M05a
Earliest Christianities
​
Introduction Video
​
​
Introduction
​
When most people today think about early Christianity, they often assume that it was unified, peaceful, and monolithic in its thought. After all, since the writings of the New Testament are often read as a single book, the ideas and groups that are found in them tend to blend together into a homogeneous community that shared common beliefs and practices.
​
​
Wall painting of the Healing of the Paralytic from the Baptistry of the Domus ecclesiae, Duro Europos, Syria. This may be the oldest image of Jesus that we have today, dating to about 235 CE.
​
​
There is no question that early Christian groups, as they are represented in the New Testament, shared a common religious identity and beliefs. Central to their commonness was the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, who has come to restore humanity through his death and resurrection. They also believed in one God, they believed in the presence of the Holy Spirit, life after death, practiced baptism, the Eucharist, and awaited the second coming of Jesus at the end of the age. But, alongside the commonness was a range of differences in beliefs and practices by groups that would have identified themselves as Christians. By examining the different groups that are either implicit or explicit in the New Testament, we get a fairly good indication that Christianity in the second half of the first century was far from being homogeneous.
​
​
​
The Diversity of Early Christian Groups
​
​
Video Lecture: Stu Talené
​
​
The observation that early Christianity was diverse is not new. Approximately one hundred and fifty years ago, Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860) argued that earliest Christianity was shaped by the division between Pauline (Paul and his followers) and Petrine (Peter and his followers) versions of Christianity. In the early part of the twentieth century, Walter Bauer (1877-1960) further challenged the prevailing assumptions of first-century theological unity by arguing that historians can no longer use terms like “orthodoxy” and “heresy” in historical reconstructions of earliest Christian thought. For many historians standing on the shoulder of Bauer, “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were viewed as more appropriate categories from the council of Nicea (325 CE) onward.
​
​
Late Roman apse mosaic from the basilica of Santa Pudenziana, Rome, 4th century. Christ is depicted as a Roman teacher, sitting on a jewelled throne, wearing a golden toga with purple trim, which represented authority. He is surrounded by his Apostles who are wearing senatorial togas.
​
​
Early Christianity is rooted in the historical Jesus of Nazareth who ministered to fellow peasant Jews in the late twenties of rural Galilee within the theological and cultural context of Judaism, before the emergence of Christianity as a separate religion. But this is by no means the whole story. Early Christian thought as it appears in the New Testament largely represents interpretations of Jesus’ teachings, actions, and identity after his death. Scattered across the Roman Empire, the early followers of Jesus interpreted their new faith within a variety of ethnic settings, religious contexts, political conflicts, and economic strata. Social historians who have attempted to trace the development of early Christian thought by isolating various early Christian groups and their beliefs have commonly referred to the earliest groups of disciples as the Jesus Movement, though the use of the term “movement” is not intended to convey the common connotation that it contained strictly charismatic and anti-institutional tendencies. The beginning of Christianity, which is exceedingly difficult to pinpoint, can be attributed to these earliest followers.
​
Our exploration of early Christianity is divided into two sections. The first section focuses on the diversity of early Christian groups which are sorted into three categories: (1) groups that are implied, or are “behind,” the New Testament; (2) groups that are represented by the writers, or are “of,” the New Testament; and (3) groups that post-date, or are “beyond,” the New Testament. The subtitles are not as accurate as they could be, but they are convenient. The second section of this chapter focuses on the use of the Jewish scripture in the development of early Christian identity and belief.
​
​
Wall painting of Christ walking on water with the disciples in the boat. From the Baptistry of the Domus ecclesiae, Duro Europos, Syria. This is also a very early image of Jesus, dating to the middle of the 3rd CE.
​
​
Groups Behind the New Testament
​
The writings of the New Testament imply or mention groups that would have identified themselves as followers of Jesus. Many of the groups opposed the ideas that were taught by the New Testament writers, but some were the precursors of communities that endorsed them.
​
​
Mosaic of the Apostle Paul, Museo arcivescovile di Ravenna, Italy. Early 6th century.
​
​
Some New Testament writers make mention of Jesus followers who had alternative views on such topics as ethics, salvation, ritual, the nature of God, and apostolic authority. One such group was the Judaizers. These were Christians from Palestine who advocated, in contrast to Paul, that Gentile converts were required to undergo circumcision and obey the dietary laws as they were prescribed in the Torah. They believed that these and other legal requirements functioned as the boundary markers that identified the people of God. The Galatian Christians, who were apparently susceptible to the teachings of the Judaizers, were warned by Paul not to abandon the gospel that he originally preached to them. The Corinthian Christians seemed also to have been influenced by Judaizers, but the issues in 2 Corinthians have more to do with Paul’s apostolicity. In 2 Corinthians, Paul’s apostolic authority seems to be challenged by a group of Jewish Christians who have again followed Paul and attempted to undermine his teachings. A considerable amount of ink has been spilt over the past two centuries in the attempt to identify the Judaizers, be they members of one group or several. One of the most common proposals has been that they were Jerusalem Christians, perhaps led by James or Peter.
​
​
​
Opponents of John’s Community
​
Giorgio Vasari “The Incredulity of St. Thomas.” Basilica of Santa Croce. 1572. This scene depicts Thomas’ encounter with the risen Christ (John 20:26-28).
​
​
Several examples of groups who followed Jesus have been detected in the Gospel of John and the epistles of John. In the Gospel, scholars have identified three groups of Christians that were distinct from the writer and his congregation (or the so-called Johannine community): Christian Jews within the synagogues, Jewish Christians who left the synagogues to form their own churches, and Jewish Christians represented by the Twelve, especially Peter, Philip, and Andrew. More recently, some scholars have argued that an early Gnostic Christian group can also be detected. Gnosticism (which comes from the Greek word gnosis meaning “knowledge”) was a complex and varied system, but it had in common a dualism that separated the material/physical (which was considered evil) and the spiritual (which was considered good) components of humanity. Spirits were believed to be trapped in physical bodies and could only be released (or saved) through the communication of special knowledge. Elaine Pagels, for example, has suggested that John’s Gospel and the epistles appear to be responding to a Gnostic group that followed Jesus, but denied that he actually came in the flesh—much like the later Docetists who believed that Jesus only appeared to be physical, but in actuality was a spirit. On the basis of the numerous similarities between the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and John’s Gospel, Pagels proposes that the Johannine community was partly in conflict with the so-called Thomas Christians. Thus, John’s statements about Jesus coming in the flesh and his use of Thomas’ confession (“My Lord and my God”) after he touched the risen Christ are intended to counter the Gnostic claims (20:24-28). Similar statements about Jesus coming in the flesh in other New Testament texts (e.g. 1 Tim 3:16) have led some to believe that Gnostic influences within nascent Christianity were more widespread than once thought.
​
​
Fresco, by Damiane, “Jesus Christ and St. John the Apostle, Ubisi, Georgia. 14th century.
​
​
The Q Christians
​
Gospel scholars who accept the Two-Source theory—that Matthew and Luke used Mark and a sayings source called Q (for the German Quelle meaning “source”)—have pointed to what might be the oldest detectable Christian group. No list of examples is ever complete without its mention. This hypothetical Q document (often called the Q Gospel and discussed in chapter 8 below) is dated to the 40s CE and is often attributed to the first generation of Christians who led an itinerant ministry. As wandering Christian prophets, they aimed their mission at the Jews in Palestine. After the failure of the mission to Israel and the devastation caused by the Jewish War (66-70 CE), the community settled in Syria, where it received significant theological inspiration from the community associated with the Gospel of Mark. It was at this point that it oriented its efforts toward the Gentile mission, as it was eventually recorded in Matt 28:16-20. If the reconstruction of the Q Gospel is correct, then the material that it does not include, in comparison to the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), may be indicative of their beliefs. Two of the more glaring omissions are an infancy account and a resurrection account. The aim of the Q Gospel (as is the case in the Gospel of Thomas) seems to have been the preservation of sayings attributed to Jesus, and not the cross and resurrection of Jesus.
​
Mosaic of Risen Jesus with the disciples, Basilica di Sant’ Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, Italy. 6th century.
​
​
House Churches
​
Overlapping the itinerant preachers was a more structured push for the establishment of churches beginning in Jerusalem and Judea, and extending into Syria and Asia Minor (the so-called Gentile churches). These early churches, however, should not be equated with buildings designated for communal worship as they are today. They should instead be viewed as communities consisting of people from varied social and ethnic backgrounds, within a shared geographical area, who expressed a common belief in Jesus as Messiah and savior. In fact, the earliest church building discovered by archaeologists, in the town of Dura in Eastern Syria, dates to the middle of the third century. Communal worship and fellowship in the first century would have been held in people’s homes, which are called “house churches.” These were not large gatherings by our standards. Many Christians today are surprised to hear that the church in Corinth, for example, with all its problems and vulnerabilities (according to 1 Corinthians) would have consisted of approximately fifteen people in the middle of the first-century.
​
​
Ruins of a house church, with chapel on the left. Duro Europos, Syria. Early 3rd century.
Remains of a 5th century Byzantine church at Sardis (one of the seven churches in Revelation), built on the site of the Artemis Temple (5th century BCE).
​
​
Interaction among early communities in different cities was limited. While they may have been founded by common itinerant prophets or teachers, such as the Apostle Paul or John the Elder, they each retained their autonomy and essentially developed on their own, interacting with and being influenced by local religious ideas and customs. On occasion, inter-house church relations were strained, as is indicated by the admonishment directed at the Asian churches in Revelation 2 and 3. On other occasions relations with fellow members who held differing ideas were severed, as may be the case in John the Elder’s warning (in 3 John) to a certain Gaius about Diotrephes, an alleged ambitious upstart who disregarded the teachings of the Johannine community.
​
​
​
Groups of the New Testament
​
When attention is turned to the beliefs of Christians represented by the New Testament writers, we are on firmer historical ground, but we find no less diversity. The New Testament writings were composed during the second half of the first century, over approximately a fifty-year period, primarily in Asia Minor and Syria, by Jewish Christians (except perhaps for Luke) who were attempting to legitimize their new-found faith in Jesus as God’s messiah in response to mostly Jewish, and some Roman, opposition. As is the case with all nascent religions, formulations of belief needed to draw on existing language, symbols, myths, rituals, worship practices, and authoritative texts and traditions. The culture was the cradle. Since the Greco-Roman world accommodated numerous religious and philosophical traditions, one of them being Judaism, the options for expressing the content of early Christian faith were immense. So what kind of diversity do we find in the New Testament writings? The following summary of prominent groups represented by the New Testament writers captures some of the breadth of early Christian thought.
​
​
​
Fresco of apostles dressed in Roman togas, discovered in the hypogeum of the Aurelii was a catacomb built for the prestigious Aurelli family. Rome, early 3rd century. Many of the early Christian groups believed themselves to be followers of one or more of the apostles.
​
​
​
The Evangelists
​
​
Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV, late 2nd/early 3rd century. This part of the Greek manuscript contains the end of Luke’s Gospel, which is entitled “Gospel according to Luke,” and the beginning of John’s Gospels, which is entitled “Gospel according to John.” In the middle of this photo, one can easily pick out the word ∆OYKAN, which means “Luke.”
One of the most effective ways of demonstrating some of the diversity among early Christian groups is by carefully comparing the four Gospels. Since the Gospels are anonymous, the writers are technically designated as “evangelists,” meaning spreaders of the “good news.” Scholars are not sure exactly when the titles, which contain the names of the evangelist (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), were added. There is more agreement, however, that the evangelists were leaders or even pastors of early Christian communities.
​
At the popular level of religious worship, most Christians do not read the Gospels comparatively. As a result, the events that are narrated are often harmonized and rolled into one overarching story. In a real sense, the four Gospels are turned into one Gospel, which distorts their unique contributions. This practice is not new. It has occurred ever since the four Gospels circulated together as authoritative religious documents. One of the most well known harmonizing practices in the early church was that of Tatian’s (110-180 CE) Diatessaron (meaning “through [the] four [Gospels]”), which forced all the Gospels into one chronological, historical, and theological mold. Ancient practices of harmonizing the Gospels were often conducted for apologetic and theological reasons. The church leaders (since most laypersons were illiterate) needed to respond to the inconsistencies in the four accounts that were highlighted by their adversaries.
​
​
No manuscripts from Tatian’s Diatessaron, which was originally written in Syriac, have survived. However, some early manuscripts from the Syriac bible (OT), called the Peshitta, have survived. This is an Illustration from the book of Job. Paris Syriac manuscript 341 f.46R. Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. 6th century.
Today, in our highly literate culture, most Christians read the Gospels vertically instead of horizontally, which is easy to do since they are placed sequentially in a codex (or book). One begins with Matthew and ends with John. By the time all four are completed, the stories have rolled into one. The problem is amplified when the reading program is governed by quantitative, instead of qualitative, agenda such as the so-called “one year” Bible reading program. Harmonizing practices also appear in popular expressions of Christian faith, such as Nativity scenes in plays and on Christmas cards and calendars where Matthew’s infancy account is blended with Luke’s. In films such as King of Kings (1961), The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), Jesus of Nazareth (1977), and the The Passion of the Christ (2003), the harmonizing of the Gospels is even more noticeable.
​
​
Peter Paul Rubens’ “Mary annointing Jesus feet.” Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. c. 1618.
​
​
Mark Goodacre provides a telling example from a scene in Jesus Christ Superstar where Mary Magdalene is characterized as a prostitute who anoints Jesus before his death and is then opposed by Judas who complains about the cost of the anointing oil. This scene draws together the following elements from all four Gospels: (1) the anonymous woman who anoints Jesus’ feet in Mark 14 and Matthew 27, (2) the anonymous woman “sinner” who anoints Jesus in Luke 7, (3) the name “Mary, called Magdalene” in Luke 8:2, (4) Mary of Bethany who anoints Jesus in John 12, and (5) Judas who complains about the anointing also in John 12. Watching this one scene on a cursory level gives no indication of the sources used.
​
This is a synopsis of Jesus’ baptism in Matthew, Mark, and Luke from the NRSV. When the scene is read in parallel (i.e. horizontally), it is much easier to see the nuances. Courtesy of Accordance Bible Software.
​
​
When the Gospels are read “horizontally”—that is, alongside one another in a comparative way—they appear in an entirely different light than when they are read “vertically” (starting with Matthew and ending with John). This practice of reading dramatically reveals both the similarities and the differences. It reveals that all of the Gospels are narratives that share a common general plot, antagonists, protagonists, climax, and resolution. All have Jesus as their main character and hero, who is portrayed as the messiah, Son of God, deliverer of God’s people, and the prophet predicted in the Jewish scriptures. All of them include Jesus’ teaching about redemption, salvation, and discipleship. All of them portray Jesus as performing miracles, and all of them describe his passion—his trial, suffering, death, and resurrection (though in Mark it is implied). Alongside the similarities, however, a horizontal reading sheds light on the numerous differences, some of which are slight, like a shift in emphasis or writing style, while others are more substantial, like meanings attributed to Jesus’ messianic identity, role, death, and resurrection.
​
​
Synoptic Gospels
​
​
Illustration of Mark the evangelist. Lindisfarne Gospels, British Library, London. 7th century.
Among the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), which share the same basic chronology, emphasize the kingdom of God, and contain many common events and sayings, divergences are abundant. Again, these become visible when we read the accounts alongside each other. A helpful tool in this regard is a Gospels Synopsis because it sets the accounts in parallel columns. Consider a few examples. Each evangelist omits material found in the other two. Each contains unique incidents. Some of the shared events are put in a different order, such as the last two temptations of Jesus in Matt 4:5-11 and Luke 4:5-13. Also some sayings of Jesus are placed in entirely different contexts. Take, for example, the saying “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” In Matthew (6:24), the saying is found in the context of the Sermon on the Mount, but in Luke (16:13), it appears verbatim in the context of parables much later in the story.
​
The three evangelists also emphasize different themes, most notably in their portrayals of Jesus. To mention a few, in Mark, Jesus appears as the concealed messiah who alone preaches the kingdom of God (in contrast to Matthew where the disciples also preach it). In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a new Moses who brings the correct interpretation of the Law. In Luke, Jesus is portrayed as a rejected prophet who is concerned with the welfare of social minorities and outcasts. In Mark, the earliest of the three, the resurrection account is subtle and incomplete when compared with the other two Gospels, which raises the question of how Mark understood it. One of the most glaring omissions in Mark is the birth and infancy account. Did Mark not know this tradition? If he knew of it, why did he not include it? Did he not believe it?
​
​
Illustration of Matthew the evangelist. Lindisfarne Gospels, British Library, London. 7th century.
Illustration of Luke the evangelist. Lindisfarne Gospels, British Library, London. 7th century.
Comparing John and the Synoptics
​
When John is brought into the picture and compared with the Synoptics, the divergences escalate. Whether the Johannine evangelist knew the Synoptic Gospels and thus intended the differences or had no knowledge of them continues to be debated, but this is not the issue before us. What the differences make clear, again, is that early Christianity was multi-dimensional. The differences are particularly stark in John’s portrayal of Jesus.
​
Illustration of John the evangelist. Lindisfarne Gospels, British Library, London. 7th century.
​
​
In John, Jesus is portrayed as the incarnate preexistent Word of God whose speeches and miraculous deeds (called “signs”) focus on his divine identity and intimate relationship with the Father, which he publicly communicates. Yet as a divine figure, he is still subordinate to God. John’s focus is not on Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God, messianic concealment, the Mosaic Law, or social justice. Instead, the focus is on belief in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God who has come in the flesh. Without drawing out each occasion where John differs from the Synoptics, a list of a few examples should suffice to show John’s uniqueness. The following are in no particular order.
​
(1) Only John has Jesus cleansing the temple at the beginning of his ministry, rather than at the end. In the Synoptics, the temple action constitutes Jesus’ last public act; yet in John it his first. In the Synoptics, it is met with fierce opposition, and even a call for his death (Mark 11:18). In John there is no repercussion. Instead, the event is spiritualized and used to forecast Jesus’ resurrection (2:13-22).
​
(2) In John, Jesus dies on the day of preparation, and not on the Passover as the Synoptics record. In John 18:28 the crucifixion takes place on 14 Nisan, the day before Passover. In the Synoptics (Mark 14:12), the last supper (which was the Passover meal) and the crucifixion occurred on 15 Nisan. Again, it is interesting how John tends to spiritualize the event by having Jesus die on the “day of Preparation for Passover, at noon” (19:14) which corresponds to the time of the killing of the sacrificial animals. In John, Jesus is compared to the Passover lamb of Exodus.
​
(3) In John, the Baptist repudiates any identification with Elijah (John 1:21a), but in the Synoptics Jesus identifies him as an Elijah figure (Matt 11:14; 17:10-13; Luke 1:17).
​
(4) In John, Jesus teaches in extended sermons rather than in short parables. There are no kingdom parables in John.
​
(5) In John, Jesus is confessed as messiah from the beginning of his ministry (1:41), but in the Synoptics this confession comes later in the story (Mark 8:27-30) and marks the turning point of his ministry.
​
(6) In John, both the disciples and Jesus publicly declare his exalted identity. In the Synoptics, neither Jesus nor his disciples speak publicly about his exalted status during his lifetime. His true identity is revealed in snippets: in private epiphanies, at his baptism, to the inner circle at his transfiguration, and in Peter’s confession. In Mark especially, his messianic identity is intentionally secretive.
​
(7) In John, Jesus is presented as more divine than human. It has commonly been said that in comparison to the Synoptic portrayals, the Johannine Jesus “hardly touches the ground.” His divine status is regularly acknowledged and occasionally recognized by other characters, which may explain why John’s Gospel contains no actual baptism, transfiguration, or temptation. If John knew accounts, he may not have deemed them as necessary because Jesus’ entire mission seems to be presented as an epiphany.
​
(8) In John, Jesus never casts out demons.
​
(9) In the Synoptics, Jesus espouses the causes of the poor and the oppressed, but in John he has nothing to say about them.
​
(10) In John, there is no Lord’s Supper prior his death. While many have argued that John 6 is based on Eucharistic celebrations, the chronology and event is significantly different from that of the Synoptics.
​
(11) In the Synoptics, Jesus’ primary opponents are the Sadducees, Pharisees, scribes, and Herodians; whereas in John, they are called “the Jews” and “the world.”
​
(12) In the Synoptics, Peter is the most prominent of the apostles, whereas in John the “beloved disciple” takes the lead role.
​
(13) In John, Jesus does not pray the “Lord’s Prayer.”
​
(14) In John, the disciples are not sent out on a mission during Jesus’ lifetime. Instead, he sends them after the resurrection.
​
Paul and the Other Writings
When the rest of the New Testament is brought into the mix, the differences remain. Some of them are theologically significant. It is important to emphasize that these difference are not necessarily incoherent, but they do point to varied perspectives on a host of topics. For example, many biblical scholars have observed that Jesus’ teachings differ from that of the Apostle Paul. Whereas Jesus (of the Synoptic tradition) is concerned about the kingdom of God, Paul has little to say about it. In fact, Paul hardly mentions anything about Jesus’ teachings. Instead, Paul focuses on the effects of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
​
Another significant theological divergence has to do with the meaning of Jesus’ death. Mark, for example, understands the death as a pattern of faithfulness for all followers, whereas Hebrews understands it as a sin sacrifice.
​
​
Adamo Tadolini’s “Statue of St. Paul,” St. Peter’s Basilica, Vatican. 1838.
​
​
The role of women in the fledgling Christian communities also varies, sometimes in the writings of the same author. The early writings of Paul, for instance, appear to be much more relaxed about leadership positions for women than the later writings (assuming that 1 and 2 Timothy were written by him). As Christian communities become more institutionalized well into the second century, women appear to lose authority and leadership roles.
​
The role of the Jewish law, which is one of the most difficult topics in the New Testament, also varies. Matthew, for instance, appears much more traditional than does Paul. In Matt 5:17-19 Jesus endorses strict obedience to the law, so long as it is grounded in compassion. Yet in Paul’s letters, observances of the law, particularly circumcision, are not required for converts to Christianity. In Galatians, Paul argues that the law served as a temporary means of guidance and discipline for the Jews until God fulfilled his promise to Abraham by sending Christ. Paul tells the gentile converts in Galatia that it is their faith, as exemplified by Abraham, which bring about righteousness. Paul’s critique of the Law was not that it was pointless, but rather that it excluded some people from God’s salvation. In short, one did not need to become Jewish in order to remain a Christian.
​
​
Greek Orthodox icon of the Apostle Paul, by Father Pefkis, Trikala, Greece.
As a final example, consider the differing views on the role of government. In Romans 13:1-2, Paul leaves little, if any, room for resisting authority when he writes, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.” Whereas Luke implies that God (and hence his followers) subverts social structures. When some of the disciples are arrested for not complying with a ban on their Christian teaching, Luke writes,
When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:27-29).
​
​
​
Groups Beyond the New Testament
​
​
​
Video Lecture: Stu Talené
​
​
​
Solidus (gold coin) with the head of Emperor Flavius Theodosius I. In circulation: 379-395 CE.
​
​
Diversity in early Christian thought extends beyond the New Testament well into the fourth century. Unfortunately, many of the early Christian writings that are not in the New Testament (called “extracanonical” writings) are no longer extant. Some may have been incorporated into other writings (such as Q was incorporated into Matthew and Luke), others disappeared due to lack of interest, and still others were destroyed by rival Christian groups that were more dominant. The destruction was particularly intense when in 380 CE Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all theological thinking/writing that deviated from the “common” faith as it was expressed in the first ecumenical council of Nicea in 325 CE. Not all of the writings that deviated from the official theology were destroyed, however. Prior to Emperor Constantine (306-337 CE), who initiated the push for a unified, empire wide, Christianity, the basic institutional unit of Christianity was either the local church assembly or the diocese, which was the region overseen by a bishop. Since both travel and communication was prohibitive by our standards, variance was inevitable.
​
What remains of the Christian writings from the first one hundred years provides an interesting window into the diversity that partly overlaps the New Testament. Lists of early Christian extracanonical writings within the first hundred years of Christianity, up to about 130 CE, will vary from scholar to scholar. The following is a fairly liberal list of writings that would have represented various groups identifying themselves as Christian.
​
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Peter
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Secret Gospel of Mark
Unknown Gospel (Papyrus Egerton 2)
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Nazareans
Gospel to the Hebrews
Acts of Paul and Thecla
1 Clement
Didache
Letters of Ignatius
Letter of Polycarp
Letter of Barnabas,
Preaching of Peter
Fragments of Papias
Shepherd of Hermas
Apocalypse of Peter
​
Some of these writings were consistent with the broader theological ideas found in the New Testament (such as 1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, the letters of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Barnabas), whereas others were inconsistent, and considered aberrant.
​
​
Fresco of Justin Martyr by Theophanes the Cretan and his son Simeon, The Church of St. Nicholas Stavronikita Monastery, Mount Athos, Greece. 1546.
​
​
For centuries our knowledge of the extracanonical writings that represent the aberrant groups came mostly from their rivals, the Church Fathers (e.g. Irenaeus) and the apologists (e.g. Justin Martyr), who represented the majority view. “Church Fathers” is a designation for the religious authorities (such as bishops, priests, and presbyters) of a form of Christianity that eventually was identified as orthodox, in contrast to those forms of Christianity that were later officially determined as heretical. The apologists were mainly philosophers who argued for the superiority of what became the orthodox position. Unfortunately, the few manuscripts from “aberrant” groups that survived were not sufficient for a thorough reconstruction.
All of this changed in 1945 when the so-called Gnostic library was discovered near the town of Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The story of the discovery is extraordinary, full of drama, intrigue, and wonder. It has revealed a picture of early Christianity that is more diverse than could have been previously imagined—even more diverse than the Christianity of today. For many, the discovery of these documents has reinvigorated interest among both academics and laypersons in the study of early Christian writings, ideas, and groups.
​
​
Codices discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945.
​
​
Describing all of the diverse groups that considered themselves Christian, yet differed considerably from those that are represented by the New Testament writings is an immense undertaking, but a brief listing of a few groups should suffice in drawing a rough sketch. Again, these are general groupings represented by the extracanonical Christian writings to the middle of the second century.
​
​
(Continue on next page)
​
​