Rating: 
Summary: Shines A Light Into A Dark Corner Of Religious History
Review: Lost Christianities is an examination of the tumultuous early years of Christianity, when enormous amounts of passion, and sometimes blood, was spilled over arguments about what exactly being a Christian meant. Ehrman writes in an accessible but highly scholarly style meant for the general reader. He explains the differences between Ebionites and Marcionites, as well as a host of other varieties of Christians, and illuminates the process through which the proto-Orthodox view of Christianity became the only acceptable version of that faith. Along the way he tells many fascinating stories and introduces us to some intriguing and in many cases heroic characters like Polycarp, Ignatius, and many others. He also has some interesting counter-factual speculations on what could have happened had Marcionism, for example, become the dominant form of Christianity. Many Christians have always assumed that the religious principles and practices that we have been brought up with were always a part of our faith, and that all Christians have always believed pretty much the same thing about the nature of Jesus and His relationship with God. This book helps us recognize that the true story of the early years of our faith is far more complicated than most of us ever knew.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting and riveting
Review: Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and The Faiths We Never Knew
Bart D. Ehrman
Ehrman writes of the various heresies that existed at the beginning of Christianity Each of these had cults, books and rituals that emanated from some belief in Jesus the Christ. In contrast there developed an orthodoxy, that Ehrman calls "proto-orthodoxy", meaning that it was the beginning of what seem "right thinking" for the early Christians. This proto-orthodoxy challenged these cults, fight them, suppressed their writings and excommunicated their followers. In the end they won. Christianity reflected the efforts of these early thinkers. Many of the documents of these early movements have been lost. Only with discovers in the 20th century have the words of these people come alive for us.
Ehrman considers a number of these sects and tries to portray what might have happened if they had succeeded. He concludes that proto-orthodoxy was the best of the lot in that it could be more rational and could serve the best interests of the Roman empire. Some of these early sects might have so narrow that Christianity would never have become a reality.
Yet by reviewing these sects and writings we are able to come to some appreciated of what some people sincerely believed in. Also Ehrman notes that proto-orthodoxy was diverse also and at times out orthordoxed itself. Another important aspect of Ehrman's book is to see that proto-orthodox leaders also made forgeries of documents that became canonical. Orthodoxy is not as monolithic that some of today's so-called orthodox adherents want everyone to believe
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing sensational
Review: Making a sensation from things known already to the scholars has made this book bestselling. Do not overlook, however, that proto-orthodoxy was much more important than sectarian dreams described in the apocryphal New Testament. Moreover, present Christianity is more divided than in the first or second century.
Rating:
Summary: Scholarly and fascinating
Review: Many Christians would be surprised to find that the early Christian church was not one with a common theology with only very minor differences between them. In fact there were many major differences between the early churches. Some believed that Christ was entirely human and not divine at all. Others believed he was entirely divine and not human at all. And, of course, there were a wide variety of beliefs between those extremes. This is just one of the examples of how widely apart the early Christian church was in terms of theology, soteriology, and even the purpose of the church in the world. There were also many different "scriptures" supposedly written by the apostles or those who were in direct contact with the apostles. Some of these are patently forgeries; others are hard to tell. What were these writings? What was their significance? Did any of the early churches treat them as part of their canon of sacred scriptures? If they did then why were they not included in the current canon of the New Testament? How did these affect the beliefs of the early church or how did the beliefs of the early church affect how these were written? Bart D. Ehrman takes on all of these questions through his riveting account of the "Lost Christianities", the beliefs and scriptures of the various early Christian churches. This is a very readable and well-organized treatise that is sure to become a commonly referred book for anyone interested in this historical aspect of the Christian Church. "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew" is a highly recommended read.
Rating:
Summary: To Go A Step Beyond
Review: Nearly all knowledgeable Biblical scholars realize there have been a wide range of writings attributed to Jesus and his Apostles..... and that some of these were selected for compilation into the book that became known as the Bible.....and that some books have been removed from some versions of the Bible and others have been re-discovered in modern times.
The attention focused on Gnosticism by Dan Brown's DaVinci Code may be debatable, but the fact is that increased attention on academics tends to be predominately positive.
This is great......I seldom quote other reviewers, but there is one reviewer of Pagels' books who confided that he had been a Jesuit candidate and had been required to study a wide range of texts but was never was told about the Nag Hamadi texts. He said:
"Now I know why. The Gospel of Thomas lays waste to the notion that Jesus was `the only begotten Son of God' and obviates the need for a formalized church when he says, `When your leaders tell you that God is in heaven, say rather, God is within you, and without you.' No wonder they suppressed this stuff! The Roman Catholic Church hasn't maintained itself as the oldest institution in the world by allowing individuals to have a clear channel to see the divinity within all of us: they need to put God in a bottle, label the bottle, put that bottle on an altar, build a church around that altar, put a sign over the door, and create rubricks and rituals to keep out the dis-believing riff-raff. Real `Us' versus `them' stuff, the polar opposite from `God is within You.' `My God is bigger than your God' the church(s)seem to say. And you can only get there through "my" door/denomination. But Jesus according to Thomas had it right: just keep it simple, and discover the indwelling Divinity `within you and without you.'"
Here are quickie reviews of what is being bought these days on the Gnostic Gospels and the lost books of the Bible in general:
The Lost Books of the Bible (0517277956) includes 26 apocryphal books from the first 400 years that were not included in the New Testament.
Marvin Meyers' The Secret Teachings of Jesus : Four Gnostic Gospels (0394744330 ) is a new translation without commentary of The Secret Book of James, The Gospel of Thomas, The Book of Thomas, and The Secret Book of John.
James M. Robinson's The Nag Hammadi Library in English : Revised Edition (0060669357) has been around 25 years now and is in 2nd edition. It has introductions to each of the 13 Nag Hammadi Codices and the Papyrus Berioinensis 8502.
The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (0140278079) by Geza Vermes has selected works....a complete work is more difficult to achieve than the publisher's marketing concept indicates. His commentary generates strong reactions.
Elaine Pagels has 2 books (The Gnostic Gospels 0679724532 and Beyond Belief : The Secret Gospel of Thomas 0375501568) that have received considerable attention lately. For many, her work is controversial in that it is written for popular consumption and there is a strong modern interpretation. She does attempt to reinterpret ancient gender relationships in the light of modern feminist thinking. While this is a useful (and entertaining) aspect of college women's studies programs, it is not as unethical as some critics claim. As hard as they may try, all historians interpret the past in the context of the present. Obviously there is value in our attempts to re-interpret the past in the light of our own time.
If you want the full scholarly work it is W. Schneemelcher's 2 volume New Testament Apocrypha.
Also, to understand the Cathars......try Barbara Tuckman's Distant Mirror for an incredible historical commentary on how the Christian Church has handled other points of view
Rating:
Summary: Historical Revisionism Accomplished by Ehrman's Omission
Review: Probably due to an undercurrent of anti-Catholic sentiment in the USA that began with the Puritans and can still be found among Protestant fundamentalists, there remains a dearth of knowledge and understanding of early Christianity. Ehrman, like a hide-n-seek friend jumping out from behind a bush, overwhelms the uneducated with a dizzying array of texts and obscure references from the first two "Christian" centuries. His point (which I agree with) is that these texts should not be so obscure, but have been "lost" or rejected by what he calls the "proto-orthodox." This designation refers to the dominant Christian group in the first three centuries - church leaders and theologians, speaking for an accepted faith, and standing against abberant viewpoints. "Proto-orthodox" because some of the views of this primitive group ultimately were rejected by later orthodoxy as theological issues continued to be defined.
Ehrman successfully illustrates the diversity of early Christianity. This diversity began with the apostles and is alluded to in the first Christian history, the Acts of the Apostles. Chapter 15 of Acts indicates some resolution in what was a growing problem for the early Church - was the Christian message to be separated from Judaism, or were converted Gentiles required to follow the laws of Moses? Ehrman documents how this struggle continued into the next two centuries. In particular, Ehrman reviews some of the evidence for the Ebionites (an early Jewish-Christian sect), Marcionites (an anti-Jewish/Old Testament and somewhat Gnostic sect), Christian Gnostics (as depicted by various documents advocating extreme asceticism), and the Montanists (a sect given to ecstatic utterance and apocalypticism). In addition, Ehrman cites various texts that did not make it into the New Testament canon and further illustrate the diversity of belief in the first three centuries: The Gospel of Peter, Acts of Paul, Didache, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Thomas, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, and The Gospel of Truth - this only represents around half the documents Ehrman cites. While Ehrman does a fine job of introducing these various sects and documents (one of his stated goals), some of his underlying assumptions are dubious. Throughout this study he states that these non-canonical texts were rejected, scorned and burned. Clearly there were times when documents were rejected and burned, but every document has its own story for why it was not accepted, or disappeared. Ehrman says as much in the chapter on how the NT canon came to be, and he consistently gives a fair historical synopsis when he discusses a particular text, but he misrepresents this historical period by consistently commenting on documents being "lost, rejected, and/or burned." It seems clear that Ehrman's commentary is predicated on the thesis that these non-canonical texts were discriminated against in a patristic conspiracy. As Ehrman states in the chapter on the NT canon, there were a few NT documents that only made the canon after years of debate and consternation. In an alternate space/time continuum Ehrman (and others) would be moaning about the "lost" Christianities due to the rejection of the Gospel of John, Hebrews, and that strange little letter attributed to the brother of Jesus, Jude. These NT books contain shades of Philo/Middle Platonism, ebionitic christology, and Judaistic apocalypticism respectively. There was no way to have a canon that contained all the texts claimed by "Christians" - the only practical option was to "accept" the best texts and allow the others to drift slowly into the sands of time. There are too many conflicting pieces of evidence in both the non-canonical texts and in the patristic record for the conspiracy theory to hold up. Another dubious assumption Ehrman makes is to assign more historical validity to these non-canonical sources than to the accepted NT texts. Against the NT record and all the writings of the early fathers, Ehrman wants us to believe the Acts of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas which both claim Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus. Although Ehrman does not think this Thomas really authored the gospel in his name (p.57), he appears to accept the claim that Jesus had a twin brother, Didymus Judas Thomas (didumos being "twin" in Greek). But, if this Thomas was in fact a twin, he could have been the twin of James, rather than of Jesus. The twin brother theory is never even alluded to in the NT and, as far as I know, is not supported in any of the early fathers. Again, in the Acts of Paul and Thecla we see extreme asceticism that goes against the Pauline record (1 Timothy) in the NT. Though Thecla is known to be a forged document, Ehrman believes these stories were not completely fabricated, "there are reasons for thinking that he [the forger] compiled stories he had heard, oral traditions that had been in circulation for years" (p.32). Belief in the conspiracy keeps Ehrman from granting the same latitude to the NT documents. Ehrman sees the Thecla stories to be more in line with NT Paul and the motivating factor for "Paul" to write 1 Timothy (p.39). So, we should consider the oral traditions behind Thecla to be more reliable than the oral traditions recounted by the fathers for Paul's authorship of the Pastorals. Why? The Conspiracy. More examples could be cited, but Ehrman states his presupposition, "Where did we get our New Testament Gospels in the first place, and how do we know that they, rather than the dozens of Gospels that did not become part of the New Testament, reveal the truth about what Jesus taught?" (p.93) The victors write the history and there were socio/geopolitical struggles that influenced the NT writers, but does that mean we disregard anything they tell us? Five hundred years from now someone will find twentieth century Neo-Nazi writings defending the Nazi party of the 1940's. Why would anyone believe this testimony over the writings of Winston Churchill or Dwight Eisenhower? Yet this is exactly what Ehrman seems to be advocating in Lost Christianities. R.A. Baker
Ph.D. Ecclesiastical History
Rating:
Summary: powerful historical perspective
Review: Professor Erhman provides deep yet easy to follow insight into the early days of Christianity by offering a deep look at the competing factions trying to gain supremacy and those documents that failed to become scripture. Additionally the Professor provides a fascinating look at what if scenarios in which a different group other than the"proto-orthodox" sect that reigned supreme had won. LOST CHRISTIANITIES: THE BATTLES FOR SCRIPTURE AND THE FAITHS WE NEVER KNEW is at its best when Professor Erhman digs deep into a divided religion in which to the victors goes the doctrine. He summarizes the various competitors through the first three centuries so that the readers receive a powerful historical perspective of multiple Christian factions as opposed to the popular current belief of solidarity. However, though well written and thought provoking especially with intriguing side conjectures, many readers familiar with similar works will feel that this religious thesis contains little new light on the Christian beginnings. Harriet Klausner
Rating:
Summary: How Did We Get the Bible and Modern Christianity?
Review: Review of Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, by Bart D. Ehrman Reviewer: Mark Lamendola The advice "Don't discuss politics or religion" usually makes good sense, because such discussions often pit one uninformed opinion against another-with a net negative result. What happens, however, when a person undertakes massive research to present an objective, respectful, scholarly view of a religious subject? One possible result is a captivating book that opens your mind and touches your heart. Bart Erhman achieved that result with this book. Ehrman discusses the various agendas of the authors behind both "scripture" and "heresy." He discusses how various writings supported the case for one faction of Christianity or another. He discusses what these writings were, how they came to be, how they were discovered after centuries of being lost, and how scholars have analyzed them. During all of this discussion, Ehrman doesn't push an agenda of his own. Indeed, he appears to explain the views and goals of each faction without taking the side of any of them. Consequently, the book moves the reader to a deeper, more informed, appreciation of Christianity. That appreciation creates a desire to replace divisive dogma with healing spirituality. The New Testament did not exist in early Christian times. It came about much later, and was a weapon in the battle for dominance among various factions. It served to unite many disparate churches into an orthodoxy. But, that orthodoxy necessarily negated the views of those whose "scriptures" weren't included in the New Testament. The New Testament is a collection of writings that support a particular set of views of Christianity (Ehrman explains why this is both a good thing and a bad thing). Many of the canonized books are not what they are commonly purported to be. In fact, some of them are forgeries. At first glance, such a statement seems inflammatory. Perhaps that's why Ehrman takes the reader through the evidence-rather than making simple proclamations. Here's a tidbit to consider. You may not know that III Timothy was considered for canonization, but then dropped-while II Timothy was included though it was known to be a forgery. What about the other books of the New Testament? And what about the other books that didn't make it into the New Testament? Ehrman answers those questions in a manner that does not attack Christianity, but instead reframes it in the spirit of truth. Many churches have split over differences in "following God's Word." Often, the underlying disagreements arise over interpretations of a passage in the New Testament. The "combatants for Christ" may mean well, but they both are most likely basing their differing interpretations on a forgery-rather than an Apostolic letter. As a result, we have many sects of Christianity rather than one true way. As varied as our flavors of Christianity are today, however, the variance was much greater in the early years of Christianity. Understanding this basic fact and understanding where our divisive doctrines came from will help anyone be a better member of the Christian family. For anyone who seeks to achieve such a goal, this book tills the soil and plants the seed. If you can do just a little watering and weeding, your faith will grow like a mustard seed.
Rating: 
Summary: Another What-If Book
Review: Since Elaine Pagels' Gnostic Gospels there has been a steady stream of books written on the subject of lost options in Christianity. This is a particularly bad example of that genre because it misrepresents the substance and nature of almost every heresy and threat it proposes to assess. Especially weak is Ehrman's treatment of Marcionism which he fundamentally misunderstands and seems to know only from the dated studies of Knox and Harnack. His idea that Marcion's view of God was too "new" for the church to accept is based on a howling anachronism in the dating of Marcion's heresy. In fact there is plenty to suggest that Marcion's solitary gospel and limited collection of Paul's letters corresponded to (and resonated with) the most ancient inclinations of Christian theology. In short, not only yet another case of popularization but a bad job of reading the evidence as well.
Rating:
Summary: What the Minister Left Out of His Sermon ...
Review: The author, Bart D. Ehrman, is a religious scholar who chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He shares with the public some of the most current and controversial discoveries about the early Christians. Frankly, it is an eye-opener. Truly, the statement "know the truth and the truth shall set you free" applies here. One senses the turmoil, conflicts, changes, and uncertainty of the times, the very real possibility of persecution which the early Christians faced with courage and dignity, ever faithful that the physical life on earth pales in comparison to what awaits them in the hereafter. Essentially, they were an evolving group who were in competition with the established religions of the time and occassionally had views that opposed the politicians, or those in power felt threatened by the "new thought". There were numerous *expressions* of belief with differences occuring in practice and stated doctrine. The one certainty they all shared was that Jesus was the Messiah and he survived crucifixion. Most of the early Christians expected Jesus would return in *their* lifetime, there would be a final judgement in *their* lifetime, there would be a 'heaven on earth' created, with the "resurrection" for all believers. However, when this did not happen ... the early Christians began slowly to develop a religious docrine. This took several centuries. Core beliefs became established and ingrained as a solid foundation upon which current religions are based. Some of the important points derived from this book are that human beings with specific agendas ('beliefs') inserted their interpretation into the manuscripts that were copied over and over and often taken to be accurate. Another interesting point is, how the concept of "apostolic succession" evolved ... and even this idea, has at least three different versions, "the Ebionite view", "the proto-orthodox view", and the "Valentinian view". The Ebionites claimed to represent the views of Peter the apostle ... Some very real controvery exists about who selected the writing that would become today, what is now known, as the New Testament. Numerous Apocrypha sources existed at the time. Paul's writing to the Corinthians and other groups attest to the many differences in belief and practice that existed in that era. The following topics covered in this book impressed me the most. The author does a detailed discussion and analysis of how conclusions are derived from stated beliefs. He explains how the Nicene and Athanasian creeds were developed. He tells us how the Roman Emperor Constantine influenced the practice of Christianity with his religious beliefs about Sol Invictus. The importance of the religious beliefs and practice of the Gnostics can not be over emphasized, although in modern times they receive little attention. Bart Ehrman does a phenomenal job of outlining the religious orthodoxy of Origin, who later was condemned as a heretic and most of his writing was destroyed. The sad truth is whoever holds political power determines the predominant view and ... like in all wars, the victor destroys wthe evidence he finds most threatening, that will undermine his position. The evolution of the "Trinity" as a consistent belief system and foundational structure of Christianity is very fascinating. Mr. Erhman describes why Paul's conversion and preaching of his newly found religious faith became one of the predominant views. Anyone who has become dissatisfied with the current practice of religion, where there is more ritual than substance, will appreciate this book. People reading this book should have a firmly established set of beliefs that are consistent for them, otherwise, this book may lead them to question a great deal more than they bargained for when picking up this book. The author is a highly articulate scholar in his field. He is intelligent enough to omit mentioning religious affiliation. This shows me he is sincere in his approach and makes every effort to provide an unbiased viewpoint. He did the reserach to uncover the evidence ... you, the reader will have to draw your own personal conclusions. Most highly recommended. Erika Borsos (erikab93)
|
