Lost Christianities

I have just finished reading Bart Ehrman’s Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and Faiths We Never Knew. First of all, it must be said that Ehrman is a talented writer. He is able to take material that is normally of interest only to scholars and package it in away that can reach the interested layperson. This book is a good summary of the various groups that appeared in the early years of the church and of the texts that these groups produced.

However, there are some problems. Rather than just a summary of early church history, the thesis of this book is that there was no original orthodox church with various heretical groups breaking off over time. Rather there were numerous parallel groups that were there from the beginning with what he calls “proto-orthodox” as just one of them. Eventually the proto-orthodox won out, promoted or created their own Scriptures while banning or destroying the competing Scriptures. This agenda really shapes how Ehrman presents the materials.

Some of the problems include the fact that Ehrman gives some pretty early dates for the alternative texts, earlier than what many scholars would be comfortable with. While it is true that it took some time for the New Testament canon to become firm, he overemphasizes the variety. The canonical books that were most often questioned include Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter and Revelation. There were only a few other books that were considered canonical that are no longer included, such as Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement. There is no evidence that texts such as the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of Thomas were ever considered and their popularity was likely quite limited. There are also some problems suggesting multiple parallel theological lines coming from Jesus rather than various break offs from the one continuity. The canonical books are by far the earliest Christian texts that we have and the best resource we have to reconstruct the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. We can see a clear continuity between most of the church fathers and these New Testament teachings. There is some variation in emphsasis but in the major themes they are consistent. But when we look to the alternative texts there is a radical change in theology. While the canonical books are steeped in Old Testament quotations, the gnostic books either ignore or are critical of the Old Testament. The gnostics saw at least two gods (sometimes as many 365) and saw the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament as being different. The New Testament affirms that the Father of Jesus was the God of the Old Testament. The gnostic writings reject matter as evil and the New Testament affirms the Old Testament idea that creation is good and emphasizes that Jesus’ resurrection was physical. All of the heritical groups denied that Jesus was both God and human (disagreeing among themselves as to which was true), while the New Testament affirms both Jesus’ humanity and divinity.

At one point, Ehrman unwittingly contradicts his thesis of parallel Christianities. He rightfully notes that Jesus and the early Christians were very apocalyptic. This meant that they recognized the problem of evil and that they believed that God was going to act decisively through judgment to redeem this world and bring it back under his reign. As the return of Jesus seemed to be more and more delayed, some people began to question this worldview. Ehrman then states that the gnostics reacted to and rejected these ideas, believing that the answer was to reject this physical world and to seek to escape it. This means that gnosticism is a reaction to the original apocalyptic faith rather than an example of an ongoing parallel Christianity.

Bart Ehrman’s Lost Christianities is and interesting and informative book that is worth reading. But it must be read with a grain of salt, understanding Ehrman’s agenda. If you are reading this book I would encourage you to follow up with either Darrell Bock’s Missing Gospels or Craig Evans’ Fabricating Jesus.

Varieties of Christianity?

In the latest issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (a magazine that I really enjoy), there is an article on the Gospel of Judas by Birger A. Pearson.  Pearson explains how National Geographic really messed up in their publication of the Gospel of Judas and there are problems in the translation that seriously hinder a proper interpretation.  Overall Pearson’s article is very helpful and interesting.  You can read the article here. 

However, the article includes a sidebar entitled “The Varieties of Christianity.”  Here, Pearson explains that Christianity always had multiple forms from the James/Peter/Paul varieties of the earliest time and continuing throughout the centuries.  Pearson states: “The Christian religion has never been one uniform, homogeneous thing.  From the beginning there has been variety within the church.”  From this, it is suggested that the gnostic and the “proto-orthodox” forms of Christianity were equally valid forms of Christianity with the orthodox group winning out only because of the support of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the fourth century.  This is a common view these days, as seen for example in the writings of Bart Ehrman. 

Is this true?  Should gnosticism be seen as an equally valid form of Christianity?  The problem is that there is a clear continuum of theological thought between the New Testament and the earliest orthodox fathers.  Yes there is development (such as the Trinity), but is deeply rooted in the New Testament witness.  Gnosticism on the other hand, besides being much later than even the non-canonical orthodox writings, has a far different understanding of Christology and soteriology.  Pearson does a great job of explaining the gnostic mythology and it is clearly far different from biblical beliefs.  Unlike the New Testament and the orthodox writings, the gnostic texts ignore the Old Testament.  They come from far different theological worlds.  Yes there was varieties within Christianity and James style was different from Paul’s.  But this is the difference between two Baptist churches, one inner city and one rural.  The differences between the orthodox and gnostic churches are that between the Anglicans and Christian Science.  Gnosticism, far from being an alternate form of biblical Christianity, was in fact a heresy that adopted some Christian terminology but belonged to a different world.  

The Gospel According to Elaine Pagels

One of the most influential voices in suggesting that Gnosticism was a parallel and equal contender with Orthodoxy in being true Christianity is Elaine Pagels.  Pagels, along with many others, claim that history was written by the winners and that Gnosticism is only considered a heresy because Orthodoxy won the theological war.  I found an interesting article by Bruce Chilton about Elaine Pagels’ views.  You can read the article here.  It is clear that Pagels’ views are skewed and not in line with most readings of early Christianity.

Gospel of Judas

My co-author on Unmasking the Pagan Christ, Stan Porter, was recently on the Drew Marshall Show, a Christian radio talk show.  Stan co-wrote a book on the Gospel of Judas with the church history professor at mcMaster Divinity College, Gord Heath titled The Lost Gospel of Judas: Separating Fact from Fiction.  If you are interested in knowing more about the Gospel of Judas, you can find the radio program here for listening to online or for download.  By the way, if you search the Drew Marshall web-site hard enough, you might find the show Stan and I did promoting our book.