Find the course you would like to eGift. Fill out the details on the next page. You will need to the email address of your friend or family member. Proceed with the checkout process as usual. Q: Why do I need to specify the email of the recipient? A: We will send that person an email to notify them of your gift.
|Published (Last):||6 October 2018|
|PDF File Size:||10.96 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.88 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This book often plays a "what if" game. What if the Gnostics or the dualists or the Marcionites or the Ebionites won out? 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? 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.
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. Also of interest are the actual noncanonical texts, many of which can be found collected in "Lost Books of the Bible.
Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
What if the Ebionites-who believed Jesus was completely human and not divine-had ruled the day as the Orthodox Christian party? What if various early Christian writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Secret Gospel of Mark, had been allowed into the canonical New Testament? The proto-orthodox Christians won out over many other groups, and bequeathed to us the four Gospels, a church hierarchy, a set of practices and beliefs, and doctrines such as the Trinity. Ehrman eloquently characterizes some of the movements and Scriptures that were lost, such as the Ebionites and the Secret Gospel of Mark, as he outlines the many strands of Christianity that competed for attention in the second and third centuries. He issues an important reminder that there was no such thing as a monolithic Christian orthodoxy before the fourth century. While Ehrman sometimes raises interesting questions e.
The Proto-Prthodox Christians Won
Christianity of the patristic period is said to be "more diverse" than what is even loosely called Christianity today, a difference by which those of today "pale by comparison"; clearly Ehrman has not got on with learning about what is offered by Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, and the entire lot, for otherwise he would know the error of that statement. He is too busy rather implying that there is something wrong in denying the name Christian to someone like David Koresh  or to Arians who denied the divinity of Christ , though presumably he would not happily allow just anyone to affix to themselves the term New Testament scholar with the same level of permissiveness. It is not sufficient to object that there was one "form" of Christianity that came out the winner; the question is, did the winner deserve the trophy, and as with his other prior work Orthodox Corruption of Scripture Ehrman is monumentally silent about this. There is much about variations on Trinitarianism, but not a word about pre-NT Jewish Wisdom theology that backs up the Niceans.