< Intro to an Analytical Study of What Early Christians Taught

May 13, 2026

   First of all, let’s have a look at what we are talking about when we speak of early Christian writings. The vertical books on the far left are Bibles. The books vertical on the front row are the Christian writings prior to the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The other horizontal books are after Nicea.

   I have heard various people challenge these true statements.

"The early church believed in the Trinity."

"The early church believed in the authority of God’s Word."

"The early church knew nothing about venerating Mary."

“Icons were not a part of the gospel for early Christians.”

   When someone claims the early church taught something, a fair question to ask is: “How do you know?” Even though we have about 5,480 pages by 92 or so writers, how do you determine what they consistently taught vs. what is an outlier?

   This paper is an attempt to objectively answer that question, in eight parts:

1. Why this matters to us today

2. When do we define the time of the early Christian church?

3. Who are the Christian writers vs. heretical ones?

4. Which writings do we have of the early church and various false groups?

5. How do we determine what was explicitly taught, implied, or only partially mentioned?

6. Where do we set the cutoff to say a teaching was generally accepted by early Christians?

7. How should we define the following time period?

8. And finally, how does this compare with the following time period?

   For each part I will briefly summarize the answer, followed by an explanation of how the answer was developed.

1. Three reasons why this matters to us today

   Early Christians were not infallibly correct, and they disagreed among themselves on some things. Nevertheless, they are helpful to us to look to them as “elder brothers and sisters” in the Lord. We can gain perspective on how Christians closer to Jesus’ incarnation in time, culture, and language saw and interpreted things.

   This can be useful for combatting weird and “innovative” Bible interpretations. This is good for dealing with people deceived by heresies and talking with Muslims. It is useful for talking with other Christians in three different ways.

The Envelope of Possible Truth: Knowing the ”envelope” or reasonable interpretations on a passage or doctrine. If someone comes to you and tells you a passage means something important, and Christians who have studied the passage for over 2,000 years failed to ever see that interpretation, then either a) God failed to communicate something important for 2,000 years, until the church was fortunate to have this individual come along and finally tell the church this important thing, or else the Bible passage does not really say that at all. As an example, imagine you studied another language for a couple of years, such as Spanish. Some people who spoke Spanish from infancy read some Spanish and explained it, and you piped up and said, “the Spanish can’t mean that at all, it really means this other thing instead.” Imagine how ridiculous that would look to people who knew Spanish as their native language. Likewise, what if some modern person says, “the New Testament Greek has to mean this new teaching” when early Greek-speaking Christians said it meant something else instead, and most Christians today agree with what the early Christians said. How much credibility should we give to this novel interpretation of the Greek, when no native early Greek-speaking Christians saw that at all? When an ancient Greek expert says the Greek cannot mean something, and early Greek-speaking Christians interpreted it as meaning exactly that, the how credible is this novel insistence on what the Greek means?

The Envelop of Heresy: What is just an error vs. a soul-perishing error? Let’s say another Christian believed something, and you and most other Christians believed differently about that, and you feel certain that you are correct. Is the other person simply wrong on that secondary issue, and you can just agree to disagree? Or is that a primary issue, and the person has a heretical view, and they should not be allowed to be a member of your church until they repent of that belief? How do you tell? On some issues the answer is clear from Scripture; see 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 for an example. If all early Christians who wrote about a topic believed one way, and you believe a different way, then either that topic is not a primary doctrine of the faith, or else you believe that there were no early genuine Christians after about 96 A.D. But unless you are willing to believe that the early Christians, including all the martyrs were all heretics, then what they commonly believed, that you think is wrong, could be an error, but it is not soul-perishing heresy.

The Envelope of Importance: Similarly, on non-heretical issues, we can see the early church helps us by providing us with a broader perspective. If you and other modern Christians believe one doctrine, and early Christians universally believed differently, it is possible that you and those who hold your view are right, and the early Christians were wrong on that point. But even if your view is the correct one, either it is not a primary doctrine for genuine faith or God did not see it as important enough to correct any believers who held the other view. So even if you are right, this cannot be of critical importance.

   So we want to see these three things, but how do we go about analyzing these? The rest of this paper shows when is the time period, who are the included writers and which writings, how do we determine what was taught, where do we set the cutoff, and how does this compare with later writers?

2. The Time Period Defined for the early Church

Brief answer: The early church is defined here as the church in the Pre-Nicene Period, that is, the time up to the Council of Nicea I in 325 A.D..

   Prior to 325 A.D. was a very challenging time for the church. Multiple persecutions in the Roman Empire meant that becoming a Christian needed a willingness to die for Christ, or else being sent to the mines until you die in a few years there.

   After 325 A.D., the church became more and more powerful, and more and more corrupt. They went farther and farther from the teachings in Scripture. They eventually tortured people, amassed great wealth, and put icons and saints between themselves and God. Here are a few details about the start of it happening.

   In the early fourth century great changes happened for Christians. Christianity became a legal religion in the Roman Empire in 313 A.D., though Licinius, the Emperor in the east, later still persecuted Christians until 323 A.D. In 325 A.D. Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. The Council of Nicea I, in 325 A.D., had 318 bishops who clarified what Christianity was and banished Arians from the church. The Roman Emperor Constantine non-violently shut down pagan temples and Jewish synagogues, so that those people could go to church. All of a sudden it became popular to become a Christian in the Roman Empire. Some Christians have said that Christianity has not fully recovered since then. Other Christians have said that Christianity had less to fear from her avowed enemies than from her supposed friends. Within about 60 years, the emperor and Augustine of Hippo were justifying torture against heretics, bishops were referring to bishop’s “thrones”, and violence was used in spreading the gospel.

   The period prior to all this, various called the Pre-Nicene Church, Ante-Nicene Church (ante- not anti-) or the early Church was relatively free from the influx of people looking for money or power. So what did they Christians believe, experience, and practice in that period?

   Two writers wrote both Pre-Nicea and Post-Nicea: Athanasius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea. In Pre-Nicene writing we only include what they wrote up to 325 A.D., and include the rest of their writings in the period after this, the Nicea I to Ephesus I period.

3. Who are the Christian writers vs. heretical ones

Brief answer: The Pre-Nicene churches that had common beliefs and accepted each other we call proto-orthodox. The proto-orthodox include the main proto-orthodox “denomination” plus others that differed on non-essential matters, such as Quartodecimians, Montanists (=Cataphrygians), Donatists, and Novatianists. Also included is a very influential but strange church teacher named Origen. Though three centuries after his death he was considered a heretic,  he is included because he not only accepted, but was well-respected in his time.

   Post Nicea, there is no discontinuity or disagreement between the proto-orthodox and the Orthodox. However, the there is no discontinuity or disagreement between the proto-orthodox and the Nestorians, Monophysites (Copts), and Arians either.

   There are three different ways to go about answering who is “in” the church vs. a heretic outside. All three ways give similar answers though.

3a) Relationships among churches: Do the churches accept each other?

Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) explains this in detail. “True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].” Irenaeus, Against Heresies book 4, ch.33.8 p.508

Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) But [it has, on the other hand, been shown], that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples-as I have proved-through [those in] the beginning, the middle, and the end, and through the entire dispensation of God, and that well-grounded system which tends to man’s salvation, namely, our faith; which, having been received from the Church, we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth also.” Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.21.1 p.451

Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) “We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.” Prescription Against Heretics ch.21 p.252-253. So even though Tertullian was a Montanist, he saw no problem with unity with the proto-orthodox.

Alexander of Alexandria (313-326 A.D.) “Since the body of the Catholic Church is one, and it is commanded in Holy Scripture that we should keep the bond of unanimity and peace” Epistles on the Arian Heresy Letter 2 ch.1 p.296

3a Counterpoint: Montanists including Tertullian accepted the proto-orthodox, but many proto-orthodox did not accept them. Cyprian did though. Novatianists and proto-orthodox did not accept each other, but they had the same teachings except that Novatianists believed those who had once denied their faith could never get forgiveness from God.

3b) Historical acceptance of Christian writers by other Christian writers

Here are proto-orthodox Christian writers who affirmed other writers.

Later Writer	Referenced earlier writer
Ignatius, disciple of John the Apostle	Clement of Rome, Polycarp
Martyrdom of Ignatius	Ignatius
Papias, disciple of John the Apostle
Polycarp, disciple of Ignatius	Ignatius
The Encratite Gnostic Tatian	Justin Martyr was his teacher
Evarestus	Wrote Martyrdom of Polycarp
Serapion	Claudius Apollinarius
Dionysius of Corinth	Clement of Rome
Melito of Sardis	Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr
Hegesippus	Hegesippus, Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr
Irenaeus of Lyons, disciple of Polycarp	Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, Evarestus, “Elders”, Hermas, Justin Martyr
Caius and the Muratorian Canon	Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement, Irenaeus, Melito
Clement of Alexandria	Clement of Rome, Epistle of Barnabas, Hermas
Tertullian	Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Perpetua and Felicitas
Asterius Urbanus	Quadratus
Hippolytus of Portus. He was a disciple of Irenaeus according to Photius I (9th century)	Apollinaris, Irenaeus. Accepted Quartodecimians (such as Meleto of Sardis and Anatolius) despite them celebrating Easter on a different day.
Julius Africanus	Exchanged letters with Origen
Origen	Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd [of Hermas], the “admirable” Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Julius Africanus. Some corrections of his “predecessor” [Clement of Alexandria].
Cyprian of Carthage	Polycarp, Tertullian, Roman Church leaders, Lucius et al., Caldonius, Celerinus, Cornelius, Moyses et al., Maximus et all. Firmilian of Caesarea, Nemesianus et al., Lucius and the brethren, Felix and martyrs
Celerinus	Ignatius, Cyprian of Carthage
Firmilian	Cyprian of Carthage
Seventh Council of Carthage	Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr
Pontius	Wrote The Life and Passion of Cyprian
Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origenist)	Wrote The Oration and Panegyric Addressed  to Origen.
Dionysius of Alexandria (A student of Origen)	Wrote to Dionysius of Rome, Stephen of Rome, Sixtus II of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage
Anatolius	Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen
Pamphilus of Alexandria (Origenist), disciple of Pierius (Origenist)	Wrote  an Apology for Origen
Methodius	Justin Martyr
Lactantius, disciple of Arnobius	Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage
Eusebius of Caesarea, (Origenist), church historian and disciple of Pamphilus	Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius, Aristides, Quadratus, Barnabas, Polycarp, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Rhodon, Claudius Apollinaris, Dionysius of Corinth, Tatian (at first OK then later a heretic), Athenagoras, Melito of Sardis, Hegesippus, Martyrs of Vienna and Lugdunum, Theophilus of Caesarea, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Maximus of Jerusalem, Polycrates, Caius, Serapion of Antioch, Apollonius of Ephesus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Asterius Urbanus, Hippolytus, Julius Africanus, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius of Rome, Anatolius, Theonas, Phileas of Thmuis, Hesychius of Egypt, Alexander of Alexandria
Origenists such as Theognostus, Alexander of Alexandria	Origen.
After Nicea I (325 A.D.)
Formicus Maternus	Epistle of Barnabas
Athanasius of Alexandria, mentored by Alexander of Alexandria	Ignatius, Shepherd [of Hermas], Theognostus, Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius of Rome, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea (first an Arian “accomplice”, then a signer of Nicea), Marcellus
Cheltenham Canon	Cyprian of Carthage
Apostolic Constitutions	Ignatius of Antioch
Didymus the Blind	Origenist. Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas
Ambrose of Milan	said Origen’s expositions of the NT are inferior to Origen’s expositions of the OT. Basil, Didymus, Athanasius
Jerome of Stridon	Hippolytus, Tertullian, Eusebius of Caesarea (Letters of Augustine Letter 75.6.12 p.341), Cyprian of Carthage. Saw errors in Origen.
Augustine of Hippo	Says about Origen to accept what is true but reject what is false. Letter 40 (to Jerome) ch.5.4 p.274

3b Counterpoint: All was not rosy though, as the table below shows. Also, Origen was considered a heretic later. Origen unfortunately had over-allegorical interpretation, believed in pre-existence of souls, and eventual universal salvation. Jerome early on thought Origin was the greatest teacher after the apostles, but later in life Jerome reversed his view.

Christian Writer	Writer or group they criticized
Tertullian	Against The Shepherd [of Hermas]
Serapion of Antioch	Against Montanists
Apollonius of Ephesus	Against Montanists
Asterius Urbanus	Against Montanists
Treatise Against Novatian & On Rebaptism	Against Novatian
Cyprian of Carthage, Council of Carthage	Against Novatian & Montanists
Dionysius of Alexandria	Against Novatian
Methodius	Criticized Origen’s teaching
Council of Arles I (26-44 bishops)	Excommunicated Donatists
Eusebius of Caesarea	Against Novatian & Montanists
After Nicea I (325 A.D.)
Athanasius of Alexandria	Against Novatian
Pacian of Barcelona	Against Novatian
Jerome of Stridon	Wrote of errors of Novatian and Cataphrygians (= Montanists)
Augustine of Hippo	Against Novatian

3c) Teaching Similarities vs. outside groups

We can look explicitly at what proto-orthodox Christians said about Ebionites and Gnostics. We can also contrast what the orthodox believed vs. what others believed at a high level. Finally, we can also dive down to observe the commonality between early Christian teachings and other groups.

3c1) If you look at the rebuke of early Christians against Ebionites and especially Gnostics, you cannot consider them part of the same group, any more than the fans of different football teams, wearing the jersey of their team, are the same.

Here are the counts of proto-orthodox Christian writers who wrote against these heretical teachings.

Or2. No mixing Christ and other religions (14)

Or8. Dispute with Ebionites/ Hebion [from Cerinthus] (7)

Gn1. The creator of good (Gnostics all said he was either misguided or evil) (20)

Gn2. Do not call matter evil (5)

Gn3. Avoid docetic beliefs – that Jesus did not suffer in the flesh (12)

Gn4. Against Cerinthus (6)

Gn9. Against Marcion (19)

Gn10. Against Valentinian Gnostics (15)

Gn11. Specifically against the Valentinian Gnostic offshoot of Heracleon (5)

Gn12. Against Sethian/Ophite Gnostics (5)

Gn13. Against the Gnostic Apelles (6)

Gn14. Against the Gnostic Basilides (8)

Gn15. Against Encratite Gnostics (5)

Gn16. Against the Encratite Saturninus/Saturnilus (4)

Gn17. Against other Gnostics (14)

Gn18. The [Gnostic] Demiurge is false (6)

Gn19. The [Gnostic] Ogdoad is false (4)

Gn20. The [Gnostic] Pleroma is false (5)

3c Counterpoint: Eight writers were against Novatianists, and five writers were against Montanists. Tertullian was a Montanist later in life.

3c2) Contrasting the outside groups at a high level

Most of the outside groups have been lumped by both modern historians and early Christians themselves as “Gnostics”. The Gnostic-type groups differed greatly among themselves, but in general they had a different God, a different Jesus, a different salvation, and a different way of living.

Gnostics had a different God: They refuse to worship the Creator. They believe the god who created this world, whom they often call the demiurge was either an evil, malevolent god or else a bumbling, error-prone deity who messed everything up. They believe the Old Testament was bad. Some would consider Moses and the prophets as servants of the evil, lesser deity. But others, such as Hermetic gnostics, believe the good god sent Abraham, Moses, Hercules (yes, Hercules) and Jesus.

Gnostics had a different Jesus: Many gnostic writings have no mention of Jesus at all, but the ones that do all show Jesus in a positive light. Most of them were “Docetic”, meaning that Jesus was not a real human being able to suffer. He was sort of like a phantom, and he lived after the (apparent) crucifixion because He never died in the first place.

Gnostics had a different salvation: They thought it was secret knowledge that saved you, not Jesus shedding his blood by dying on the cross. Most gnostics believed in merging back with the highest god or the light; not worshipping the Creator forever.

Gnostics had a different way of living: Some “libertine” gnostics believed that the spiritual was all that matters; there were almost no ethical responsibilities. Other gnostics were quite different; since the spiritual was all that mattered the “mastered” their body by not eating meat or having marital relations.

Ebionites were non-Gnostics similar to the Judaizing Christians Paul warned about in Galatians. They accepted that Jesus was God “in a manner of speaking”, as a title of honor, but they did not really accept the deity of Christ.

3c3) A detailed comparison of proto-orthodox teachings vs. outside groups

Out of the 1,238 teachings that four or more writers affirmed and none denied, here is an analysis of 1,112 of those teachings. Then I looked at the same writers, except that I only included teachings that eight or more writers affirmed and none denied, to see if I would get roughly the same results or not. It turns out that the results are similar.

   A raw comparison of similarities would not be fair, because we have about 5480.4 pages of early Christian writers, but only 273.25 pages of Ebionite teachings, comparing with about 282 pages of Gnostic teachings. So of course the early Christians writings had more teachings; there were more pages.

   A better comparison would be to take a data slice of early Christian teachings that was around 270 pages, and compare that with Ebionite and Gnostic teachings. But how would we know if that slice was really representative? The answer is to take nine non-overlapping data slices of early Christian teachings and compare those nine with Ebionite and Gnostic teachings.

   The next table shows a sum of the Ebionite teaching, the Gnostic teaching, and nine data slices of early Christian teachings, with the number of pages, and number of topics with four or more Christian writers. Then it shows the percentage (1,112 is 100%). Then it shows the average percentage. Then it shows where each percentage lies relative to dividing by the average.

   The table after that repeats the analysis for topics with eight or more Christian writers to see if the results code out similar.

Grouping of writers on topics with four or more writers agreed and none denied		Pages	Date range	Topics cited	% of total	% divided by average	Topics denied
92 Christian writer totals		5480.4	96-325 AD	1112	100%	-	0
7 Ebionite heretic totals		273.25	c.188-325	349	32%	0.56	-15 (1%)
Gnostics, Encratites, Bardesan		282	c.150-325	315.5	29%	0.50	-77 (7%)
9 D A T A S L I C E S	Clement of Rome to Dionysius of Corinth, Vienna	263	96-180 AD	722	65%	1.14
	Irenaeus Against Heresies to Scillitan Martyrs	268.25	182-217 AD	701	63%	1.11
	Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Stromata	268.5	160-202	577	52%	0.91
	Athenagoras to Theophilus, Caius to Apollonius, rest of Clement of Alexandria, Asterius Urbanus	263	177-232 AD	625	56%	0.99
	Tertullian’s 5 Books, Monogamy, Modesty; Theodotus to Alexander of Cappadocia	270.25	240-251 AD	580	52%	0.92
	Hippolytus, Novatian and foes	274	222-254	675	61%	1.07
	Cyprian of Carthage and friends	271.75	c.246-258	690	62%	1.09
	Origen’s On Prayer and Exhortation to Martyrdom, Pontius to Anatolius	268.5	233-280 AD	404	36%	0.64
	Adamantius, Victorinus, Pamphilus to Athanasius, Lactantius’ Epitome, 2 Alexanders	274.3	300-326 AD	705	63%	1.12
…average		269.1		631.0	57%

Grouping of writers on topics with eight or more writers agreed and none denied		Pages	Date range	Topics cited	% of total	% divided by average	Topics denied
92 Christian writer totals		5480.4	96-325 AD	570	100%	-	0
7 Ebionite heretic totals		273.25	c.188-325	269	47%	0.64	-14 (2%)
Gnostics, Encratites, Bardesan		282	c.150-325	235.5	41%	0.56	-52 (9%)
9 D A T A S L I C E S	Clement of Rome to Dionysius of Corinth, Vienna	263	96-180 AD	474	83%	1.12
	Irenaeus Against Heresies to Scillitan Martyrs	268.25	182-217 AD	446	78%	1.06
	Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Stromata	268.5	160-202	383	67%	0.91
	Athenagoras to Theophilus, Caius to Apollonius, rest of Clement of Alexandria, Asterius Urbanus	263	177-232 AD	432	76%	1.02
	Tertullian’s 5 Books, Monogamy, Modesty; Theodotus to Alexander of Cappadocia	270.25	240-251 AD	392	69%	0.93
	Hippolytus, Novatian and foes	274	222-254	428	75%	1.02
	Cyprian of Carthage and friends	271.75	c.246-258	453	79%	1.07
	Origen’s On Prayer and Exhortation to Martyrdom, Pontius to Anatolius	268.5	233-280 AD	299	52%	0.71
	Adamantius, Victorinus, Pamphilus to Athanasius, Lactantius’ Epitome, 2 Alexanders	274.3	300-326 AD	491	86%	1.16
…average		269.1		422.1	74%

The nine proto-orthodox data slices are non-overlapping subsets of the total proto-orthodox writers, but some writings are not included in any data slice. Excluded are most of Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Tertullian.

   The reason I analyzed only a sample of 1,112 teachings and not all 1,238 is that I have not yet finished searching for references (mainly on Gnostics) on the other 122 teachings.

Interpretation

   Note that the “% divided by average” numbers for topics with 4 or more writers is similar to the “% divided by average” numbers for 8 or more writers, with the Ebionites and Gnostics looking a bit better with 8 or more writers. This suggests the results will be about the same for topics referenced by 4 to 8 writers.

   Regardless, the similarity numbers (% divided by average) for Ebionites and Gnostics are significantly lower than the proto-orthodox writers except that the slice “Origen’s Prayer and Exhortation to Martyrdom, Pontius to Anatolius” is lower than the other proto-orthodox writers.

4. The Preserved Writings We Have

Number of writers: In the 275 years from 60 A.D. to 325 A.D., we have the writings of about 92 proto-orthodox Christian authors. Until Irenaeus in 188 A.D., including The Diatessaron and counting “the elders” and “Papias” as separate, we have 24 writers. From that time until the persecution of Decius in 251 A.D., including the short Epitaph of Abercius and excluding Origen we have 22 writers. From 251 A.D. on, including Origen, and the writings of Athanasius and Eusebius of Caesarea prior to 325 A.D., we have 46 writers. These numbers exclude 14 known corrupt or spurious works.

Pages of writings: Since different books have different size pages, a “page” here is standardized as roughly a typical Ante-Nicene Fathers page, of 848 words of text. Here is a breakdown of the number of preserved pages by each author.

proto-orthodox writer	pages	% total	proto-orthodox writer	pages	% total
…total	5480.4	100 %	…total	5480.4	100 %
Eusebius of Caesarea	1,055.4	19 %	Theophilus of Antioch	32	1 %
Origen	1,005	18 %	Gregory Thaumaturgus	28.5	1 %
Tertullian	928	17 %	Minucius Felix	25	0 %
Clement of Alexandria	389.5	7 %	Victorinus of Petau	18.5
Lactantius	305.5	6 %	Clement of Rome	16.25
Irenaeus	284.75	5 %	Commodianus	16
Cyprian of Carthage	250.5	5 %	Ignatius of Antioch	13
Hippolytus	218	4 %	Epistle of Barnabas	12.5
…remainder	1043.6	19 %	Alexander of Lycopolis	12
Arnobius	126.5	2 %	Alexander of Alexandria	11.5
Justin Martyr	116.5	2 %	Melito of Sardis	11
Tatian’s Diatessaron	86	2 %	Treatise on Rebaptism	11
Methodius	79.5	1 %	Julius Africanus	9
Athanasius before Nicea	56	1 %	Peter of Alexandria	8.5
Shepherd of Hermas	46.5	1 %	14 writers	6 < 8
Adamantius	42	1 %	7 writers	3 to < 5
Dionysius of Alexandria	39.5	1 %	17 writers	1 to < 3
Novatian	38.5	1 %	21 writers	< 1

   There was a group of Christian heretics called Ebionites, and a closely related group called the Elchasaites. We have about 273.25 pages of five writers of their writings as well as what orthodox Christians wrote about them.

   I also grouped together 30 or so groups of Gnostics including Encratites plus Bardesanes. From more than 32 groups and writers we have about 282 pages of their writings as well as what orthodox Christians wrote about them.

5. Determining what was explicitly taught, implied, or only partially mentioned

Brief answer: A reference is explicit if they teach the doctrine, experience, or practice or else write that not believing the teaching is wrong. A reference is implied if they did not say the teaching directly, but they would not have made that statement unless they believed that teaching. A reference is partial if they only address part of that teaching, or mention it without affirming that it is true. In adding up what was taught, explicit and implied count 100%, and partial is not counted at all. 1,238 common teachings have been found, and I have labeled them: such as Gtxx, Fmxx, Jpxx, etc.

5a) An explicit teaching is present if you ask what this passage teaches, and the answer is the doctrine in question (plus perhaps other teachings also). Here are three examples of explicit references.

[3] Jp18. Jesus rose from the dead: Clement of Rome (96/98 A.D.) “Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.” 1 Clement ch.24 vol.1 p.11; vol.9 p.236. See also 1 Clement ch.42 vol.9 p.241. FYI, a total of 34 pre-Nicene Christian writers affirmed the teaching labeled Jp18.

[4] Gt7. The Trinity: Clement of Alexandria (193-202 A.D.) “So that when he says, ‘Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around the second are the things second in order; and around the third, the third,’ I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.” Stromata book 5 ch.14 p.468. FYI, a total of 19 Pre-Nicene Christian  writers affirmed teaching Gt7.

[6] Fm4. No homosexuality: The Apology of Aristides (125 or 138-161 A.D.) p.275 mentions unrighteous things the gods did, such as slaying one another, practicing sorceries, adultery, thefts, and intercourse with males. FYI, a total of 14 Pre-Nicene Christian writers affirmed teaching Fm4.

5b) An implied teaching is where the writer did not say it directly, but they had to believe the teaching to write what they wrote. Here are three examples of implied references

[1] Sa4. Saved by Jesus’ blood or dying for us. Alexander of Alexandria (313-326 A.D.) (implied) says that Christ was the cause of our redemption, blood for blood. Epistles on the Arian Heresy Epistle 5 ch.6 p.302

Alexander mentions Jesus giving our redemption, and His blood for our blood, but it is implied that the second causes the first. FYI, a total of 16 pre-Nicene writers affirmed teaching Sa4.

[7] n1. We need to repent and come to God: Hippolytus of Portus (222-235/236 A.D.) (implied) quotes Revelation 11:3 and said that Elijah was to come before the manifestation of Christ from heaven. There will be signs and wonders so that people will be put to shame and turn in repentance. Treatise on Christ and Antichrist ch.46 p.213

It is clear that Hippolytus thinks people need to repent and come to God. However, in this quote he is specifically only referring to people in Revelation 11. FYI, a total of 33 Pre-Nicene Christian writers affirmed teaching n1.

[9] n23. We are aliens awaiting our eternal home:  Shepherd of Hermas (c.115-155 A.D.) book 3 Similitude 1 p.31 (implied) says that we live in a strange land, for our city is far away.

Hermas says something consistent with this teaching, but he does not say we are aliens, and the quote does not say eternal home. A total of 7 Pre-Nicene Christian writers affirmed teaching n23.

5c) A partial teaching is where the writer mentioned part of the teaching, but not all of the teaching. Or else it is a partial teaching if they mentioned all of the teaching without affirming if it was true or not. Here are three examples of partial references.

[2] Gt5: God does not speak lies / is Truth: Clement of Rome (96/98 A.D.) (partial) “Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.” 1 Clement ch.45 p.17

Note that it affirms that nothing is counterfeit (false) is in scripture. But it does not actually say that God is truth, or that God would not speak lies outside of scripture. So this is only a partial and thus not counted. FYI, a total of 15 pre-Nicene writers affirm teaching Gt5.

[5] Gt7. The Trinity: Justin Martyr (c.150 A.D.) (partial) says that we worship and adore the Father, Son, and the prophetic Spirit. He did not use the word Trinity though. First Apology of Justin ch.6 p.164

What Justin Martyr says here (and elsewhere) is compatible with the Trinity; however, Justin did not use the word Trinity and did not describe one God and three persons. So this reference is only a partial and thus not counted. As mentioned previously, a total of 19 Pre-Nicene Christian writers affirmed Gt7.

[8] n12. Live a worthy life: Peter of Alexandria (306,285-311 A.D.) (partial) “And if it bear fruit, well; and if not, then after that thou shall cut it down.” Keeping this before their eyes, and showing forth fruit worthy of repentance, after so long an interval of time, they will be profiled.”  [i.e., examined] Canonical Letter canon 3 p.270

Peter of Alexandria mentions fruit worthy of repentance, which is consistent with living a worthy life. However, he is only talking about repentance, and does not explicitly say anything more than that. So this reference is only a partial and thus not counted. FYI, a total of 25 Pre-Nicene Christian writers affirmed teaching n12.

Summaries: I have so far found 1,238 teachings that four or more proto-orthodox Christians agree upon (explicit or implied), and none denied.

11,813 Explicit and Implied references by proto-orthodox writers, which makes an average of about 9.6 references by proto-orthodox per topic. Heretics have more than 105 explicit references. In all cases, when one writer makes a reference to the same topic multiple times, this is only counted once.

1,119 Implied references from both proto-orthodox and heretic writers.

949 Partial references from both proto-orthodox and heretic writers.

6. The cutoff for not saying this was generally accepted by early Christians

Brief answer: If four or more Christian leaders taught this and none denied it, then it was a teaching of the early church. Secondarily, we can also compare if at least one leader taught this in the following period. If three of less writers mentioned a topic, or at least one Christian writer disagreed, then it was not a commonly generally accepted teaching of the early Christians.

There are three principles here: a) four or more writers had to teach it and b) nobody denied it. A secondary principle, which has a few exceptions, is c) at least one writer in the period after this (from Nicea I to Ephesus I) also taught this.

6a) If less than four Pre-Nicene Christian writers said something, that does not mean it was generally accepted.

Here are three examples of teaching that “did not make the cut”.

6a1) Cyprian of Carthage (252-258 A.D.) taught that baptized babies who died go to heaven, and unbaptized babies go to Hell. (Ambrose of Milan (370-390 A.D.) and Augustine of Hippo (383-430 A.D.) also taught this, but they are after the early church time period. No other Pre-Nicene writers are known to have taught or repeated this, so just one writer is not sufficient evidence that this was generally accepted.

6a2) For a second example, two writers, Tertullian and Adamantius spoke of the “canon of scripture”. Clement of Alexandria had a “partial”, “the canon of truth explaining the scriptures”. So this is not counted as a teaching generally taught by early Christians since it only had two writers, not four.

6a3) For a third example, that a bishop can forgive sins was taught by Cyprian of Carthage (c.246-258 A.D.) but by no one else prior to 325 A.D.

   Given that we have 92 writers and 5,480.4 or so pages, a cutoff of four or more is reasonable. As the graph in the section 6 shows, a cutoff of 4 gives us 1,238 topics. If we had used 2, 3, 5, or 6 as cutoffs, that would give 1,536, 1,363, 1,051, and 885 topics respectively.

6b) While four or more Pre-Nicene Christians writers affirmed it, others denied it.

A teaching cannot be generally accepted if some writers disagreed with it. Here are three examples.

6b1) Pre-Nicene church writers quoted from apocryphal books, as well as Plato, Aristotle, and various other philosophers, etc. But Just quoting from a work does not prove that they thought it was scripture. Here are just places where they said an apocryphal book was “scripture” or “the Lord says”, or “the Holy Spirit says”. There are eight Pre-Nicene writers who called seven of the Apocryphal books Scripture or “the Lord says”. Tertullian quotes 1 Enoch (which is not in the Roman Catholic nor Easter Orthodox apocryphas) as scripture. However, Meleto of Sardis did not accept the apocryphal books are scripture. So proto-orthodox Christians did not have agreement on that.

6b2) The Father and Son are One “substance” as Colossians 2:9 implies. Ten early Christian writers taught this. However, two, Origen and the Origenist Pierius of Alexandria, denied this, so there was no general consensus. Later, Orthodox, Nestorians, Copts, Roman Catholics, and Protestants all agree on this, but Arians denied this.

6b3) The rock of the church is Christ, with no mention of Peter. Six early Christian writers taught this: Justin Martyr, Shepherd of Hermas, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Origen, and Victorinus of Petau. However, Cyprian of Carthage mentions “Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built”, so there was no general consensus on this.

   There are over 52 “divergences” where at least one early Christian writer said one thing, and at least one other contradicted it.

6c) Distribution of proto-orthodox teachings (up to 325 A.D.)

   In the graph below you can see the number of teachings of doctrine, experience, and practice, reference by only a count of one writer, two writers, three, four, etc.

The broader (darker) background is all topics. The narrower (lighter) background is just the Biblical topics. The very small very light background are errors. Non-Biblical does not necessarily mean anti-Biblical, it just means there is no Bible verse saying that. For example, mention the Seventy Septuagint translators.

Count of writers who taught a teaching

As an example for reading this graph, the lighter peak means that 171 Bible teachings (the vertical axis) were referenced by exactly a count of 4 of the Christian writers (the horizontal axis). At the darker peak, 186 Biblical plus extra-Biblical teachings (including errors) were referenced by exactly a count of 4 early Christians writers (the horizontal axis).

   The important thing is not the exact shape, but the general exponential decaying trend. There is a “valley” of fewer teachings at three writers, which would suggest that the significant number of writers would be four. There is also a “plateau” around 11 to 13 writers. The number of pages per writer varies a lot, and it should not be expected that it would exactly follow a statistical Poisson distribution.

7. What is the Next Time Period?

   The Pre-Nicene period had about 92 Christian authors writing 5,480 pages. The number of Christians in 300 A.D. is estimated to be at  least 5 million. See Ante-Nicene Fathers p.126 and World Christian Trends: AD 30–AD 2200 p.321.

   I define the next period as the Council of Nicea I (325 A.D.) to the Council of Ephesus I (431 A.D.). It is only 130 years, but it has more writers and writings; in it 130 Christians wrote more than 13,000 pages. Of this, Augustine of Hippo wrote about 4,500 pages, John Chrysostom wrote about 3,000 pages, Jerome of Stridon and John Cassian each wrote about 500 pages, Ambrose of Milan wrote 446 pages, and Athanasius of Alexandria after Nicea wrote 412 pages. That leaves over 3,642 pages by others. By 400 A.D. there were an estimated roughly 10 million Christians.

7a Counterpoint: Many Christian scholars (including my friend William Nix) differ from me and define the next period as larger: from Nicea I to Chalcedon. I agree that this makes some sense, but the reason I don’t is simply because there would be just too many Chrisian writers and too many pages in that larger time period.

7b Counterpoint: Why not include the 130 years from Nicea I to Ephesus with the previous time period? Including 130 Christians writing over 13,000 pages would dwarf the voice of the early church. But beyond that there are three other reasons.

a) Pre-Nicene Christians had much more concern about certain topics: Greek philosophers, paganism, and other heresies that later Christians mentioned less, and only in passing or of historical interest.

b) Nicene Christians had much more concern about certain topics: Arians, Macedonians, Pelagianism, and relations between the church and state.

c) Once Christianity became Rome’s official religion, corruption and decay began to seep in, with persecuting pagans, torture, and how to exercise the church’s power.

7c) Counterpoint: Why not split up the Pre-Nicene Period? If one were to split up the Pre-Nicene time period, a place would be the severe persecution of Decius, 250-251 A.D. However, there is so much continuity of authors (Novatian, Cyprian, etc.) and so much continuity of thought between the two periods that it makes sense for include them in the same period for this analysis.

8. Comparing with the next time period (325-431 A.D.)

   There are 1,237 Pre-Nicene teachings taught by four or more writers, and denied by none that I have found. All of them are also taught by at least one writer in the Nicea I to Ephesus I period with the exception of the following six topics. The number in parentheses is the count of Pre-Nicene Christian writers who taught this teaching.

Gt13. [The Father is] the God of Jesus / Christ (7)

Rv12. Jesus rides the White Horse in Rev 19:11-16 (5)

Ut17. The wedding banquet in Rev 19:9 (5)

Po2. Don’t oppress the poor or afflicted (4)

Ap3. Answering false moral accusations against Christians (7)

Di12. Prophecy in the Church after Acts (8)

Nicea I to Ephesus I Christians also taught on many topics Pre-Nicene Christians did not.

   Churches today would agree on all 1,237 teachings, except for 44 that various churches would not. 5 of these are agree by everybody today to be errors. Again, the number in parentheses is the count of Pre-Nicene Christian writers who taught this.

Er4. Four elements make up the world (7)

Er5. Atoms do not really exist (11)

Er8. Errors on the phoenix, hyena, or other animals (11)

Er9. Collective guilt of the Jews (7)

Er11. Number of nations according to angels (Dt 32:8 Septuagint) (8)

Of the 1,237 teachings only 109 are non-Biblical, though not anti-Biblical. An example of a non-Biblical teaching is that Pythagoras was wrong on some teaching.

8. Conclusions

   People need to be objective. When someone claims (rightly or wrongly) that the early Church taught something, we need an unbiased, objective standard to say whether that is true or not. I propose that a good standard is that during the time period up to 325 A.D., four or more proto-orthodox writers taught it (either explicitly or implicitly), and no proto-orthodox writers denied it. Different people can say early Christians taught different things, or certain things were only generally agreed upon after Constantine. To all of them you can say the same thing: “show me your witnesses!” What we merely hope and wish early Christians said has no place in objectively saying what they actually believed.

8.1 How Early Christian teachings compare with…

   Following that standard, here is what I have observed. Overall, early Christians believed very much like Christians today. They loved scripture and were eager to teach. A key question is, “were early Christians basically Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, or something else?” The answer that I conclude is that they were “something else” and not exactly like any existing group today.

   If you could put the “average” early Chistian in a room with the “average” Conservative Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Copt, and Nestorian, the early Christians’ beliefs would be in between them. In other words, they would be closer to each of the existing groups than the existing groups are to each other. Despite what a few Roman Catholics say, and Michael Horton (a Calvinist) have claimed, it is provably false to say that the early Christians were Roman Catholics, or Calvinistic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, or Copt, or Nestorian.

8.2 How this applies in conversations with…

   I have found this information has been useful talking with Muslims, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, liberal Christians, and others.

a) When talking with Muslims about the reliability of the Bible, I frequently bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Old Testament, the New Testament manuscripts for the New Testament, and the early Church writings for what the early followers of Jesus believed. Early Christians unanimously believed that Jesus was God, died on the cross for them, and rose from the dead. I ask if they think that Allah was laughing at them when he sent to Hell the 50,000 or so Pre-Nicene Christian martyrs, because Allah fooled everyone into thinking that Jesus died on the cross? If the Bible and Christian doctrine have not been corrupted, then Islam falls, as does Mormonism.

b) I also bring this up in talking with Mormons when they claim our Bible is corrupted and not translated correctly. When do they think the Bible was corrupted? It was not corrupted by Roman Catholics nor Protestants (or another modern group), because none of those were around this early.

c) Once I was talking with a Seventh-Day Adventist lady who claimed that the Trinity was not taught until Constantine (325 A.D.). I could show her the early Christians who used the term a century earlier, and even earlier Christians who taught the concepts.

d) When I was talking with a Jehovah’s Witness elder, I started the conversation as “So tell me about your new teaching.” He claimed their teaching was not new, and he also knew church history. So we went through church history together and at the end we agreed that nobody taught anything similar to what Jehovah’s Witnesses believed until William Miller around 1831.

e) When Christian liberals claim that Christians originally tolerated homosexuality, or thinking that the virgin birth or physical resurrection of Jesus are optional teachings, we can show that is only a lie of wishful thinking. What liberals teach is alien to what early Christians taught.

f) When I dialogued (via email) with one Roman Catholic, it did not go so smoothly. In bringing up what early Christians taught, he asked me how I knew that early Christians actually viewed scripture as an authority in their lives. At the time he challenged me I had not done a study to prove that; I sort of just assumed. So I researched it and found the evidence of this teaching that I showed him. It is now called “Sc1. Study or obey God’s word as an authority”, and a very solid 43 Pre-Nicene Christian writers taught that.

g) In talking with Greek Orthodox people, I show all of the things (1,237 now) that early Christians taught. Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Roman Catholics, Copts, and Nestorians all agree on those. But since we have so much material, and so much agreement on so many teachings, how come there is not a single Pre-Nicene writer whose writings we have who wrote even one thing about venerating icons, praying to Mary, or other peculiar Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic teachings? If you gauged the importance of a teaching in the early church by the number of writers that taught it, then knowing about Hannah the mother of Samuel, Hiram of Tyre, Joshua the High Priest, and Antiochus Epiphanes were all more important to them than venerating icons or praying to Mary, because each of these biblical characters has four writers who taught on them, and four writers is greater than zero writers.

   Early Christians were a persecuted group, but a positive of that is that they were not corrupted by wealth or power. But except for the lack of corruption, early Christians were as much like “X” as they were like “Y”. For “X” and “Y” you can fill in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Copt, or Nestorian. Early Christians were more like each of those groups than those groups are like each other.

8.3 We need to be able to back things up

So when someone says, “early Christian fathers like Augustine, Jerome, etc. said…” remind them that they are not early Christians. They were not pre-Nicene.

Whenever someone says, “early Christians believed…”, ask them to back it up. But when they ask you the same thing (which is only fair), you can go to www.biblequery.org/History/ChurchHistory/WhatEarlyChristiansTaughtOnDoctrine.html (or .docx) and

www.biblequery.org/History/ChurchHistory/WhatEarlyChristiansTaughtOnExperienceAndPractice.html (or .docx).

For the next period it is unfinished, but you can see what I have so far at

www.biblequery.org/History/ChurchHistory/WhatNiceaToEphesusChristiansTaughtOnDoctrine.html (or .docx) and

www.biblequery.org/History/ChurchHistory/WhatNiceaToEphesusChristiansTaughtOnExperienceAndPractice.html (or .docx).

8.4 Grids to help visualize the consensus

If you look at www.BibleQuery.org in the menu under History you will also find 68 grids showing what Pre-Nicene Christians taught (both .docx and .html). There is a Pre-Nicene section and also after Nicea.

8.5 Where do we do from here?

This article, the all the previous references focus on the commonality of what Christians taught, then and now. But the following three articles focus on something that is also interesting: the differences between what early Christians taught and what various churches today teach. Each of this is in both .html and .docx format.

www.BibleQuery.org/History/ChurchHistory/DifferencesInWhatChristiansTeachOnAuthorityPopesAndPatriarchs.html

www.BibleQuery.org/History/ChurchHistory/DifferencesInWhatChristiansTeachOnTheLordsSupper.html

www.BibleQuery.org/History/ChurchHistory/DifferencesInWhatChristiansTeachOnTheApocrypha.html

www.BibleQuery.org/History/ChurchHistory/DifferencesInWhatChristiansTeachOnMary.html

www.BibleQuery.org/History/ChurchHistory/DifferencesInWhatChristiansTeachOnSalvationAndUltimateThings.html

www.BibleQuery.org/History/ChurchHistory/DifferencesInWhatChristiansTeachOnRulesAndRulers.html

www.BibleQuery.org/History/ChurchHistory/DifferencesInWhatChristiansTeachOnOtherTopics.html

by Steven Morrison, Ph.D.