What do you think?
Rate this book
Изгубените християнства
"Тази книга разглежда различните лица на ранното християнство и свещените му писания. Някои от тези текстове попадат в Новия завет. Други биват отхвърляни, нападани, забранявани и унищожавани.
Моята цел е да разгледам някои от неканоничните писания, да видя какво биха могли да ни разкрият за различните форми на християнската вяра и обреди през ІІ и ІІІ в.
Едновременно с това искам да покажа най-важното: как една от раннохристиянските групи успява да се наложи като господстваща в религията и за векове напред да определя в какво да вярват християните, какви обреди да изпълняват и какво да четат като Свещено писание."
Барт Ърман
Моята цел е да разгледам някои от неканоничните писания, да видя какво биха могли да ни разкрият за различните форми на християнската вяра и обреди през ІІ и ІІІ в.
Едновременно с това искам да покажа най-важното: как една от раннохристиянските групи успява да се наложи като господстваща в религията и за векове напред да определя в какво да вярват християните, какви обреди да изпълняват и какво да четат като Свещено писание."
Барт Ърман
396 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
About the author
Bart D. Ehrman
81 books1,923 followersBart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 288 reviews
February 13, 2023
O istorie alternativă a creștinismului, construită pe ceea ce ar fi putut să fie și n-a fost. O astfel de lucrare trezește întotdeauna interesul spiritelor îndrăznețe. Ne place să visăm, să construim ipoteze elucubrante, despre care știm că nu pot fi justificate în nici un fel. Așadar, cartea lui Ehrman cuprinde:
(i) o examinare interesantă a literaturii creștine apocrife (evanghelii, scrisori),
(ii) o descriere a cîtorva erezii - gnosticism, docetism, ebioniți, markioniți etc. - și a disputelor dintre „sectele” creștine,
(iii) un capitol despre formarea canonului neo-testamentar,
(iv) o încheiere despre izbînda „proto-creștinilor” cu ajutorul împăraților romani Constantin și Teodosius.
Din păcate, Bart D. Ehrman știe că publicul este interesat mai mult decît se cuvine de întrebările contra-factuale de tipul:
(i) ce s-ar fi întîmplat dacă împăratul Constantin nu s-ar fi convertit la creștinism prin 312?
(ii) am fi rămas politeiști?
(iii) ce s-ar fi întîmplat dacă în canon ar fi intrat alte evanghelii decît cele cunoscute: Matei, Marcu, Luca, Ioan? Ar fi intrat în Noul Testament evangheliile lui Toma, Filip, Maria și Nicodim? Ar fi avut aceeași influență?
(iv) în fine, ce s-ar fi întîmplat dacă cutare eveniment nu s-ar fi întîmplat? Ce s-ar fi întîmplat dacă Iisus Christos nu ar fi fost răstignit? Iată o întrebare pusă de Dante Alighieri. Poetul răspunde că Iisus din Nazaret ar fi trăit 81 de ani. Exact cîți ani a trăit și Platon, 81 de ani fiind vîrsta la care mor înțelepții.
Cum bine știm, întrebările de acest tip nu pot primi un răspuns întemeiat. Logica elementară le interzice. În lipsa unui răspuns credibil, înfloresc fanteziile, ficțiunile, maternitatea Mariei Magdalena, Codul lui da Vinci, urmașii lui Iisus. Bart D. Ehrman nu pare dispus să rămînă mereu în domeniul controlabilului. Cînd înșiră ipoteze, nu-l mai pot urma. O carte, oricum, utilă.
(i) o examinare interesantă a literaturii creștine apocrife (evanghelii, scrisori),
(ii) o descriere a cîtorva erezii - gnosticism, docetism, ebioniți, markioniți etc. - și a disputelor dintre „sectele” creștine,
(iii) un capitol despre formarea canonului neo-testamentar,
(iv) o încheiere despre izbînda „proto-creștinilor” cu ajutorul împăraților romani Constantin și Teodosius.
Din păcate, Bart D. Ehrman știe că publicul este interesat mai mult decît se cuvine de întrebările contra-factuale de tipul:
(i) ce s-ar fi întîmplat dacă împăratul Constantin nu s-ar fi convertit la creștinism prin 312?
(ii) am fi rămas politeiști?
(iii) ce s-ar fi întîmplat dacă în canon ar fi intrat alte evanghelii decît cele cunoscute: Matei, Marcu, Luca, Ioan? Ar fi intrat în Noul Testament evangheliile lui Toma, Filip, Maria și Nicodim? Ar fi avut aceeași influență?
(iv) în fine, ce s-ar fi întîmplat dacă cutare eveniment nu s-ar fi întîmplat? Ce s-ar fi întîmplat dacă Iisus Christos nu ar fi fost răstignit? Iată o întrebare pusă de Dante Alighieri. Poetul răspunde că Iisus din Nazaret ar fi trăit 81 de ani. Exact cîți ani a trăit și Platon, 81 de ani fiind vîrsta la care mor înțelepții.
Cum bine știm, întrebările de acest tip nu pot primi un răspuns întemeiat. Logica elementară le interzice. În lipsa unui răspuns credibil, înfloresc fanteziile, ficțiunile, maternitatea Mariei Magdalena, Codul lui da Vinci, urmașii lui Iisus. Bart D. Ehrman nu pare dispus să rămînă mereu în domeniul controlabilului. Cînd înșiră ipoteze, nu-l mai pot urma. O carte, oricum, utilă.
February 11, 2008
Here is a sentence from "Lost Christianities" that provides a clue to why the book is not really very sensational, as well as a clue to Ehrman's perspective: "It comes as a bit of a shock to most people to realize that the Church has not always had the New Testament." Perhaps it once came as a shock to Ehrman, but it does not come as a shock to any Christian with an inkling of Christian history. I am reminded of Alexander Pope's phrase, "A little learning is a dangerous thing." Ehrman seems to have once taken a small drink from the well of Christian history, drawn a startling conclusion from it, and then attempted to shove all future research into the mold of that pre-drawn conclusion.
This book often plays a "what if" game. What if orthodox Christianity didn't win out? What if the Gnostics or the dualists or the Marcionites or the Ebionites won out? Well, it's an amusing hypothetical, I suppose, but it's rather like saying, "What if the Constitution didn't become the standard for the U.S. but instead the Communist Manifesto did?" Ehrman's fun speculations still beg the question as to which form of Christianity most accurately represents Christ, which form of Christianity is most true. This question, perhaps the most essential question, is one Ehrman seems to regard as unimportant.
He explores why the so-called proto-orthodox "won" out, offering reasons that range from geography to forgery and slander, but he does not spend much time asking whether their theology is more accurate, more true, than the theology on offer by the other "varieties" of Christianity. Is it likely that a sect teaching that the God of the Old Testament is evil has grasped a true representation of the 1st century Jew Jesus? Is it likely that a sect teaching there are twelve gods has grasped a true representation of the 1st century monotheist Jesus? Is the theology of a gospel written over 100 years after Christ's death to be trusted more than the theology of a gospel written within less than thirty years of his death? To Ehrman, these are irrelevant questions. What is relevant is that these "varieties" existed and that their adherents claimed to be followers of Christ, and therefore, presumably, the orthodox have no reason to claim they are orthodox. Ehrman leaves the reader with the impression that the "proto-orthodox" are but one group of Christians among many, no more likely to have grasped a true understanding of Christ and his teachings than any other group of self-labeled Christians.
Perhaps the reason Ehrman does not much explore the question of which group most accurately portrays Christ is that the most likely answer is not sensational. While all of these diverse writings are interesting to read about, it seems highly likely that the earliest manuscripts written by near-contemporaries of Christ and chosen for inclusion in the canon after an application of a strict set of standards more accurately represent the views of Christ than do works written 100+ years after his death. It seems likely that the proto-orthodox interpreted Christ's teachings more accurately than did the Manicheans or the Gnostics. The existence of a wide variety of sects, gospels, and epistles is all very interesting, but it is not SENSATIONAL, and Ehrman seems to be trying to make it sensational.
In Ehrman's sensational version of events, the proto-orthodox, through their "machinations," destroyed these other forms of Christianity, which are themselves occasionally portrayed as more virtuous or liberating than orthodox Christianity. But, how, exactly, do the proto-orthodox, who at the time had no state power and were occasionally subject to persecution, carry out their "machinations" except by intellectual persuasion and accepted authority (which itself implies that orthodoxy was established earlier than Ehrman suggests). Ehrman proceeds almost as if these "lost" writings were lost because the "proto-orthodox" collected every existing copy and set them ablaze in a giant bonfire, and not at all because they were the product of unconvincing religions that ultimately died out after failing to adequately portray Christ to the world. Most of these "varieties" are not so much lost Christianities as dead Christianities.
Despite all this criticism, I give the book two stars (an "okay" rating) because it contains so much information, all in one place, on early Christian and Gnostic literature, early sects, and the history of Christianity. I cannot give it more because the information comes obviously processed and arranged to persuade the reader that orthodox Christianity has no more reason to consider itself orthodox than any other form. Religious labels need some definition to be useful at all. If we say the orthodox Christians (those who canonized the Bible, those who established the creeds, those who spread the church throughout the world) have no more right to define Christianity than anyone else, then the Muslims and Unitarians are Christians too; they're just Christians who view Christ differently than orthodox Christians, and so the religious term becomes meaningless. It's almost as if someone started speaking of the "varieties of Judaism" and began behaving as though the Samaritans and the Christians had as much authority to define Judaism as the Jews.
"Lost Christianities" could have benefited from better organization and less backtracking, and, when it comes to textual claims (i.e. about whether or not a verse is original, for instance) it would be helpful if he discussed the dissenting opinions in some detail rather than simply presenting his own perspective as near fact. I suggest that anyone who reads this also read the second half of Timothy Paul Jones's "Misquoting Truth" for two different perspectives. Also of interest are the actual noncanonical texts, many of which can be found collected in "Lost Books of the Bible." Finally, I recommend the slim volume "How We Got the Bible" for a clearer, concise, factual historical overview of why and how the canon was selected.
This book often plays a "what if" game. What if orthodox Christianity didn't win out? What if the Gnostics or the dualists or the Marcionites or the Ebionites won out? Well, it's an amusing hypothetical, I suppose, but it's rather like saying, "What if the Constitution didn't become the standard for the U.S. but instead the Communist Manifesto did?" Ehrman's fun speculations still beg the question as to which form of Christianity most accurately represents Christ, which form of Christianity is most true. This question, perhaps the most essential question, is one Ehrman seems to regard as unimportant.
He explores why the so-called proto-orthodox "won" out, offering reasons that range from geography to forgery and slander, but he does not spend much time asking whether their theology is more accurate, more true, than the theology on offer by the other "varieties" of Christianity. Is it likely that a sect teaching that the God of the Old Testament is evil has grasped a true representation of the 1st century Jew Jesus? Is it likely that a sect teaching there are twelve gods has grasped a true representation of the 1st century monotheist Jesus? Is the theology of a gospel written over 100 years after Christ's death to be trusted more than the theology of a gospel written within less than thirty years of his death? To Ehrman, these are irrelevant questions. What is relevant is that these "varieties" existed and that their adherents claimed to be followers of Christ, and therefore, presumably, the orthodox have no reason to claim they are orthodox. Ehrman leaves the reader with the impression that the "proto-orthodox" are but one group of Christians among many, no more likely to have grasped a true understanding of Christ and his teachings than any other group of self-labeled Christians.
Perhaps the reason Ehrman does not much explore the question of which group most accurately portrays Christ is that the most likely answer is not sensational. While all of these diverse writings are interesting to read about, it seems highly likely that the earliest manuscripts written by near-contemporaries of Christ and chosen for inclusion in the canon after an application of a strict set of standards more accurately represent the views of Christ than do works written 100+ years after his death. It seems likely that the proto-orthodox interpreted Christ's teachings more accurately than did the Manicheans or the Gnostics. The existence of a wide variety of sects, gospels, and epistles is all very interesting, but it is not SENSATIONAL, and Ehrman seems to be trying to make it sensational.
In Ehrman's sensational version of events, the proto-orthodox, through their "machinations," destroyed these other forms of Christianity, which are themselves occasionally portrayed as more virtuous or liberating than orthodox Christianity. But, how, exactly, do the proto-orthodox, who at the time had no state power and were occasionally subject to persecution, carry out their "machinations" except by intellectual persuasion and accepted authority (which itself implies that orthodoxy was established earlier than Ehrman suggests). Ehrman proceeds almost as if these "lost" writings were lost because the "proto-orthodox" collected every existing copy and set them ablaze in a giant bonfire, and not at all because they were the product of unconvincing religions that ultimately died out after failing to adequately portray Christ to the world. Most of these "varieties" are not so much lost Christianities as dead Christianities.
Despite all this criticism, I give the book two stars (an "okay" rating) because it contains so much information, all in one place, on early Christian and Gnostic literature, early sects, and the history of Christianity. I cannot give it more because the information comes obviously processed and arranged to persuade the reader that orthodox Christianity has no more reason to consider itself orthodox than any other form. Religious labels need some definition to be useful at all. If we say the orthodox Christians (those who canonized the Bible, those who established the creeds, those who spread the church throughout the world) have no more right to define Christianity than anyone else, then the Muslims and Unitarians are Christians too; they're just Christians who view Christ differently than orthodox Christians, and so the religious term becomes meaningless. It's almost as if someone started speaking of the "varieties of Judaism" and began behaving as though the Samaritans and the Christians had as much authority to define Judaism as the Jews.
"Lost Christianities" could have benefited from better organization and less backtracking, and, when it comes to textual claims (i.e. about whether or not a verse is original, for instance) it would be helpful if he discussed the dissenting opinions in some detail rather than simply presenting his own perspective as near fact. I suggest that anyone who reads this also read the second half of Timothy Paul Jones's "Misquoting Truth" for two different perspectives. Also of interest are the actual noncanonical texts, many of which can be found collected in "Lost Books of the Bible." Finally, I recommend the slim volume "How We Got the Bible" for a clearer, concise, factual historical overview of why and how the canon was selected.
August 15, 2012
Most people who self-identify as “bible believing Christians” operate under a certain understanding of the history of Christianity. Whether their view of this history is learned or assumed, it usually goes something like this in a nutshell: "The canonized scripture is the inerrant word of God. The New Testament was formed sometime shortly after Jesus Christ’s resurrection and ascension—most of it from first-hand witnesses to Jesus’s ministry. Because Jesus’s teachings were so clear, and his great commission so compelling, the early church quickly formed and mobilized to spread the gospel around the world. While there may have been false teachers around this time trying to pollute the teachings of Jesus, they were few and relatively insignificant. Orthodox Christianity was the earliest and truest form of Christianity, and the creation of this religion is precisely what Jesus set out to do, which is why orthodox beliefs survived while the rest faded from memory."
While this view of church history is certainly neat, tidy, and faith affirming, it couldn’t be further from the truth. The truth is far more interesting. If you want to start learning the truth, Ehrman’s Lost Christianities can serve as a very nice jumping off point. But before you take that leap, you might want to check your reserve chute—especially if your view of history mirrors the summary in the preceding paragraph.
So what is this particular work by Ehrman about? The dust jacket sums it up rather nicely: “…a compelling look at the early forms of Christianity and how they came to be suppressed, reformed, or forgotten…Ehrman examines in depth the battles that raged between ‘proto-orthodox Christians’—those who eventually compiled the canonical books of the New Testament and standardized Christian belief—and the groups they denounced as heretics and ultimately overcame.”
Before I continue with my review, it might be helpful if I introduce the author a little more. From his website:
"Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies.
A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. Since then he has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited twenty-four books, numerous scholarly articles, and dozens of book reviews."
And a little more of his biography from his book, God’s Problem, includes the following: As a young boy he was baptized in a Congregational church and reared as an Episcopalian, serving as an altar boy from the age of twelve through high school. He became very serious about his faith after attending a Youth for Christ club and eventually decided to train for ministry at Moody Bible Institute, where he earned a diploma in Bible and Theology. He completed his college training at Billy Graham’s alma mater, Wheaton, where he learned Greek so he could study the New Testament in its original language. He couldn’t get enough of this, so he went off to Princeton to complete a master of divinity and then a Ph.D. in New Testament studies. While he pursued these credentials he was actively serving in different churches, from being a youth pastor at an Evangelical Covenant church to serving a year as interim senior pastor of the Princeton Baptist Church. And after all this, he eventually lost his faith. Not, says he, because of problems he has with the Bible, but because he realized he could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life—in particular the problem of suffering.
Now that you know a little more about Ehrman’s life journey, impressive academic credentials, and probably more importantly, a little about his faith journey, I shall proceed with this review.
If you take a look at the customer reviews for this volume on Amazon, you’ll find that many people awarded this work less than 3 stars, mostly because they viewed it as an attack on their faith. So why does this book make Christians so upset? The answer is simple. Erhman brings up some seriously tough issues. He forces the reader to consider the possibility that their understanding of Bible (along with their particular brand of faith) might be rooted in something other than the Truth. And for many people, this is a very threatening notion.
In my own faith journey, I see myself as a truth seeker. Most Christians don’t view themselves this way. Most of them are quite certain they already know the truth, even to the point that they can justify legislating their moral beliefs so that the rest of society must conform (hence the righteous battle for a ban on gay marriage.) Where do these Christians point when asked about Truth? To canonized scripture, of course.
But what if some of the Truth was forged? What if the Gospels we cherish left out some of the essential details about who Jesus really was? What if there really was a secret version of Mark, a longer version with tantalizing homoerotic undertones that some first-century scribe edited out because those parts didn’t fit with the particular brand of Christology currently popular in his region? What if, and here I’m directly quoting Ehrman from another one of his works, “rather than being an inerrant revelation from God, inspired in its very words, the Bible is a very human book with all the marks of having come from human hands: discrepancies, contradictions, errors, and different perspectives of different authors living at different times in different countries and writing for different reasons to different audiences with different needs?”
These are all really big what ifs. Christians can respond with the bumper sticker slogan “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it,” or they can actually start investigating the origins of their beliefs. In Lost Christianities, Ehrman offers an accessible overview of these origins, and in my view, reading this work is only the beginning of an essential journey that every person who claims to know the Truth should take. But if you want to take that journey you’d better buckle up first.
I give Lost Christianities 4.5 out of 5 stars. High marks for clarity, accessibility, degree of thought-provocation, and tantalization. Only wish it had delved deeper in some areas, as it was a little narrow, but as I said before, it makes for a great starting point.
October 1, 2021
Le religioni rivelate. Uno legge un saggio come questo, dottissimo e ben scritto e non puo' fare a meno di stupirsi. Senza voler offendere nessuno ma, quando si viene a sapere di quale sia stata la genesi (per certi versi grottesca) dei testi considerati sacri da milairdi di persone, non si puo' che rimanere basiti. Queste dinamiche umane di redazione, selezione, dannazione di testi 'divini' sono davvero singolari e curiose. Eppure per quei testi (ed altri destinati all'oblio) nei primi due secoli dell'era cristiana si e' discusso, polemizzato, distorto, falsificato, sopraffatto e nei secoli successivi ucciso e massacrato.
October 14, 2013
When you search for this book on Goodreads, the first two results are Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol,' and Milton's 'Paradise Lost.' Not sure what to make of that.
As for Ehrman's book, I do know what to make of it. Ehrman is a solid scholar who seems to have decided that he needs that cash money baby, so he writes more or less respectable books in such a way that they sound like a Hollywood movie. So nobody argues with a person when they disagree with each other, instead, they "set out" to destroy/annihilate/banish etc etc... them. Arguments are not conducted with any sense of rational or historical validity, they are more or less wars in which discussants have an arsenal or weapons and use tactics rather than syllogisms. In the grand tradition of late twentieth century academia, Ehrman assumes that the other is good, no matter its constituent parts, and that what wins out is bad, no matter its (comparative) rational or historical accuracy. Therefore, the only way the winners can become winners is if they *force* the others to accept their viewpoint. I don't doubt that force was involved in the winners becoming winners, but it certainly wasn't the only thing involved, which this book may suggest.
So, if you're aware of all this, and can translate out of academese on the fly, LC will be very interesting. If not you may be very puzzled, or even disgusted by the way he casts this 'battle,' or his preference for the more ludicrous early Christian doctrines. In either case, it's a quick, easy read, and parts one (on the discovery of non-canonical early christian texts) and two (on the varieties of early christian thought and practice) are well worth your attention. Only those Christians whose knowledge of Christianity is bounded by Billy Graham in the past and the Apocalypse in the future will be shocked to learn in part three that people argue about religious texts. But those people don't read anything anyway, so it's really a superfluous hundred pages.
As for Ehrman's book, I do know what to make of it. Ehrman is a solid scholar who seems to have decided that he needs that cash money baby, so he writes more or less respectable books in such a way that they sound like a Hollywood movie. So nobody argues with a person when they disagree with each other, instead, they "set out" to destroy/annihilate/banish etc etc... them. Arguments are not conducted with any sense of rational or historical validity, they are more or less wars in which discussants have an arsenal or weapons and use tactics rather than syllogisms. In the grand tradition of late twentieth century academia, Ehrman assumes that the other is good, no matter its constituent parts, and that what wins out is bad, no matter its (comparative) rational or historical accuracy. Therefore, the only way the winners can become winners is if they *force* the others to accept their viewpoint. I don't doubt that force was involved in the winners becoming winners, but it certainly wasn't the only thing involved, which this book may suggest.
So, if you're aware of all this, and can translate out of academese on the fly, LC will be very interesting. If not you may be very puzzled, or even disgusted by the way he casts this 'battle,' or his preference for the more ludicrous early Christian doctrines. In either case, it's a quick, easy read, and parts one (on the discovery of non-canonical early christian texts) and two (on the varieties of early christian thought and practice) are well worth your attention. Only those Christians whose knowledge of Christianity is bounded by Billy Graham in the past and the Apocalypse in the future will be shocked to learn in part three that people argue about religious texts. But those people don't read anything anyway, so it's really a superfluous hundred pages.
July 8, 2020
Of the four main strands of Christianity prevalent before the fourth century, only one had what it took to emerge as the religion we know today. Theology students are no doubt familiar with this history, but seldom does it make its way past the pulpit. So as a general reader, I found this survey of the earliest years of Christianity informative.
The book, for example, takes up the subject of gnosticism, an early Christian theology that considered matter itself to be evil. Lost Christianities discusses a score of other books beyond the 27 of the New Testament, books circulated far and wide throughout Christendom, even after the Council of Nicaea. The author traces out why these other books never came to be included in the official canon, and discusses how the Bible might have turned out differently from the one we know. While the what-ifs get a little too speculative, the documentation provided and the history covered in Lost Christianities provide an informed foundation for understanding the evolution of the religion we know today.
The book, for example, takes up the subject of gnosticism, an early Christian theology that considered matter itself to be evil. Lost Christianities discusses a score of other books beyond the 27 of the New Testament, books circulated far and wide throughout Christendom, even after the Council of Nicaea. The author traces out why these other books never came to be included in the official canon, and discusses how the Bible might have turned out differently from the one we know. While the what-ifs get a little too speculative, the documentation provided and the history covered in Lost Christianities provide an informed foundation for understanding the evolution of the religion we know today.
September 18, 2019
Bart Ehrman's books are all quite readable and understandable to any acquainted with the texts of the various Christian bibles. This volume, companion to his 'Lost Scriptures', considers, broadly, the formation of the various Christian canons in the fourth and fifth centuries and what was lost, textually and religiously, in the formulation and enforcement of orthodoxy. Like the other volume, some of the rejected texts are discussed, but his focus is on the 'Christian' groups behind those scriptures, especially on the Ebionites, the 'Gnostics' and the followers of Marcion of Pontus, first known proponent of a specifically 'Christian' canon. So, too, he discusses what he terms the 'proto-orthodox', those pre-Nicaean writers and teachers who came to be regarded as orthodox upon the rigidification of the movement in the West.
Throughout his book, Ehrman considers the socio-political factors that led to modern orthodoxy, why the proto-orthodox succeeded and the heterodox failed. Further, he speculates briefly on what the success of an Ebionite or Gnostic or Marcionite Christianity might have entailed, while noting how all these tendencies (adoptionist, docetist, gnostic etc.) still occasionally manifest, if only on the fringes.
As he mentions in other publications, Ehrman was raised within a very conservative Christian culture, coming to his current agnosticism/atheism as a result of serious biblical study. This and his other popular books serve to similar ends and are to be recommended as antidotes to intolerance and credulity.
Throughout his book, Ehrman considers the socio-political factors that led to modern orthodoxy, why the proto-orthodox succeeded and the heterodox failed. Further, he speculates briefly on what the success of an Ebionite or Gnostic or Marcionite Christianity might have entailed, while noting how all these tendencies (adoptionist, docetist, gnostic etc.) still occasionally manifest, if only on the fringes.
As he mentions in other publications, Ehrman was raised within a very conservative Christian culture, coming to his current agnosticism/atheism as a result of serious biblical study. This and his other popular books serve to similar ends and are to be recommended as antidotes to intolerance and credulity.
October 24, 2021
A fascinating tale of the different early Christianities that did not catch on. Had one of them done so, the world may have looked completely different since it’s unlikely that any of them would have become the official religion of Rome. There is also an interesting discussion on what gospels went into the Bible, which did not and why.
If you think the Bible is holy and immutable, then this book is probably down right heretical. For everyone else, it’s quite fascinating material on how one of the world’s dominant religions came into being.
If you think the Bible is holy and immutable, then this book is probably down right heretical. For everyone else, it’s quite fascinating material on how one of the world’s dominant religions came into being.
April 17, 2023
Came to this book after reading The Evil Creator: Origins of an Early Christian Idea and was interested in learning more about these other early "heretical" christianities, especially Marcion(ism).
But this book explores even more "heretical" forms of christian thought and beliefs (the Ebionites, the Marcionites, and the Gnostics). These beliefs were very diverse but ultimately one group (synthesis) became dominant.
The author gives a clear explanation of the way this occurred, but he also asks a lot of questions of the type "what if" this of that other "heresy" became dominant. [Ch 12, first paragraphs, starting in pg. 247.] I think this was a weak point of the book.
It is my conviction, and the author hints at this several times, that the proto-orthodoxy was at the time a sort of middle ground among all these diverse form of christianities. And this, IMO, would have made it "compromised" (not radical enough, as we say today), and this is exactly what scholars demonstrate that it is, an attempt to expand influence by reshaping itself depending on the necessity.
It's a bit as a political party today, which compromises its most radical faction in order to appeal to a larger audience. Not that the Party has a will of its own, but because the party is nothing more but a conglomerate of individuals, and it is in the selfish interest of any of these individuals (who see personal opportunity in riding along this Party) to keep it strong and exert its influence in a larger audience. Hence, most of the members of a Party will to a certain degree submit to the what appears to be the dominant interpretation at the moment, and in other cases try to use their influence to push their p.o.v. Obviously, there will be courageous individual voices who will stay unmoved in their convictions, but the "mob" or the dominant faction will label them heretics.
This is exactly what happened in the US leftist/progressive faction - they were eliminated due to the circumstances and this inner logic of a movement I attempted to describe here. This is the same way classical liberals, and paleo-libertarians were excluded from the Republican Party in the USA.
I take these recent contemporary examples to make a further observation (a weak point of this book, or something I would like to know more about). We know other factors influenced the political movements I mentioned, hidden interests/agendas, economic factors etc.
Were there any such factors in early Christianity, that we can hypothesize but cant exaclty point towards? We know for example that the proto-orthodox views gained power because they were originally located in Rome and co-opted the "political routes" and hence exerted influence elsewhere, initially, obviously unofficially - the author gives the example of the First Epistle of Clement (1 Clement), a letter from Clement of Rome, a leader of the Roman church, to the church in Corinth, to urge the Corinthians to restore harmony and order in their church. Cant remember exacly now, but there was a rebellion of one of these "heretic" christian movements there, and Clement of Rome wrote in support of his favorite faction. A precursor of what was to come. Anyhow.
-
Here are some quotes that summarize how orthodox views were shaped, by trying to silence others, and also by trying to co-opt "heretical" ideas, with the intention of integrating them into orthodoxy or for attacking other "heretical" factions.
[pg 195]
-
[pg 252-253]
But this book explores even more "heretical" forms of christian thought and beliefs (the Ebionites, the Marcionites, and the Gnostics). These beliefs were very diverse but ultimately one group (synthesis) became dominant.
The author gives a clear explanation of the way this occurred, but he also asks a lot of questions of the type "what if" this of that other "heresy" became dominant. [Ch 12, first paragraphs, starting in pg. 247.] I think this was a weak point of the book.
It is my conviction, and the author hints at this several times, that the proto-orthodoxy was at the time a sort of middle ground among all these diverse form of christianities. And this, IMO, would have made it "compromised" (not radical enough, as we say today), and this is exactly what scholars demonstrate that it is, an attempt to expand influence by reshaping itself depending on the necessity.
It's a bit as a political party today, which compromises its most radical faction in order to appeal to a larger audience. Not that the Party has a will of its own, but because the party is nothing more but a conglomerate of individuals, and it is in the selfish interest of any of these individuals (who see personal opportunity in riding along this Party) to keep it strong and exert its influence in a larger audience. Hence, most of the members of a Party will to a certain degree submit to the what appears to be the dominant interpretation at the moment, and in other cases try to use their influence to push their p.o.v. Obviously, there will be courageous individual voices who will stay unmoved in their convictions, but the "mob" or the dominant faction will label them heretics.
This is exactly what happened in the US leftist/progressive faction - they were eliminated due to the circumstances and this inner logic of a movement I attempted to describe here. This is the same way classical liberals, and paleo-libertarians were excluded from the Republican Party in the USA.
I take these recent contemporary examples to make a further observation (a weak point of this book, or something I would like to know more about). We know other factors influenced the political movements I mentioned, hidden interests/agendas, economic factors etc.
Were there any such factors in early Christianity, that we can hypothesize but cant exaclty point towards? We know for example that the proto-orthodox views gained power because they were originally located in Rome and co-opted the "political routes" and hence exerted influence elsewhere, initially, obviously unofficially - the author gives the example of the First Epistle of Clement (1 Clement), a letter from Clement of Rome, a leader of the Roman church, to the church in Corinth, to urge the Corinthians to restore harmony and order in their church. Cant remember exacly now, but there was a rebellion of one of these "heretic" christian movements there, and Clement of Rome wrote in support of his favorite faction. A precursor of what was to come. Anyhow.
-
Here are some quotes that summarize how orthodox views were shaped, by trying to silence others, and also by trying to co-opt "heretical" ideas, with the intention of integrating them into orthodoxy or for attacking other "heretical" factions.
Protoorthodox Christians were compelled to fight adoptionists on one side and docetists on the other, Marcion on one side and various kinds of Gnostics on the other. When one affirms that Jesus is divine, against the adoptionists, there is the problem of appearing to be a docetist. And so one must affirm that Jesus is human, against the docetists. But that could make one appear to be an adoptionist. The only solution, then, is to affirm both views at once: Jesus is divine and Jesus is human. And one must also deny the potentially heretical implications of both affirmations: Jesus is divine, but that does not mean he is not also human; Jesus is human, but that does not mean he is not also divine. And so he is divine and human, at one and the same time.
And thus the proto-orthodox paradoxical affirmations embodied in the creeds, about God who is the creator of all things, but not of the evil and suffering found in his creation; about Jesus who is both completely human and completely divine and not half of one or the other but both at once, who is nonetheless one being not two; about the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as three separate persons and yet comprising only one God.
[pg 195]
-
What is less obvious but possibly more historically significant is that views of the various proscribed and lost groups of Christians lived on even within orthodox Christianity. In some instances these are views that were “common ground” among various Christian communities; in other instances, however, they are views that the orthodox Christianity took over from “aberrant” groups that had been otherwise reformed or suppressed. Sometimes it is not possible to know which is which, that is, whether a view was “shared” or “borrowed.”
In either event, the survival of these views shows, to some extent, the capacity of proto-orthodox Christianity not only to attack but also to incorporate disparate understandings of the faith.
Thus, for example, orthodox Christianity shared with (or borrowed from) the Ebionites a profound reverence for the traditions of Israel; they accepted the sacred texts of the Hebrew Bible, emphasized the oneness of God, and stressed the humanity of Jesus. All of these continue to be features of Christianity today. On the other hand, orthodox Christianity shared with (or borrowed from) the Marcionites the sense of the newness of God’s revelation in Christ; they accepted the idea of a closed canon of Scripture, the primacy of the literal interpretation of the text, and an emphasis on Jesus’ divinity. At the same time, they shared with (or inherited from) the Marcionites a disdain for and distrust of all things Jewish, along with the notion, still found among Christians today, that the Old Testament God is a God of wrath, whereas the New Testament God is a God of love and mercy. So, too, orthodox Christianity agreed with (or borrowed from) some groups of Gnostics the idea that there is a spiritual elite within the Christian church at large, who have special insights into the nature of God; possibly they also inherited the stress on figurative ways of interpreting texts, and a sense that the material world is to be rejected in favor of the spiritual, leading to a concomitant rationale for ascetic behavior that punishes the material self by depriving the body of its desires and even needs.
Some of these “common grounds” or “borrowings,” whichever they were, obviously stood in tension with one another, and several unique aspects of proto-orthodoxy were the result. For example, while affirming the authority of the Jewish Scriptures (with the Ebionites but against the Marcionites), the protoorthodox rejected historical Judaism (with the Marcionites against the Ebionites); while affirming the divinity of Jesus (with the Marcionites against the Ebionites), they also affirmed his humanity (with the Ebionites against the Marcionites).
While insisting that the one true God is the creator of this world (against Marcion and Gnostics) they often denigrated this world and strove to escape its material trappings through ascetic practices (with Marcion and Gnostics).
[pg 252-253]
May 1, 2024
I found Lost Christianities very engaging. I've never read Ehrman's books before and was pleasantly surprised by his thorough writing. That being said, I feel as though at least this book is very introductory, and sometimes Ehrman spends too long entertaining unrealistic or "pop" ideas about religion. Different sects of Christianity are the spotlight of the book. While he gives a great overview of important sects that both competed with and influenced the creation of an "Orthodox" Christianity, like the Marcionites, Ebionites, Valentians, etc., the book could've gone without some of the "What if the Orthodox didn't win?" Those kinds of conclusions felt a little heavy-handed. It's a small critique. So far, he seems more accessible than Pagels. I had a positive experience and will be reading more of his works. Recommended to me by RDS.
September 22, 2024
This is a book about how one early Christian group established itself as the dominant force in the early church and how they determined what Christians believe as sacred Scripture.
Why did the Ebionites, Marcionites, and the Gnostic sects become heresies and fall by the wayside and who were the historical characters that determined these actions for the establishment of the church we see today?
It's an intriguing read.
Why did the Ebionites, Marcionites, and the Gnostic sects become heresies and fall by the wayside and who were the historical characters that determined these actions for the establishment of the church we see today?
It's an intriguing read.
January 30, 2009
If you are interested in early church history, then this a book for you. The followers of Christ were more diverse over the first few centuries of the Christian religion than they are even now. From the Ebionites, who followed the laws of Judaism and used only a version of Matthew as their gospel, to the Marcionites, who only used the letters of Paul and Luke and NO old testament, there were many different interpretations of the religion. This book explores these two groups plus the Gnostics and the Proto-orthodox (they weren't "orthodox" yet) through their writings. This is difficult business because once one group came to dominate the others, most of the writings of the other groups were destroyed. In fact, many gospels and letters are only preserved through letters quoting them in order to condemn them. And many of the writings have only been rediscovered in the 20th century.
Of course, anyone with a New Testament knows how diverse views were in the early church. You just have to read the many references to "false teachers" in the NT to see that. Surely these "false teachers" also felt that the writers of the NT had it wrong. Paul's disagreements with Peter (Galatians) and with the so-called "super apostles" (2 Corinthians) are also good examples.
My favorite part of the book is where Ehrman describes the Jewish origins of Gnosticism. He does so in a very brief and effective way tracing Jewish views of God from the Exodus and the Davidic monarchy through the classical prophetic line of thought, to the emergence of apocalyptical literature, to the arrival at Gnostic thought where the material world is evil and not the product of the "true" God ( represented by Christ) but is rather the creation of the "demiurge" (Yahweh), an imposter God who thinks that He is the one and only God.
Ehrman is thorough and open-minded in his discussion of ancient texts and beliefs. He speculates on why the proto-orthodox view of Christianity "won". The Ebionites required circumcision for conversion - not promising for winning converts. The Marcionites ignored the Old Testament in a culture where ancient authority was revered - nobody wanted another cult with no history. The Gnostics were not into organization and hierarchy - a problem for growing and sustaining a religion. And they were into seriously symbolic stuff - difficult for many to accept.
Ehrman also discusses ancient forgery, both inside and outside of the New Testament, including one example (The Secret Gospel of Mark) where many scholars are very divided on its authenticity.
It's all really interesting, and Ehrman is at time humorous and rarely, if ever, boring. This review, of course, is only scratching the surface of the surface. If you're interested in this subject, this is a great read.
This is a good companion book to the works of Elaine Pagels since she focuses almost exclusively on early Christians Gnosticism. Ehrman rounds things out nicely.
Of course, anyone with a New Testament knows how diverse views were in the early church. You just have to read the many references to "false teachers" in the NT to see that. Surely these "false teachers" also felt that the writers of the NT had it wrong. Paul's disagreements with Peter (Galatians) and with the so-called "super apostles" (2 Corinthians) are also good examples.
My favorite part of the book is where Ehrman describes the Jewish origins of Gnosticism. He does so in a very brief and effective way tracing Jewish views of God from the Exodus and the Davidic monarchy through the classical prophetic line of thought, to the emergence of apocalyptical literature, to the arrival at Gnostic thought where the material world is evil and not the product of the "true" God ( represented by Christ) but is rather the creation of the "demiurge" (Yahweh), an imposter God who thinks that He is the one and only God.
Ehrman is thorough and open-minded in his discussion of ancient texts and beliefs. He speculates on why the proto-orthodox view of Christianity "won". The Ebionites required circumcision for conversion - not promising for winning converts. The Marcionites ignored the Old Testament in a culture where ancient authority was revered - nobody wanted another cult with no history. The Gnostics were not into organization and hierarchy - a problem for growing and sustaining a religion. And they were into seriously symbolic stuff - difficult for many to accept.
Ehrman also discusses ancient forgery, both inside and outside of the New Testament, including one example (The Secret Gospel of Mark) where many scholars are very divided on its authenticity.
It's all really interesting, and Ehrman is at time humorous and rarely, if ever, boring. This review, of course, is only scratching the surface of the surface. If you're interested in this subject, this is a great read.
This is a good companion book to the works of Elaine Pagels since she focuses almost exclusively on early Christians Gnosticism. Ehrman rounds things out nicely.
July 23, 2014
One of Ehrman’s best, I think. Thought-provoking and speculative, yet grounded, this book explores alternative early Christianities before “Proto-Orthodox Christianity” won the battle and shoved the rest aside. You’ll read about the Ebionites, the Marcionites, Gnosticism, and the evolving orthodox church. Ehrman puts all on even ground so that each has an equal voice, because recent discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven just how diverse Christian practices really were back in the first and second centuries.
Ehrman doesn’t mince words when he discusses the “forgeries” both in and out of the Bible, so do be aware the topic gets plenty of ink. This does lead to some interesting conversation, though. The Secret Gospel of Mark, the Pastoral letters in Paul’s name, and the Gospel of Thomas come under scrutiny. Small wonder that in the battle for supremacy between the various Christian branches, the claim for apostolic succession played a central role. Quickly in orthodox church tradition, our 27 books of the New Testament are all tied directly to the apostles or companions, while other Christian writings are denounced as inauthentic.
So what are the repercussions of the victory of proto-orthodox Christianity? How has our world been shaped by this? Ehrman feels the significance of this victory can scarcely be overstated. Christianity would surely have no doctrine of Christ as both fully divine and human, and of course no Trinitarian doctrine. But the effects would have been felt far further than Christian debates, and the book’s final chapter left me with much to think about.
Definitely recommended.
Oxford University Press, © 2003, 294 pages
ISBN: 0-19-514183-0
Ehrman doesn’t mince words when he discusses the “forgeries” both in and out of the Bible, so do be aware the topic gets plenty of ink. This does lead to some interesting conversation, though. The Secret Gospel of Mark, the Pastoral letters in Paul’s name, and the Gospel of Thomas come under scrutiny. Small wonder that in the battle for supremacy between the various Christian branches, the claim for apostolic succession played a central role. Quickly in orthodox church tradition, our 27 books of the New Testament are all tied directly to the apostles or companions, while other Christian writings are denounced as inauthentic.
So what are the repercussions of the victory of proto-orthodox Christianity? How has our world been shaped by this? Ehrman feels the significance of this victory can scarcely be overstated. Christianity would surely have no doctrine of Christ as both fully divine and human, and of course no Trinitarian doctrine. But the effects would have been felt far further than Christian debates, and the book’s final chapter left me with much to think about.
Definitely recommended.
Oxford University Press, © 2003, 294 pages
ISBN: 0-19-514183-0
June 19, 2009
Another excellent book by Bart Erhman. Not only are the historical facts that he presents fascinating--and challenging to many diehard Christians-- but they're "crucial" for ALL to read and understand.
Religion is a very tough and sensitive topic. I know from my own book, which dedicates several chapters to religious beliefs and how these deep ideologies shaped the minds and actions of many great- and also evil -leaders.
The broad array of Christian sects that immediately sprouted up after Jesus' crucifixion, that were in a fervent struggle to dominate their rivals who supposedly interpreted the Jesus message wrong, is not mere opinion, it is based upon hard scriptural evidence. Bart painstakingly presents that. Moreover, the disturbing story of how human intervention often reinterpreted and distorted the initial message is something that most Christians today are unaware of. This book, and others by Ehrman, have been crucial in not only getting that message out, but also very crucial in my own research, as a historical author and as a spiritual person seeking truth. As Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." Therefore, I entreat you all to begin seeking....
Religion is a very tough and sensitive topic. I know from my own book, which dedicates several chapters to religious beliefs and how these deep ideologies shaped the minds and actions of many great- and also evil -leaders.
The broad array of Christian sects that immediately sprouted up after Jesus' crucifixion, that were in a fervent struggle to dominate their rivals who supposedly interpreted the Jesus message wrong, is not mere opinion, it is based upon hard scriptural evidence. Bart painstakingly presents that. Moreover, the disturbing story of how human intervention often reinterpreted and distorted the initial message is something that most Christians today are unaware of. This book, and others by Ehrman, have been crucial in not only getting that message out, but also very crucial in my own research, as a historical author and as a spiritual person seeking truth. As Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." Therefore, I entreat you all to begin seeking....
January 29, 2019
O carte ce îmbină cercetarea istorică cu cea teologică, pentru a ne dezvălui cât de disputate erau primele secole după apariția creștinismului în privința prezentului și viitorului acestei religii.
Accentul este pus pe ”ceea ce s-a pierdut”, de la forme de creștinism pline de oameni de valoare și de mare erudiție (forme considerate imediat după, dar și acum ”eretice”) până la scrieri importante, distruse sau îngropate de tăvălugul proto-ortodox. Din fericire, mai sunt descoperite din când în când documente pentru a ne imagina (contrafactual, desigur) ”cum ar fi fost” dacă o altă ramură a creștinismului inițial ar fi dominat (ebioniții iudeo-creștini, marcioniți anti-iudaici, gnosticii etc.) Cel mai analizat corpus este cel descoperit la Nag Hammadi, în Egipt.
Un volum foarte interesant pentru problematica creștinismului timpuriu.
Accentul este pus pe ”ceea ce s-a pierdut”, de la forme de creștinism pline de oameni de valoare și de mare erudiție (forme considerate imediat după, dar și acum ”eretice”) până la scrieri importante, distruse sau îngropate de tăvălugul proto-ortodox. Din fericire, mai sunt descoperite din când în când documente pentru a ne imagina (contrafactual, desigur) ”cum ar fi fost” dacă o altă ramură a creștinismului inițial ar fi dominat (ebioniții iudeo-creștini, marcioniți anti-iudaici, gnosticii etc.) Cel mai analizat corpus este cel descoperit la Nag Hammadi, în Egipt.
Un volum foarte interesant pentru problematica creștinismului timpuriu.
April 24, 2022
4.25⭐
January 14, 2008
This book provided quite an educational and eye-opening experience in learning of some historical aspects of the creation of the New Testament. The subtitle of the book appropriately describes "the Faiths that We Never Knew" and primarily focuses on their co-existence (and eventual congealment with the early proto-orthodox church). I was fascinated at the variation of beliefs, forgeries, disagreements and incredible amount of scholarly exploration.
I continuously wondered throughout the course of the book why his material is relatively "hidden". That is, it seems as though the knowledge of creation of the New Testament is rarely given much attention and neither are the turbulent periods prior to its official canonization. I found it intriguing that canonization "officially" occurred during the Council of Trent, though a letter dated 367AD by Alexandrian bishop Athanasius which states, "in these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them." (p 230). And yet, as Ehrman explains, there continued to be debates and disputes even in his own church. These sort of statements, and additional material covering related events, kept causing me to think about the fact that there was _never_ a clear leader, only many disparate bishops (how many self-appointed, bought or otherwise gained power and monetary support) that appear to have espoused their own agenda prior the creeds. In my opinion and observation, clearly no prophetic leader nor priesthood authority.
There are many, many lost/heretical/non-canonized texts that Ehrman mentions and frequently references his other works in the end notes (in addition to many other sources he cites, I appreciated his thorough and thoughtful notes and references). He specifically covers 44 texts and their role during early Christianity. I felt that he gave ample attention to each in order to cover its relevance, at the same time he avoided providing all of the text in detail (which appeared to not really be necessary).
There was some disturbing material as well in terms of what some of the more off-the-path sects believed. This is no real surprise given Satan's ability to twist and thwart principles of righteousness by contorting them to supply justification of immoral activity.
Lastly, I think this book makes it very clear, in its short 294 pages, that:
* there are NO original manuscripts of the New Testament writings, only "copies made from copies of the copies of the copies of the original"(p. 217)
* there are possibly hundreds of thousands of differences that occurred during the thousands of copies created during the centuries
* many of the accepted books of today's New Testament are suspected forgeries
* the proto-orthodox church engaged in its own modification of the canonized texts
* sects were incredibly diversified in accepted texts and belief systems, there was rare unification until the creeds
I underlined a lot of paragraphs I found particularly interesting in this book. Because this is the first historical analysis on early Christianity I've read, including the texts and creation of New Testament, I'd eagerly recommend it to those already having an interest in scripture study. In the perspective of The Restoration, I found it to be quite a source of corroboration in terms of lost truth, lost scripture and lost faith.
Because of the some the disturbing content (in terms of morality and my sensitivity threshold, which maybe equated to a full page) I rate this at 4/5
I continuously wondered throughout the course of the book why his material is relatively "hidden". That is, it seems as though the knowledge of creation of the New Testament is rarely given much attention and neither are the turbulent periods prior to its official canonization. I found it intriguing that canonization "officially" occurred during the Council of Trent, though a letter dated 367AD by Alexandrian bishop Athanasius which states, "in these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them." (p 230). And yet, as Ehrman explains, there continued to be debates and disputes even in his own church. These sort of statements, and additional material covering related events, kept causing me to think about the fact that there was _never_ a clear leader, only many disparate bishops (how many self-appointed, bought or otherwise gained power and monetary support) that appear to have espoused their own agenda prior the creeds. In my opinion and observation, clearly no prophetic leader nor priesthood authority.
There are many, many lost/heretical/non-canonized texts that Ehrman mentions and frequently references his other works in the end notes (in addition to many other sources he cites, I appreciated his thorough and thoughtful notes and references). He specifically covers 44 texts and their role during early Christianity. I felt that he gave ample attention to each in order to cover its relevance, at the same time he avoided providing all of the text in detail (which appeared to not really be necessary).
There was some disturbing material as well in terms of what some of the more off-the-path sects believed. This is no real surprise given Satan's ability to twist and thwart principles of righteousness by contorting them to supply justification of immoral activity.
Lastly, I think this book makes it very clear, in its short 294 pages, that:
* there are NO original manuscripts of the New Testament writings, only "copies made from copies of the copies of the copies of the original"(p. 217)
* there are possibly hundreds of thousands of differences that occurred during the thousands of copies created during the centuries
* many of the accepted books of today's New Testament are suspected forgeries
* the proto-orthodox church engaged in its own modification of the canonized texts
* sects were incredibly diversified in accepted texts and belief systems, there was rare unification until the creeds
I underlined a lot of paragraphs I found particularly interesting in this book. Because this is the first historical analysis on early Christianity I've read, including the texts and creation of New Testament, I'd eagerly recommend it to those already having an interest in scripture study. In the perspective of The Restoration, I found it to be quite a source of corroboration in terms of lost truth, lost scripture and lost faith.
Because of the some the disturbing content (in terms of morality and my sensitivity threshold, which maybe equated to a full page) I rate this at 4/5
June 6, 2014
This is an okay introduction to the history of the construction of the Christian canon, and a discussion of some of the theological ideas held by various ancient Christian sects which didn't survive antiquity. I did learn some things which were new to me—about the Marcionites and Ebionites—but never really got into the book otherwise.
Ehrman's not a particularly good writer on a technical level (I don't think it's necessary to be that repetitive even in a work of popular history on a sensitive topic), and I itched to go through the introductory chapter with a red pen and strip out all of the rhetorical questions. Some of the presentation also seems more designed for hooking readers than scholarly accuracy—I'm uneasy about how/when he uses the word "forgery" in an ancient context, and (admittedly working from my knowledge of comparable medieval religiously-motivated texts) think the array of motivations he provides for these "forgers" is incomplete. I also know just enough to know that his discussion of Christianity's gradual assumption of dominance within the Roman Empire is either outdated or so simplistic as to be inaccurate.
Ehrman's not a particularly good writer on a technical level (I don't think it's necessary to be that repetitive even in a work of popular history on a sensitive topic), and I itched to go through the introductory chapter with a red pen and strip out all of the rhetorical questions. Some of the presentation also seems more designed for hooking readers than scholarly accuracy—I'm uneasy about how/when he uses the word "forgery" in an ancient context, and (admittedly working from my knowledge of comparable medieval religiously-motivated texts) think the array of motivations he provides for these "forgers" is incomplete. I also know just enough to know that his discussion of Christianity's gradual assumption of dominance within the Roman Empire is either outdated or so simplistic as to be inaccurate.
September 12, 2013
“Изгубените християнства” – истинската история на религията, която никога не е била единна: http://knigolandia.info/book-review/i...
Никога не съм разбирал защо се говори изобщо за християнст��о, след като то се проповядва в толкова различни варианти от десетки и стотици големи (католицизъм, православие, протестанство) и малки (мормони, Свидетели на Йехова, адвентисти и какви ли още не) секти. Пълна мешаница от антагонисти, всеки от които претендира за монопол върху върховната, неоспорима (разбира се, недоказуема и непознаваема по рационален път) Истина и жадува налагане на собствените си ОКР-та като единствен правилен начин на живот на тая планета. Помежду си те се мразят и взаимно се отричат, а същевременно техните паства също копират подобно поведение като норма��но, дори и да противоречи на собствените им канони. Но както казва самият Барт Ърман: “Ние сме склонни да спорим най-често и най-разпалено с онези, чието мнение е най-близко до нашето.”
Издателство "Изток-Запад"
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/i...
Никога не съм разбирал защо се говори изобщо за християнст��о, след като то се проповядва в толкова различни варианти от десетки и стотици големи (католицизъм, православие, протестанство) и малки (мормони, Свидетели на Йехова, адвентисти и какви ли още не) секти. Пълна мешаница от антагонисти, всеки от които претендира за монопол върху върховната, неоспорима (разбира се, недоказуема и непознаваема по рационален път) Истина и жадува налагане на собствените си ОКР-та като единствен правилен начин на живот на тая планета. Помежду си те се мразят и взаимно се отричат, а същевременно техните паства също копират подобно поведение като норма��но, дори и да противоречи на собствените им канони. Но както казва самият Барт Ърман: “Ние сме склонни да спорим най-често и най-разпалено с онези, чието мнение е най-близко до нашето.”
Издателство "Изток-Запад"
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/i...
July 26, 2017
Biased scholarship, misleading turns of phrase, superficial understanding of Christianity and heresy. It is an embarrassment that a scholar would write this.
August 27, 2010
I admit I am an admirer to Bart D. Ehrman and read a lot his books. There are other sources that reveal the hidden books that were among the Christian and their writings that in my opinion most of what is written by Christians to some degree are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Most believers will confess they walk a better life when looking to what the leading of the Holy Spirit will teach.
In his book he shows that different religions since the time of Christianity, but what is missing is fundamentalism of the main gospels and the letters were placed in their to prove Paul's case before Rome. Luke his dear friend would right to his political friend in hopes that when PAUL stood before court he would be released. At least he was the first time. Since then religions were popping up everywhere, and most of the letters or information were forever destroyed this was their way of communicating long distance at the time.
With the founding fathers aware of this they began to have their creeds written to give the church strength which it was for at least 50 years. In this book the collections did not happen during this time, but there were many who were being destroyed for pure pleasure of the Romans non faith in anything really.
Many of these letters are held sacred today in Orthodox versions of their bible. Historians kept a point of view on how they saw the new faith in a man professed to be God.
This will include letter fragments from authors such as Mary Magdalene which I think wrote Hebrews or it could have been any one of the women that followed Jesus. Every since women have had a time of it just trying to be educated and knowing the Lord to be able to preach the word. Which when led my the Holy Spirit all things are possible with God. Who knows how many women have had a walk that was rejected by men who thought of them higher in position than what they ought.
I think Jesus was rejected because of his odd behavior as a child, God being so pure and seeing men as they really are gives way to condemnation. So some may have experienced the wrath as God was developing his human side to conform with the spiritual. This is why I think he went away from the age after 12 to 30 to be educated and influenced in the eastern way of life only to develop truth so that each people could understand truth.
The people then were not Christians and were very evil and more so as were the children. Heathens, and they were influenced by their own lusts and desires, and thought of no one but themselves. I believe it is possible for an earthly Jesus to not accept evil of others and did not understand the concepts of blessings until he met his mentor(s) as Zachaeus heard the wisdom and understood he was different than others. Jesus destroyed other demons later written in the gospels...he also matured to understand it was demons to be cast away not people to be punished, and that he was destined to do much more than that.
There are many instances that will give the mind something to expand into the unknown truths of God and how the human side is vulnerable to many things in life.
I have read many books similar to this book, so I just leave it up to the Holy Spirit to guide me through all that the world is and hope to see truth in all things.
Why couldn't there be other writings on Christians we read them everyday walking into bookstores and even writing them ourselves...of course we all have growing stages to go through. Jesus was not so different when it came to his human side. He just grew quicker than most and God sent him to learn. That is why he was so pleased with him as Jesus became the son and man God could really hope for.
In his book he shows that different religions since the time of Christianity, but what is missing is fundamentalism of the main gospels and the letters were placed in their to prove Paul's case before Rome. Luke his dear friend would right to his political friend in hopes that when PAUL stood before court he would be released. At least he was the first time. Since then religions were popping up everywhere, and most of the letters or information were forever destroyed this was their way of communicating long distance at the time.
With the founding fathers aware of this they began to have their creeds written to give the church strength which it was for at least 50 years. In this book the collections did not happen during this time, but there were many who were being destroyed for pure pleasure of the Romans non faith in anything really.
Many of these letters are held sacred today in Orthodox versions of their bible. Historians kept a point of view on how they saw the new faith in a man professed to be God.
This will include letter fragments from authors such as Mary Magdalene which I think wrote Hebrews or it could have been any one of the women that followed Jesus. Every since women have had a time of it just trying to be educated and knowing the Lord to be able to preach the word. Which when led my the Holy Spirit all things are possible with God. Who knows how many women have had a walk that was rejected by men who thought of them higher in position than what they ought.
I think Jesus was rejected because of his odd behavior as a child, God being so pure and seeing men as they really are gives way to condemnation. So some may have experienced the wrath as God was developing his human side to conform with the spiritual. This is why I think he went away from the age after 12 to 30 to be educated and influenced in the eastern way of life only to develop truth so that each people could understand truth.
The people then were not Christians and were very evil and more so as were the children. Heathens, and they were influenced by their own lusts and desires, and thought of no one but themselves. I believe it is possible for an earthly Jesus to not accept evil of others and did not understand the concepts of blessings until he met his mentor(s) as Zachaeus heard the wisdom and understood he was different than others. Jesus destroyed other demons later written in the gospels...he also matured to understand it was demons to be cast away not people to be punished, and that he was destined to do much more than that.
There are many instances that will give the mind something to expand into the unknown truths of God and how the human side is vulnerable to many things in life.
I have read many books similar to this book, so I just leave it up to the Holy Spirit to guide me through all that the world is and hope to see truth in all things.
Why couldn't there be other writings on Christians we read them everyday walking into bookstores and even writing them ourselves...of course we all have growing stages to go through. Jesus was not so different when it came to his human side. He just grew quicker than most and God sent him to learn. That is why he was so pleased with him as Jesus became the son and man God could really hope for.
August 17, 2018
Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianites: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. ISBN 9780195141832.
In Lost Christianities, Bart Ehrman has written two books in one. Book One is a very fine survey of the wide variety of religions of the Second and Third Centuries C.E. that each claimed to represent Jesus Christ, a larger-than-life figure from the early First Century C.E. You may have heard of Jesus Christ. He is the one whose birth parts the Western calendar into B.C.E. and C.E. (formerly B.C. and A.D.).
Within Book One is Book Two: an attempt to account for the dominance and long-term survival of one of the many “alternative Christianities,” the one we know today as Orthodox Christianity, whether Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox. In Book Two, you will recognize an author with an axe to grind. And you will be much delighted or much distressed, depending on whether you despise or cherish that old tree for which the author grinds his axe.
For Ehrman, in the survival of the fittest, Orthodoxy’s evolutionary advantage was its development of the New Testament canon. So, for him, the puzzle of the rise of Christian Orthodoxy is also the puzzle of the development of the Christian New Testament. In piecing together that puzzle, Ehrman has produced a work of art worthy of Picasso. But he has done so by leaving out pieces of the puzzle, and by cutting others to fit.
To locate the missing pieces and the discarded snippings, I recommend The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce, The Apostolic Preaching by C.H. Dodd, Simply Jesus by N.T. Wright, and Community And Growth by Jean Vanier.
For a very fine survey of the wide variety of religions of the Second and Third Centuries C.E. that each claimed to represent Jesus Christ, I would like to have recommended Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman, but he is an author with an axe to grind, and I am one of those who cherish that old tree for which the author grinds his axe.
In Lost Christianities, Bart Ehrman has written two books in one. Book One is a very fine survey of the wide variety of religions of the Second and Third Centuries C.E. that each claimed to represent Jesus Christ, a larger-than-life figure from the early First Century C.E. You may have heard of Jesus Christ. He is the one whose birth parts the Western calendar into B.C.E. and C.E. (formerly B.C. and A.D.).
Within Book One is Book Two: an attempt to account for the dominance and long-term survival of one of the many “alternative Christianities,” the one we know today as Orthodox Christianity, whether Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox. In Book Two, you will recognize an author with an axe to grind. And you will be much delighted or much distressed, depending on whether you despise or cherish that old tree for which the author grinds his axe.
For Ehrman, in the survival of the fittest, Orthodoxy’s evolutionary advantage was its development of the New Testament canon. So, for him, the puzzle of the rise of Christian Orthodoxy is also the puzzle of the development of the Christian New Testament. In piecing together that puzzle, Ehrman has produced a work of art worthy of Picasso. But he has done so by leaving out pieces of the puzzle, and by cutting others to fit.
To locate the missing pieces and the discarded snippings, I recommend The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce, The Apostolic Preaching by C.H. Dodd, Simply Jesus by N.T. Wright, and Community And Growth by Jean Vanier.
For a very fine survey of the wide variety of religions of the Second and Third Centuries C.E. that each claimed to represent Jesus Christ, I would like to have recommended Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman, but he is an author with an axe to grind, and I am one of those who cherish that old tree for which the author grinds his axe.
August 10, 2018
I'm about as religious as a brick and it's a topic of conversation that often finds me slinking towards the nearest bottle of Hendrick's because people who like to argue about it are usually irreconcilable, insufferable (especially atheists!), and probably not drunk enough.
However, I do like to read about religion especially its history since religions are created and minded and tended by people, mostly, who have no powers, little-to-no foresight and who usually contain questionable odors, the lack of all of which disqualifies them from pretension to being able to discuss religion.
"Lost" is a nice exception. It has a fruitful abundance of powers, rearsight (out of the gutter, folks!) and the binding wafted deliciously with the scent of raspberry and tonic.
"Lost" discusses how we got the Christian we have, stemming out of what the author terms proto-orthodoxy. This happened through a series of connivances, con-jobs and forgeries (well-intentioned and not) that led to a canonical New Testament eventually. This book is also about the Christianities that lost, the ones where there are multiple Gods, Christ's message of gentleness was at the forefront, or there were wacky cosmic cataclysms that led to the creation of this reality and life is a constant striving out of the mortal shell back towards universal awesomeness. Some Christianities thought Judaic law should be adhered to; others thought Judaic law deserved little more than unceremonial dumping into the compost heap of pagan religion.
It is a fascinating, complex tale of multiple "correct" Christianities, their defenders, and, mostly, their detractors, since they won. Ehrman goes out of his way to be fair and unflinching and most readers will find little to offend here.
However, I do like to read about religion especially its history since religions are created and minded and tended by people, mostly, who have no powers, little-to-no foresight and who usually contain questionable odors, the lack of all of which disqualifies them from pretension to being able to discuss religion.
"Lost" is a nice exception. It has a fruitful abundance of powers, rearsight (out of the gutter, folks!) and the binding wafted deliciously with the scent of raspberry and tonic.
"Lost" discusses how we got the Christian we have, stemming out of what the author terms proto-orthodoxy. This happened through a series of connivances, con-jobs and forgeries (well-intentioned and not) that led to a canonical New Testament eventually. This book is also about the Christianities that lost, the ones where there are multiple Gods, Christ's message of gentleness was at the forefront, or there were wacky cosmic cataclysms that led to the creation of this reality and life is a constant striving out of the mortal shell back towards universal awesomeness. Some Christianities thought Judaic law should be adhered to; others thought Judaic law deserved little more than unceremonial dumping into the compost heap of pagan religion.
It is a fascinating, complex tale of multiple "correct" Christianities, their defenders, and, mostly, their detractors, since they won. Ehrman goes out of his way to be fair and unflinching and most readers will find little to offend here.
January 15, 2013
Really really good book. It has finally given me the motivation to start reading The Bible and gave a really interesting history of early Christianity. I think the author did a great job of keeping the book very academic and factual, especially with such a sensitive topic as religion. It did this without ridiculing the religion so it was overall a very enjoyable read.
I think the author did a good job of making this accessible to the lay person. Most obscure academic terms are spelled out and I never found myself getting bogged down in any of the explanations of things. I think most people who are interested could pick this up and not have too much trouble following what is going on.
My only desire is that it might have included more of the apocrypha, but I suppose I can go read them on my own time and that too much inclusion of the texts might have made this long and overbearing.
Highly recommended.
I think the author did a good job of making this accessible to the lay person. Most obscure academic terms are spelled out and I never found myself getting bogged down in any of the explanations of things. I think most people who are interested could pick this up and not have too much trouble following what is going on.
My only desire is that it might have included more of the apocrypha, but I suppose I can go read them on my own time and that too much inclusion of the texts might have made this long and overbearing.
Highly recommended.
December 18, 2013
A comprehensive and very accessible introduction to biblical history and early Christian sects from one of the leading researcher's on the subject. I particularly enjoyed the discussion on textual differences- those that happened by accident and those that were inspired by a need to bring the text into line with non-heretical philosophy, and the detective work done by scholars to distinguish which is which. The last chapter which dwells hypothetically on what if one of the other forms of early Christianity had survived dragged on a bit and seemed unnecessary. I would give the book 3.5 but rounded up because I do think it's a subject that more people need to be informed on.
July 30, 2011
As an introduction to the various forms of christianity, e.g. Gnosticism or Marcionism, that existed in the first few hundred years of this odd spin-off of Judaism. Ehrman, a recognized authority of early christianity also is a skilled writer, making this a fine introduction to the early chaos that in time coalesced into the christian orthodoxy. If happen to believe in churchy stuff, or just have an interest in the early history of the most influential religious movement in the history of especially Euroamerican civilization, this is a very informative read.
July 13, 2020
Easy read on Christianity when it wasn’t Catholic, Protestant or Baptist, which is believing in Jesus our savior as both human and Devine. It was whether you believed in one God, two God or 365! That Jesus was Gnostic instead of Jewish. That you disregarded all of the Old Testament and it’s traditions or kept them close. Who knew the truth because there was no New Testament until the 3rd century. This book details the battles that took place between these Christianities (sp?), their writings, who won, who lost and why. Great read!!
March 14, 2013
Excellent read on nascent currents in early Christianity, delivers an overview of the various Factions -- ebionites, marcionites, gnostics and proto-orthodox (author label for the segment that eventually emerged victorious). Describes content of various apocryphal gospels, epistles and revelations used by the various factions, focusing on the "lost" manuscripts, many of which surfaced in 20th century as a result of dead sea scrolls and nag hammadi discoveries.
December 17, 2014
Interessante quanto gli altri libri dello stesso autore.
Molto scorrevole e documentato.
In diverse parti riprende temi affrontati in dettaglio in altri libri.
Bello.
Da leggere assolutamente :)
Molto scorrevole e documentato.
In diverse parti riprende temi affrontati in dettaglio in altri libri.
Bello.
Da leggere assolutamente :)
July 1, 2021
I found this book absolutely fascinating. I was long aware that the canon of the bible that is commonly used today by most Christians (certainly not all) was not settled until around the year 400. And the final judgement was apparently forced upon the feuding bishops by the Roman emperor Theodosius around AD 380-383 in terms of the Nicean Creed (particularly the doctrine of the trinity) and how it was to be interpreted and also what books would be accepted into the official canon of the church.
The issue is that there were actually plenty to choose from. And that is what Bart Ehrman is writing about. He makes the comment that during the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found amongst people who called themselves Christians were so varied that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-day Adventists paled by comparison.
Ehrman has a remarkable discussion about forgeries that were circulation in the early years of Christianity ...including a number which apparently found their way into the most widely used bible. And, a book written in Paul's name, 2 Thessalonians, warns against a letter, allegedly written by Paul that had disturbed some of its readers. In an interesting twist, scholars today are not sure that 2 Thessalonians was actually written by Paul. So here is an irony: either 2 Thessalonians was written by Paul and someone else was producing forgeries or 2 Thessalonians is a forgery itself, with a warning to be wary of forgeries. A number of books in the current canon are widely regarded by scholars as forgeries. For example the author of 2 Peter claims to be Simon Peter, the disciple of Jesus. But scholars are virtually unanimous that it was not written by him. So too the Epistles 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus: They claim to be written by Paul, but appear to have been written long after his death. Why should this matter if the text is in keeping with the "correct" doctrines of the church? Well, I guess the real issue is such texts were relied upon to decide the "correct" doctrines. And, whilst you may accept that if Paul is the author then the doctrine must be correct (and that's a bit rich anyway) ....you might not be so keen to accept the work of some early forger, keen to promote his own view of doctrines.
Then there are the corrections that have crept into the bible. Some scribes appear to have had no compunctions about correcting an error (for example from Mark 1:2 where a citation from the book of Malachi is quoted as coming from Isaiah). And some changes appear to have been inserted by scribes just to emphasise a point. For example the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at 16:8....with the report that the women fled Jesus's empty tomb in fear. but later manuscripts append an additional 12 verses ...with a remarkable speech from Jesus where he says that those who believe in him will be able to handle poisonous snakes and drink deadly poison etc. Likewise, most scholars think that the story of the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John was a story added years after the original was produced. And sometimes scribes found a marginal note scribbled by an earlier scribe and thought it was to be included as part of the text. In fact, there are many ways that errors and variations crept into versions of ancient texts.
There were a huge number of documents in circulation that never made it into the official canon of 27 books in the new testament but had enormous following over the first 300-400 years of the church. For example, the Gospel of Peter was apparently more widely circulated than the gospel of Mark. (More copies of the former have been found in archeological investigations). And one of the motivations in producing an "official" list of acceptable documents was that certain sects took the view that they had an on-going revelation from God (I guess, greatly encouraged by practices such as speaking in tongues and the anointing by the Holy Ghost). Hence they could lay claim to new revelations and new doctrines (just as modern day prophets have done: such as Joseph Smith with his golden tablets and the establishment of the Mormon church). The "Establishment" of course looked askance at this free-ranging development of doctrine and wanted to lock it down to an accepted official form. Hence the refinement of acceptable books of the bible and the doctrines that they supported.
Even here, however, controversy raged. Especially over the doctrine of the trinity. It's probably fair to say that every possible permutation of the trinity enjoyed a following at some time. For example: there was a version where Jesus was "begotten" of God and therefore inferior; there were versions where Jesus was just a man and not part of God. (The Ebionites, and Theodotians). There were versions where Jesus was God but not man (Macionites, some Gnostics). Or two beings, one man and one God (most Gnostics). The proto-orthodoxy (the group that came out on top) opted for none of these. Christ was both god and man ....yet he was acknowledged as one being, not two.
The fine details still had to be worked out: did he have a human soul but a divine spirit ? etc., etc. And the controversies and differing views are testament to the fact that the doctrines are not only mysterious but pretty dodgy and unbelievable. (Certainly the Muslims use the argument against the Christians that they really believe in three gods not one).
It was Augustine, sitting in his Bishopric in Hippo in North Africa that finally settled the canon by throwing his weight behind a list of books compiled by Athanasius (Bishop of Alexandria). Augustine was pretty well connected with the Roman enforcers and once he got the backing of the Roman army things were pretty much settled. (See Augustine: a new biography by James O'Donnell) If you didn't accept the, then, orthodox views, your property (and churches) were seized and you were expelled from the cities. In fact, the treatment was pretty much the reverse of what one might expect from forgiving and tolerant Christians. And it set the pathway for centuries of intolerance and pogroms by the official church. (An interesting aside is that Augustine's mother and Augustine himself belonged to a semi-heretical sect that later was stamped out by Augustine's goons). It was also pretty clear that church doctrines were not really set by Christ himself but by the Bishops who came later ....and more or less made it up themselves as they went along. Augustine, for example was tormented endlessly about the fate of children who had died but had not been baptised...... and could there be such a thing as infant baptism?
Ehrman makes the point that the New Testament is considered by most people throughout the course of its history to be a single book with a unified message that serves as the ultimate basis for this religion's faith and practice.....it's quoted on the floor of the US Senate to justify acts of war and at peace rallies to oppose the use of military force; its authority is cited by both opponents and proponents of the right of a woman to have an abortion,.....by both opponents and proponents of gay rights. It was used to justify slavery and to abolish slavery...etc etc.
But where did this book come from? It came from the victory of the proto-orthodox with the backing of the Roman army. What if another group had won? What if the New Testament contained not Jesus' Sermon on the mount but the Gnostic teachings Jesus delivered to his disciples after his resurrection? What if it contained not the letters of Paul and Peter but the letters of Ptolemy and Barnabas? What if it contained not the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, but the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Mary and Nicodemus? Or what if it did not exist at all? Or what of the assumption that the real meaning of a text is not the literal one but the words have secret meanings available only to those who have been given special training or special insights?
In all these situations the outcome for Christianity would be profoundly different to what we have today. If the Marcionate Christians had gained ascendancy people would not be asking do you believe in God but do you believe in the two gods? On the other hand if the Ebionite Christians had gained ascendancy would Christianity remain a sect within Judaism .....would conversion have required circumcision? (This version of Christianity was labouring under a huge handicap!....never likely to take off).
One issue for the early Christians was to establish their antecedents because of the widespread belief that if a religion was new then nothing new could be true. The strategy the Christians adopted to avoid this obstacle was to embrace the Jewish scriptures and claim them as their own and claim that this religion is the fulfilment of all that had been prosed in the very old Jewish books.
I was aware that there were other books in circulation before the canon of the New testament was accepted but Ehrman had made me much more aware of the battle for supremacy of the opposing views and the incredible implications for our history if another side had come out on top in the battle for orthodoxy. And it could easily have happened. The orthodoxies so casually accepted today have emerged from some fairly violent and virulent conflicts and there is little to indicate that the victories were divinely led or inspired. Victory seems to have gone to the most politically adept.
All in all, a stimulating and challenging book. Happy to give it 5 stars.
The issue is that there were actually plenty to choose from. And that is what Bart Ehrman is writing about. He makes the comment that during the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found amongst people who called themselves Christians were so varied that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-day Adventists paled by comparison.
Ehrman has a remarkable discussion about forgeries that were circulation in the early years of Christianity ...including a number which apparently found their way into the most widely used bible. And, a book written in Paul's name, 2 Thessalonians, warns against a letter, allegedly written by Paul that had disturbed some of its readers. In an interesting twist, scholars today are not sure that 2 Thessalonians was actually written by Paul. So here is an irony: either 2 Thessalonians was written by Paul and someone else was producing forgeries or 2 Thessalonians is a forgery itself, with a warning to be wary of forgeries. A number of books in the current canon are widely regarded by scholars as forgeries. For example the author of 2 Peter claims to be Simon Peter, the disciple of Jesus. But scholars are virtually unanimous that it was not written by him. So too the Epistles 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus: They claim to be written by Paul, but appear to have been written long after his death. Why should this matter if the text is in keeping with the "correct" doctrines of the church? Well, I guess the real issue is such texts were relied upon to decide the "correct" doctrines. And, whilst you may accept that if Paul is the author then the doctrine must be correct (and that's a bit rich anyway) ....you might not be so keen to accept the work of some early forger, keen to promote his own view of doctrines.
Then there are the corrections that have crept into the bible. Some scribes appear to have had no compunctions about correcting an error (for example from Mark 1:2 where a citation from the book of Malachi is quoted as coming from Isaiah). And some changes appear to have been inserted by scribes just to emphasise a point. For example the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at 16:8....with the report that the women fled Jesus's empty tomb in fear. but later manuscripts append an additional 12 verses ...with a remarkable speech from Jesus where he says that those who believe in him will be able to handle poisonous snakes and drink deadly poison etc. Likewise, most scholars think that the story of the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John was a story added years after the original was produced. And sometimes scribes found a marginal note scribbled by an earlier scribe and thought it was to be included as part of the text. In fact, there are many ways that errors and variations crept into versions of ancient texts.
There were a huge number of documents in circulation that never made it into the official canon of 27 books in the new testament but had enormous following over the first 300-400 years of the church. For example, the Gospel of Peter was apparently more widely circulated than the gospel of Mark. (More copies of the former have been found in archeological investigations). And one of the motivations in producing an "official" list of acceptable documents was that certain sects took the view that they had an on-going revelation from God (I guess, greatly encouraged by practices such as speaking in tongues and the anointing by the Holy Ghost). Hence they could lay claim to new revelations and new doctrines (just as modern day prophets have done: such as Joseph Smith with his golden tablets and the establishment of the Mormon church). The "Establishment" of course looked askance at this free-ranging development of doctrine and wanted to lock it down to an accepted official form. Hence the refinement of acceptable books of the bible and the doctrines that they supported.
Even here, however, controversy raged. Especially over the doctrine of the trinity. It's probably fair to say that every possible permutation of the trinity enjoyed a following at some time. For example: there was a version where Jesus was "begotten" of God and therefore inferior; there were versions where Jesus was just a man and not part of God. (The Ebionites, and Theodotians). There were versions where Jesus was God but not man (Macionites, some Gnostics). Or two beings, one man and one God (most Gnostics). The proto-orthodoxy (the group that came out on top) opted for none of these. Christ was both god and man ....yet he was acknowledged as one being, not two.
The fine details still had to be worked out: did he have a human soul but a divine spirit ? etc., etc. And the controversies and differing views are testament to the fact that the doctrines are not only mysterious but pretty dodgy and unbelievable. (Certainly the Muslims use the argument against the Christians that they really believe in three gods not one).
It was Augustine, sitting in his Bishopric in Hippo in North Africa that finally settled the canon by throwing his weight behind a list of books compiled by Athanasius (Bishop of Alexandria). Augustine was pretty well connected with the Roman enforcers and once he got the backing of the Roman army things were pretty much settled. (See Augustine: a new biography by James O'Donnell) If you didn't accept the, then, orthodox views, your property (and churches) were seized and you were expelled from the cities. In fact, the treatment was pretty much the reverse of what one might expect from forgiving and tolerant Christians. And it set the pathway for centuries of intolerance and pogroms by the official church. (An interesting aside is that Augustine's mother and Augustine himself belonged to a semi-heretical sect that later was stamped out by Augustine's goons). It was also pretty clear that church doctrines were not really set by Christ himself but by the Bishops who came later ....and more or less made it up themselves as they went along. Augustine, for example was tormented endlessly about the fate of children who had died but had not been baptised...... and could there be such a thing as infant baptism?
Ehrman makes the point that the New Testament is considered by most people throughout the course of its history to be a single book with a unified message that serves as the ultimate basis for this religion's faith and practice.....it's quoted on the floor of the US Senate to justify acts of war and at peace rallies to oppose the use of military force; its authority is cited by both opponents and proponents of the right of a woman to have an abortion,.....by both opponents and proponents of gay rights. It was used to justify slavery and to abolish slavery...etc etc.
But where did this book come from? It came from the victory of the proto-orthodox with the backing of the Roman army. What if another group had won? What if the New Testament contained not Jesus' Sermon on the mount but the Gnostic teachings Jesus delivered to his disciples after his resurrection? What if it contained not the letters of Paul and Peter but the letters of Ptolemy and Barnabas? What if it contained not the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, but the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Mary and Nicodemus? Or what if it did not exist at all? Or what of the assumption that the real meaning of a text is not the literal one but the words have secret meanings available only to those who have been given special training or special insights?
In all these situations the outcome for Christianity would be profoundly different to what we have today. If the Marcionate Christians had gained ascendancy people would not be asking do you believe in God but do you believe in the two gods? On the other hand if the Ebionite Christians had gained ascendancy would Christianity remain a sect within Judaism .....would conversion have required circumcision? (This version of Christianity was labouring under a huge handicap!....never likely to take off).
One issue for the early Christians was to establish their antecedents because of the widespread belief that if a religion was new then nothing new could be true. The strategy the Christians adopted to avoid this obstacle was to embrace the Jewish scriptures and claim them as their own and claim that this religion is the fulfilment of all that had been prosed in the very old Jewish books.
I was aware that there were other books in circulation before the canon of the New testament was accepted but Ehrman had made me much more aware of the battle for supremacy of the opposing views and the incredible implications for our history if another side had come out on top in the battle for orthodoxy. And it could easily have happened. The orthodoxies so casually accepted today have emerged from some fairly violent and virulent conflicts and there is little to indicate that the victories were divinely led or inspired. Victory seems to have gone to the most politically adept.
All in all, a stimulating and challenging book. Happy to give it 5 stars.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 288 reviews