marcionites, held that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of Jesus Christ. The Gnostics, on the other hand, proposed a complex cosmology involving multiple divine beings. The proto-orthodox Christians, who eventually emerged as the dominant group, sought to establish a coherent set of beliefs and practices, often in direct opposition to these other groups.2
Similarly, James Dunn — who is no radical in New Testament studies — concludes :
We must conclude that there was no single normative form of Christianity in the first century. When we ask about the Christianity of the New Testament we are not asking about any one entity : rather, we encounter different types of Christianity, each of which viewed the others as too extreme in one respect or another — too conservatively Jewish or too influenced by antinomian or gnostic thought and practice, too enthusiastic or tending towards too much institutionalization. Not only so, but each type of Christianity was itself not monochrome and homogeneous, more like a spectrum. Even when we looked at individual churches the picture was the same — of diversity in expression of faith and life-style, the tension between conservative and liberal, old and new, past and present, individual and community.3
Elaine Pagels, a renowned scholar of early Christianity, also emphasizes the diversity and complexity of early Christian beliefs. She states :
The controversies over Christ’s nature, the role of women, and the interpretation of scripture were not peripheral but central to the early Christian experience. These disputes reflected deep disagreements about the nature of God, the mission of Jesus, and the structure of the Christian community itself.4
Dale B. Martin further elaborates on the fragmented nature of early Christianity :
Early Christianity was a complex and diverse movement with many competing theologies and practices. The beliefs and practices that later became orthodox were just one among many forms of early Christianity.5
Historical Context and Developments
The diversity among the early Christians is most prominent from a comparative study of the New Testament writings. In the New Testament documents, we are faced with a variety of diverse theological beliefs and images of Jesus. This diversity was a product of various socio-political factors, including the spread of Christianity across different regions and cultures, which influenced how the new faith was interpreted and practiced.
The Roman Empire’s political and cultural landscape also played a significant role in shaping early Christian beliefs. As Christianity spread, it encountered various local traditions and philosophies, leading to the syncretism and adaptation of Christian teachings to different cultural contexts.
Nature of God
In a second or third-century collection of Christian hymns, the Ode of Solomon, the nineteenth ode celebrates God the Father as a woman with breasts :
The Son is the Cup and he who was milked is the Father ; and the Holy Spirit is she who milked him. Because his breasts were full, and it was undesirable that his milk should be spilled without purpose, the Holy Spirit opened her bosom/womb and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father.6
This passage offers a unique and somewhat perplexing imagery of God that combines maternal and paternal attributes, challenging traditional notions of gender and divinity. It reflects an early Christian attempt to articulate the ineffable nature of God using the familiar language of human relationships and bodily functions. Such imagery underscores the diversity in early Christian theological expression, indicating a fluidity in how divine attributes were understood and conveyed.
Another notable example comes from the Gnostics, who believed in a higher, unknowable God and a lower, creator god (often identified with the God of the Old Testament). This dualistic view is encapsulated in the writings found in the Nag Hammadi library, such as the Apocryphon of John, which describes a complex hierarchy of divine beings and the creation of the material world by a lesser deity known as the Demiurge.7
Nature of Jesus
On the nature of Jesus, some Christians of the time held that he was purely divine and not human at all, while others believed he was purely human and not divine. Docetism, for instance, posited that Jesus only appeared to have a physical body and suffer, while Ebionism maintained that Jesus was a mere human prophet who followed Jewish law. The confusion and lack of consensus on Jesus’ nature are evident in the diverse christological perspectives found in early Christian writings.
Another interesting perspective is the view of the Gnostics, who believed that Jesus imparted secret knowledge (gnosis) necessary for salvation. According to the Gnostic texts, such as those found in the Nag Hammadi library, Jesus was a revealer of hidden truths, and his role was more about enlightenment than atonement for sins. This starkly contrasts with the proto-orthodox view that emphasized Jesus’ sacrificial death as the cornerstone of salvation.
For example, the Gospel of Thomas portrays Jesus as a teacher of secret wisdom, rather than a savior who dies for humanity’s sins. One of the sayings attributed to Jesus in this text is : “If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.“8
Additionally, the Adoptionists believed that Jesus was a regular human being who was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, resurrection, or ascension. This belief, which stood in contrast to the notion of Jesus’ pre-existent divinity, highlights the variety of ways early Christians understood the relationship between Jesus and God.
One early Christian text, the Shepherd of Hermas, reflects Adoptionist ideas by emphasizing the moral development and testing of a righteous man who becomes God’s chosen servant.9
Nature of the Holy Spirit
Early Christian beliefs about the Holy Spirit were equally diverse. Some viewed the Holy Spirit as a distinct person within the Trinity, while others saw it as an impersonal force or presence of God. The Montanists, a movement founded in the second century by Montanus, believed that the Holy Spirit continued to speak through prophets, leading to ecstatic and prophetic experiences.
Tertullian, a prominent early Christian writer who later joined the Montanist movement, wrote about the Holy Spirit’s ongoing activity in his work Against Praxeas : “We [Montanists] recognize the spiritual gifts in the Church…We have also in our day a Paraclete who is daily calling out in us prophecies, visions, and other charismatic gifts.“10
Additionally, some early Christian texts attribute a maternal role to the Holy Spirit. For instance, the Gospel of the Hebrews, an early Christian text, refers to the Holy Spirit as Jesus’ mother : “And it came to pass when the Lord had come up out of the water, the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested upon him and said to him, ‘My son, in all the prophets was I waiting for you, that you should come, and I might rest in you. For you are my rest, you are my first-born Son, who reigns forever.’ ”11
Nature of Mary
St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, writing in the fourth century against the Collyridians, says :
After this a heresy appeared, which we have already mentioned slightly by means of the letter written in Arabia about Mary. And this heresy was again made public in Arabia from Thrace and the upper parts of Scythia, and was brought to our ears, which to men of understanding will be found ridiculous and laughable. We will begin to trace it out, and to relate concerning it. It will be judged (to partake of) silliness rather than of sense, as is the case with other like it. For, as formerly, out of insolence towards Mary, those whose opinions were such sowed hurtful ideas in the reflections of men, so otherwise these, leaning to the other side, fall into the utmost harm.….. For the harm is equal in both these heresies, the one belittling the holy Virgin, the other again glorifying her over-much. For who should it be that teach thus but women ? for the race of women is slippery, fallible, and humble-minded.….. For some women deck out a koutrkon that is to say, a square stool, spreading upon it a linen cloth, on some solemn day of the year, for some days they lay out bread, and offer it in the name of Mary. All the women partake of the bread, as we related in the letter to Arabia, writing partly about that.….. Yea, verily, the body of Mary was holy, but was surely not God. Verily, the Virgin was a virgin, and was honoured, but was not given to us to worship ; but she worships Him who was born from her according to the flesh, having come from heaven out of the Father’s bosom.….. This offering and eating of cakes was probably derived from the worship of Artemis.12
The Collyridians were a sect that venerated Mary to the extent of offering sacrifices and prayers to her, a practice that was considered heretical by the mainstream Church. This extreme veneration highlights the diversity of beliefs regarding Mary’s role and status in early Christian communities. Some groups, such as the Collyridians, went so far as to deify Mary, while others, like the early proto-orthodox Christians, maintained a more subdued veneration that did not cross the line into worship.
Contemporary Implications
The diversity of early Christian beliefs underscores a critical point : Christians today would likely be deemed heretics by many early Christian sects, just as those early Christians would be considered heretics by today’s standards. This reciprocal heresy reveals the fluid and contested nature of what it means to be “truly” Christian. It raises profound questions about the authenticity and authority of any single interpretation of Christianity. If the early Christians, with their wide-ranging and often contradictory beliefs, all claimed to follow the teachings of Jesus, then which version, if any, can be considered the true Christianity ?
For instance, the Marcionites rejected the Old Testament and believed in a completely separate God from the Jewish Yahweh, a belief that modern Christians would find heretical. Similarly, the Gnostic emphasis on secret knowledge as the path to salvation contrasts sharply with the mainstream Christian focus on faith and doctrine.
Understanding the diversity of early Christianity reveals its fragmented and contentious origins, marked by historical inconsistencies, doctrinal disputes, and power struggles that shaped the faith. This awareness can prompt contemporary Christians to critically examine the foundations of their beliefs and question the legitimacy of what is claimed to be “orthodoxy.” The concept of a unified, uncontested set of doctrines is contradicted by the numerous conflicting teachings and sects present in the early church. By confronting these early divergences and power dynamics, Christians are encouraged to reassess the historical and theological underpinnings of their faith.
Conclusions
Joachim Jeremias, one of the foremost exegete of the New Testament in this century, who after a lifetime of study of the original, finally agreed with the German theologian Rudolph Bultmann that :
[W]ithout a doubt it is true to say that the dream of ever writing a biography of Jesus is over.13
Meaning that even the chronology of the life of Jesus could not be established from the New Testament. From the above exposition, it is clear that one now may be led to ask, if this was the state of Christians who cannot even agree on their basic theology, how are we expected to trust the Christian interpretation of events on even larger issues such as Christian ethics and Weltanschauung ?
Certainly, it is mind-boggling to swallow the present-day missionaries’ preaching of their version of Christianity, when it is clear that their forefathers certainly did not believe what they do today. That the “Christianity” of today is simply one of the many, varying beliefs during its earlier state of existence is evidence to us that what Jeremias said remains true. Yet we still wonder why the missionaries are anxious to proclaim their “one out of many” deviant versions to the Muslims.
And only Allah knows best !
Cite This As :
- Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture : The Effect Of Early Christological Controversies On The Text Of The New Testament, 1993, Oxford University Press : London & New York, p. 3[↩]
- Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities : The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, 2003, Oxford University Press : New York, p. 8[↩]
- James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 1977, SCM Press and Westminister Press, p. 373[↩]
- Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, 1979, Random House : New York, p. 18[↩]
- Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body, 1995, Yale University Press : New Haven, p. 2[↩]
- James H. Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon, 1973, Oxford University Press : New York, Ode 19:2 – 6[↩]
- Frederik Wisse, The Apocryphon of John, in The Nag Hammadi Library, 1988, Harper & Row : San Francisco, p. 104 – 123[↩]
- James M. Robinson (Editor), The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 1988, Harper & Row : San Francisco, p. 126 – 138[↩]
- J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 1891, Macmillan : London, p. 200 – 210[↩]
- Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 30[↩]
- Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4:22[↩]
- C. H. H. Wright & C. Neil (Editors), A Protestant Dictionary, 1904, Hodder & Stoughton, London, p. 390 (Under “Mary, The Virgin”)[↩]
- The Problem of the Historical Jesus, Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1972, p. 12[↩]
