The historical account of the 3rd and 4th century church councils perfectly validates the claims of Professor Burton L. Mack. Mack's central thesis, as outlined in works like "A Myth of Innocence," is that orthodox Christianity was not a monolithic, divinely given tradition. Instead, it was a social and political construction—a process of "mythmaking in action"—where a specific group of early Christians won the struggle for power, established its version of the faith as the "one true faith," and then retrospectively wrote history to support its claims and marginalize its rivals.
The historical account of the 3rd and 4th century church councils provide powerful evidence of this process.
1. The Political Creation of Doctrine
Mack argues that Christian doctrine was forged in a crucible of political and social conflict, not just pious revelation. The historical account of the 3rd and 4th century church councils supports this by stating the councils were:
"not merely theological debates but political and social events that cemented the structure and authority of the institutional Church."
The battle over the term homoousios at the Council of Nicaea is a prime example. The council, convened by the Roman Emperor, didn't discover a divine truth; it created a doctrinal benchmark using a non-biblical term to settle a political dispute. It was an act of deliberate mythmaking that "effectively elevated Jesus to the status of God" to consolidate power and establish a unified creed.
2. Shaping a Unified Narrative by Excluding Others
According to Mack, the early Christian "movement" was a diverse array of competing sects, each with its own beliefs and sacred texts. The orthodox Church's consolidation of power involved creating a single, cohesive narrative by purging alternative stories. The historical account of the 3rd and 4th century church councils validates this by noting that before the councils, Christian doctrine was:
"a variety of interpretations and beliefs."
The councils were designed to end this diversity, "to unify these beliefs under a standardized doctrine, often at the expense of alternative views." This process of mythmaking required eliminating any narratives that didn't fit the new, official story.
3. The Bible as a Tool of Control
Mack views the New Testament canon as the ultimate tool of mythmaking, a collection of texts chosen by the winning faction to legitimize its authority. The historical account of the 3rd and 4th century church councils confirms this, stating that the idea of the Bible as a single book was a "later development" and that:
"The selection of biblical texts was heavily influenced by the Church's authority... while there were 13 gospels, only four (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were canonized, reflecting the Church's power to define orthodoxy and heresy."
This wasn't an act of preservation; it was an act of curation. The Church deliberately included texts that supported its theological claims while "marginalizing texts that supported alternative theological viewpoints, such as those of the Gnostics." The Bible, in this view, is the final, finished myth created by the institutional Church.
4. The Suppression of Competing Myths
Finally, Mack argues that the orthodox Church's success required the active suppression of competing movements that presented alternative myths of Christian origins. The historical account of the 3rd and 4th century church councils provides a clear, documented list of these rival myths:
"These groups were not simply 'heresies' but often complete, well-developed religious systems that posed a significant challenge to what was becoming orthodox Christianity."
The historical account of the 3rd and 4th century church councils describes how these movements, from Gnosticism and Manichaeism to the Paulicians and Cathars, were ultimately "suppressed through persecution and doctrinal authority." This violent eradication of rival belief systems was the final step in the mythmaking process, ensuring that the orthodox narrative was not only the dominant one but, in the end, the only one to survive in mainstream history.
No comments:
Post a Comment