HomeGroupsTalkMoreZeitgeist
Search Site
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Lost Christianities: The Battles for…
Loading...

Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (original 2003; edition 2005)

by Bart D. Ehrman (Author)

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingMentions
1,900248,680 (3.88)24
I can unequivocally recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn about the early history of Christianity and How It Got The Way It Is.

Ehrman writes from the perspective of a historian, not a theologian, so he is not trying to push one particular view as "true" - his intent is to discuss what all these disparate people, who all called themselves Christians, actually believed. What we have nowadays, he makes plain, is the result of a sort of last-man-standing war of attrition.

There's probably something in this for anyone who hasn't already made a reasonably in-depth study of the period, and plenty for anyone who hasn't. I admit that the parade of different groups (Marcionites, Ebionites, etc) makes one feel a bit as though one's head has turned into Euston Station, with all these people milling around, pushing and shoving, but Ehrman's writing style makes this more than tolerable.

Bart Ehrman has the gift of writing in a very engaging way in a subject that might, in other hands, be dry. Reading this, I had the feeling that I was sitting in a warm study with him, with a log fire and probably also crumpets, listening to him chatting about the first four centuries or so of Christianity (yes, while my head felt like Euston Station). This is a book you can curl up with for relaxation, not something you have to tackle with trepidation. ( )
2 vote T_K_Elliott | Mar 12, 2017 |
English (22)  French (1)  Italian (1)  All languages (24)
Showing 22 of 22
I didn't enjoy this as much as the other Ehrman books I've read (Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife and How Jesus Became God), possibly because Lost Christianities is more wide-ranging than those. It's more of a primer on early Christianity and its conflicts, and gives half its attention to the "proto-orthodox", instead of telling more juicy stories of strange heresies and sects that were suppressed, which is what I would have preferred as a casual reader (and, to be fair, what the title promises; you wouldn't expect a book called "Lost Christianities" to spend more time on the early orthodox theologians than it does on Gnosticism). There's a lot of space devoted to increasingly niche debates about the relationship between Christ and God (was Jesus human? was he God? was he both? if he was both how much of him was God and how much of him was human? how can God be contained in a human body?). As far as I can tell, this is what early theologians mostly wrote about, so I can't fault Ehrman for this, but it does get a bit dry, and I think he told the story of the debate in a more engaging way in How Jesus Became God.

Like his other books, Lost Christianities feels quite "undergraduate", like auditing a freshman theology module, New Testament History: 101. Not in a bad way though, he writes very clearly and gives great, straightforward summaries of the primary sources and how scholarship has approached them. ( )
  AaronPt | Dec 10, 2023 |
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 prophesied in the very old Jewish books....and thus award authority to the Old Testament...with all it's contradictions with the New Testament.

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. ( )
  booktsunami | Jul 1, 2021 |
Ehrman ably describes the theological issues of early Christianity--should Christians continue to follow Jewish law? should they reject Jewish law as no longer relevant? Was Jesus a human chosen by God for his mission, was he God incarnate only pretending to occupy a real body or was he both man and God? Which writings were genuine expressions of true doctrine, which were scripture for some groups and not for others? Thes might seem to be dry questions of interest only to theologians and historians, but Ehrman points out that our modern world would be quite different if those he terms the proto-orthodox had not prevailed and created the Christianity that we know today. A Christianity that insisted on converts becoming Jews, including circumcision and the observance of Jewish dietary law would have been unlikely to convert a Roman emperor and become the religion of the empire, for example. He doesn't address this particular issue, but anyone familiar with Christian apocalyptic sects would wonder what a Christianity in which the Book of Revelations had been excluded from the canon would be like. ( )
1 vote ritaer | May 1, 2020 |
I can unequivocally recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn about the early history of Christianity and How It Got The Way It Is.

Ehrman writes from the perspective of a historian, not a theologian, so he is not trying to push one particular view as "true" - his intent is to discuss what all these disparate people, who all called themselves Christians, actually believed. What we have nowadays, he makes plain, is the result of a sort of last-man-standing war of attrition.

There's probably something in this for anyone who hasn't already made a reasonably in-depth study of the period, and plenty for anyone who hasn't. I admit that the parade of different groups (Marcionites, Ebionites, etc) makes one feel a bit as though one's head has turned into Euston Station, with all these people milling around, pushing and shoving, but Ehrman's writing style makes this more than tolerable.

Bart Ehrman has the gift of writing in a very engaging way in a subject that might, in other hands, be dry. Reading this, I had the feeling that I was sitting in a warm study with him, with a log fire and probably also crumpets, listening to him chatting about the first four centuries or so of Christianity (yes, while my head felt like Euston Station). This is a book you can curl up with for relaxation, not something you have to tackle with trepidation. ( )
2 vote T_K_Elliott | Mar 12, 2017 |
Ehrman is very good at speaking in plain and understandable language about topics that folks often try and make complex and hard to understand. Folks who want no part of asking hard questions about the modern western orthodoxy will not like this or others of his books. You can see this plainly in the reviews and comments folks leave regarding his books.

However, if you're someone who asks the hard questions and you're willing to evolve and grow your faith as you learn more, then you'll very likely enjoy his books.

In this one, he focuses on the different early forms that Christianity took, prior to the Romanization of the religion when it was melded with official Roman state authority in the 4th century. ( )
1 vote bicyclewriter | Jan 8, 2016 |
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 ( )
2 vote DubiousDisciple | Jul 23, 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. ( )
  siriaeve | Jun 6, 2014 |
Dr. Ehrman is an historian, not a theologian, so he looks at ancient texts with the eye of an historian, factually, empirically. This may dismay biblical literalists who begin with a rock solid belief and then learn that the scriptures upon which they rely so heavily are the result of centuries of struggle, unknown authorship, forgeries and alterations by the hands through which they passed before they were found. Many interpretations and views were dominant at one time or another before being distilled into the current canon used by most Christian churches today. The present proliferation of Christian denominations shows that this interpretive struggle is still with us today, although somewhat more homogenized.

Dr. Ehrman has been called a heretic by a few fundamentalists, but he does not advance any religious view or belief. He simply presents the historical evidence of what we do know from study of ancient and recent finds (Dead Sea scrolls, Nag Hammadi, etc.) in comparison with the currently accepted canon and raises the questions of authenticity.

So read it at your own risk. If you want to know the historical origins of the bible with an open mind, this is a stunning introduction to the beginnings. If you are offended that anyone would consider a challenge to the bible on factual rather than spiritual grounds, you may be more comfortable keeping your blinders on. ( )
1 vote mldavis2 | May 27, 2014 |
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. ( )
  stillatim | Dec 29, 2013 |
It's hard to say whether I actually liked this book or not. I will say that it was exactly what I expected from Dr. Ehrman, being familiar with his writing. As always, his facts are flawless, his conclusions and hypemanship are worthless. He's a great read on early Christianity if you can skim past the hype and BS and get to the meat. I'd love to see him write an unbiased, nonjudgmental, truly scholarly work. I haven't seen one from him yet. ( )
  davidpwithun | Sep 16, 2011 |
Excellent overview of early Christianity, before it was decided which 27 books would form the New Testament canon that we have today. Ehrman is very readable and does a great job of explaining what happened as well as offering brilliant insights as to why.
  SThomasBLVL | May 20, 2011 |
Excellent overview of early Christianity, before it was decided which 27 books would form the New Testament canon that we have today. Ehrman is very readable and does a great job of explaining what happened as well as offering brilliant insights as to why. ( )
1 vote ncnsstnt | Apr 10, 2011 |
Not only am I not a biblical scholar, I never read the Bible. But I still was fascinated by this story of how historical evidence points to how very early Christian churches initially diverged along varying interpretations of underlying doctrines before the movement that the author calls 'proto-orthodoxy' gained enough authority to set what we now see as the Christian agenda. Much of this story is framed in how the 27 scriptures that now comprise the New Testament were selected from a much larger pool of writings, and how even some of them were altered from their original form to resolve doctrinal disputes.
It's not always easy reading, and I know I skimmed through portions of it. But this book was definitely worth starting and finishing. ( )
1 vote dickmanikowski | Nov 17, 2010 |
Growing up in a Christian family, the Bible just was. It existed, it was the word of God. But how did that come to be? The first time I learned about the authorship of the Bible was interestingly enough, in my Catholic High School's Freshman Religious Studies class. I learned about the source material for the Gospels (Q) and other interesting tidbits. Still, it wasn't discussed much, or in great detail.

As it turns out, there were many forms of early Christianity. Their teachings varied widely from each other. Roman Catholics and Baptists are practically identical compared with some competing Christian churches in the ancient world. This book discusses those versions of Christianity, where they came from, what they believed, what religious texts they used, and ultimately, why they died out by about the 4th Century.

The author is a well regarded professor of Religious Studies who focuses on early Christianity, so his angle is purely academic and not religious. This may offend people who didn't realize that the church did not spring fully formed when Christ ascended. This book also discuss theological questions, nor does it claim which version of early Christianity was the One True Church.

I found the book fascinating and the writing clear. I just had one minor annoyance - it would have been helpful if he used footnotes instead of end notes. ( )
5 vote stacyinthecity | Jan 30, 2010 |
Ehrman, who frequently appears on History Channel and the science stations. This book is a discussion of some of the different churches and beliefs of Christians during the first century. A main point of this history is that the present form of Christianity, that we tend to think of as the 'right' or orthodox viewpoint, is merely the one that won the debates. The winners get to write history, while the losers have their books destroyed, lost, or declared heretical. The religion could have just as easily turned out to be Peter's Jewish form rather than Paul's Gentile Christianity; Gnostic; Ebonite, or any of the other 40 or so verifiable church beliefs during the first two hundred years. ( )
2 vote GeekGoddess | Nov 6, 2008 |
Ehrman in this book writes about the broad variety of Christian viewpoints in the early centuries after the life of Jesus and the apostles. It was not until the 4th century that the books of the new Testament were finalized, and it was around the same time that what Ehrman calls the proto-orthodox views of Christian belief overcame the other views to become the orthodox Christian standard views. As the other sects of early Christianity lost out, their writings were, for the most part, lost. Over time, some of these writings have been found again, most notably with the Nag Hammadi discovery in the 1940s.

Thus a new vision of early Christianity is required, one in which there were many competing doctrines, with proponents of each having lively debates with each other, and in which each church might have its own set of works it considered sacred Scripture.

There's some unexpected humor in the work. Look at page 146-7 to find out what one early author thought was the relationship between weasels and oral sex.,

Ehrman is a decent writer, which is necessary, as he is a scholar writing about scholarly topics, which can tend to get rather dry. Yet the topic is quite fascinating, to see a new picture of a particular period that had so much influence on our world today, unfold. Recommended. ( )
3 vote reannon | Mar 27, 2008 |
If you are looking for proof that Dan Brown got it right in the Da Vinci Code, this is NOT the book for you. But if you are looking for a serious, but readable tome on the varieties of Christianity in the years before the Council of Nicea, you could not do much better than Ehrman. This is a compliment to his [Lost Scriptures], which a collection of early Christian "Bibles." Ehrman gives a cogent, historically accurate account of the different early Christian traditions; how people took the story of the life, ministry and death of Jesus, and used it as a touchstone for belief. ( )
1 vote Arctic-Stranger | Jan 11, 2008 |
The majority of the book is a compelling mixture of hardcore hermeneutics and engaging exposition. Spoiled somewhat by the author's conspiracy theories about the spread of "orthadox Christianity". Occam's Razor may have been a simpler alternative. ( )
1 vote jontseng | Jan 4, 2007 |
This book was a disappointment. In an introductory text to the field of early Christian texts and the emergence of the scriptural canon, accessibility and readability is an asset, but the author occasionally goes a little too far to accommodate readers with no prior knowledge of the subject. (How many reminders along the lines of "remember, these people couldn't consult the New Testament because it hadn't been written yet!" does a reader of average intelligence really need?) More annoyingly, Ehrman exhibits a pronounced fondness for citing, and quoting from, his own books (which account for a rather large slice of the disappointingly meagre 6-page bibliography), and a large proportion of the endnotes (and why can't we have footnotes, please, to avoid the need to flap back and forth between the text and the end of the book?) in the last 20% of this work seem to be along the lines of "for more information on..., read my other book". Also unsatisfying are the increasingly sprawling passages towards the end of the book (and, to a lesser extent, scattered throughout the work) in which the author indulges in unproductive speculation which, being entirely unverifiable, would be more appropriate to the realms of alternate-history fiction than historical scholarship (e.g. what if the Marcionites/Ebionites/Gnostics/whoever and not the proto-Orthodox had gained the upper hand: what would the Bible/Western society look like today?)

An irritating habit of Ehrman's is that he consistently neglects to cite the exact location of quotations from ancient authors, making it rather difficult to look anything up in the primary sources and thus lessening the value of his book as a springboard to further study of the subject. On occasion he doesn't even name the work in which some quotation appears, as when (on p. 206) he alludes to ..."the fire in Rome which, according to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero himself had started in order to destroy part of the city..." Setting aside the fact that you practically have to be a classicist to know that the Tacitean work in which this reference occurs can only be the Annals, the most worrying aspect of this particular reference is that Tacitus does not in fact say this. The reference is Annals XV.38, and what Tacitus really says is that there's no telling who's right about the cause of the fire, those who say it was accidental or those who say that Nero started it. We do have an ancient author who explicitly accuses Nero of starting the fire, but this author is Suetonius (Nero 38), not Tacitus -- and thisis a non-trivial issue as Suetonius is considerably more prone to reporting gossip and rumour than Tacitus, and therefore a less reliable source.

Granted, Ehrman's field is religious studies rather than classics or ancient history -- but the bogus "Tacitus" reference does suggest a certain lack of meticulousness in citing and attributing sources, and one can't help wondering to what extent the same may be true of the early Christian sources the author refers to. For several reasons, then, this book is a less than satisfactory work with which to begin one's exploration of the subject it deals with.
7 vote Passer_Invenit | Dec 9, 2006 |
I have been interested for years in "lost voices". The cliché is that history is written by the winners so what were the strands of Christian practice and thought that were removed by the mainstream church that emerged from the post roman empire world? The source of my interest is a)what if or counterfactual history b)critical view of the authoritarian nature of mainstream Christianity c) rejection of the theological position of most Conservative Christians d)Wanting to remove from Christianity its historical and cultural baggage so that it can have an adult conversation with the 21st Century.

This book walks you through the different strands and gives you their views rather then the edited views of the victors. It gives an honest view of why in some cases they remained marginal and what was lost at some of the suppressions. Jesus clearly was a Jew and not here to found the Christian/catholic church this was a consequence of many religious-political decisions and circumstances of the first 400 years of the church.

However, I also read the book to give me a view of what the mainstream church was like to balance the views of the modern Gnostics who are critical of the "Literalists" as they see the church as now. As a Quaker I am drawn to this pre Nicene /Constantine world and the Gnostics and gospels such as Thomas. But the current criticism whilst important forgets that the spiritual groups of all the main monotheistic groups remain non mass movements or monastery based as say in Buddhism. We must not assume that the literalist mass movements are about fooling the people most of the time. Each religious impulse has its hope and despair side including the non-literalists. The issue is how to hold these impulses in a single community so that they enrich each other. They reflect the whole us! ( )
  ablueidol | Nov 5, 2006 |
Very well explained, in language suitable for lay readers ( )
  lizw | Apr 20, 2006 |
Muy interesante. ( )
  anuski | May 14, 2008 |
Showing 22 of 22

Current Discussions

None

Popular covers

Quick Links

Rating

Average: (3.88)
0.5
1 6
1.5
2 7
2.5
3 50
3.5 12
4 91
4.5 2
5 59

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

 

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 202,659,252 books! | Top bar: Always visible