MiddleMan

Just ordered "Lost Christianities" and am waiting on a friend whose mother works in a bookstore to find "Orthodox Corruption." Thanks for the recommendations!

Vorkosigan

Sorry! I meant this book. I have Corruption and also his Intro to the NT. I reviewed Orthodox Corruption a couple of months ago here.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=71920

Vorkosigan

godfry n. glad

Alright.... <phew>... You had me worried, there, Vork. I think you'll enjoy _Lost Christianities_. _Do_ obtain it. I'd love to see what you have to say about it.

Good point in your review about Ehrman's failure to adequately address the Pauline corpus in Corruption. I hadn't paid attention to it, but you're right, it's a curious glossing of very important material.

What do you think of his Intro to the NT? Worth the $$? Or, should I invest in the Udo Schnelle?

godfry

Vorkosigan

His NT Intro is VERY low level and is written as a textbook for an intro class. Schnelle is a reference work but conservative. I'd definitely take Schnelle over Ehrman here, for our needs.

Vorkosigan

capnkirk

I just finished reading (please take that literally, as I just quit reading...I didn't finish the book) Lost Christianities, and I found a LOT to take issue with. As I read each succeeding chapter, it became clearer and clearer that the author has a number of self-induced blind spots. By the time I finished part II, I was scribbling rebuttals in the margins of every page, and I knew that I had already learned about all I could from this book.

Before you read this book, read Mr. Ehrman's credentials on the dust cover. He chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. Though he never identifies his own convictions of faith, it is clear that he is Xtian. All the "lost" Xtianities are viewed with respect to the "orthodox". Because of this, corruption of the canonic gospels is never even considered, while all the apocryphal gospels are labeled out front as forgeries.

Here is an example of his tunnel vision: (Ch. 5, "Christians Who Would Be Jews: The Early Christian Ebionites) He insists on referring to the Ebionites as Ebionite 'Christians', which requires siding with the Ebionites' enemies' (all we actually know of them is from the writings of the Paulinist Christian Church) description of them as Christians who had tried to go back to Judaism. Then he says that their opponents 'clearly agree that the Ebionites were and understood themselves to be Jewish followers of Jesus'....(and) believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures.' He goes on to tell us that they believed that Jesus was wholly human, that he was conceived and was born by entirely conventional means. (This definition absolutely precludes their being Xtians!!) He tells us that they disbelieved Paul and considered him heretical (but doesn't elaborate).

He then wanders off on his own, assigning to the Ebionites' the belief that 'What set Jesus apart from all other people was....that God chose him to be his son and assigned him a special commission, to sacrifice himself for the sake of others, not as punishment for his own sins but for the sins of the world.' That one person could vicariously atone for another's sins is completely antithetical to Judaism; so is the sacrifice of a human, much less a deity! In Jewish Law, that IS blasphemy. THAT was their quarrel with Paul!

His Xtianity seems to blind him to the interpretation that the Ebionites were not and never had been Xtians. They believed in a Jewish Messiah (in other words, a 'political' messiah), not a sacrificial/resurrected Christos. That Paul had preached to both Jews and Gentiles that Jesus was the latter was considered a heresy by observant Jews.

This blind spot leads him to additional mistakes. He rhetorically asks what scriptures the Ebionites had. He cites that they seemed to have adopted GMatt as their principal scriptural authority, then adds that their own version may have been a translation of the Greek text into Aramaic. Other scholars contend (correctly, I think) that the first versions of both GMark and GMatt WERE in Aramaic, only to be later translated into Greek. If they were observant Jews who were followers of Jesus, then they almost certainly HAD to have roots back before the crucifixion, in which case they would in fact most likely have had an Aramaic GMatt (pre Greek translation, and Xtian editing), that probably also starred a Jewish Messiah named Jesus. Only by holding fast to the Paulist Christ construct as the only possible historical Jesus can the author make the preceeding assumptions with impunity.

So, I warn you to approach this book with all the skepticism that you would bring to any other tome by a Xtian apologist. If you do not already have a pretty good knowledge of the subject, this book probably isn't for you (Too many things to unlearn later). On the other hand, if you do...he does a credible job of investigating the gospels of Thomas, Mary, and Peter, The Acts of Paul, and other apocryphal books, is fairly convincing in depicting the rise of orthodoxy, but completely refuses to even consider that the eventually victorious faction might also be flawed. Rather, it sounded more like a Xtian teacher explaining to a Xtian student how many competing early Xtian sects there were (and how they were flawed) and how the prevailing church consolidated its power and became 'the' orthodoxy that all current Xtianity stems from.

caveat lector

CX

Lost Scriptures is just an anthology of the noncanonical texts Ehrman discusses in Lost Christianities. It's a useful reference which includes brief introductory comments preceding the text of each noncanonical book (in English translation of course)

CX

Not to put too fine a point on it but your analysis strikes me as clouded by an atheological bias. In the first place most biblical scholars are naturally found in related departments in unversities. I doubt we will find many professional biblical academicians in the math department. That being said I think you attribute to much to Ehrman. I've read numerous of his books and listened to various lectures and interviews and he's spoken regularly about a "crisis of faith" he encountered after several years studying early Xianitity etc. I would hypothesize he is a nominal Xian at most. It's pretty evident he doesn't view the "orthodox" position as specially situated within the Xian worldview. In fact I would argue that the entire thesis of Lost Christianities is that there was no original and authentic strand of Xian belief that has survived to the present. In the early period he refers to those who promulgated what we would consider today to be the orthodox viewpoint as "proto-orthodox". If you listen to any of his lectures or interviews on the subject it is clear that he views early Xianity as highly divergent with various understandings of Jesus program competing for the dominant position.


That was not the purpose of this work. Have you read "orthodox corruption"? That work goes into much greater detail with respect to how the "orthodox" texts were corrupted in the early centuries. And he does make the point even in the book presently under consideration that the proto-orthodox faction of early Xianity was not above fabricating apostolic documents etc. to support their own position. He explains why he does not consider the gospel "forgeries" insofar as they are anonymous and it was later proto-orthdox Xians who attributed them to important early Xian figures.

This is a wholly unfair and inaccurate reading of Ehrman which further belies an unfamiliarity with who the Ebionites were and what they professed. The Ebionites WERE Xians. They accepted Jesus as the Jewish messiah. They were also however torah observant and Jewish. Your statement that there rejection of Jesus' divinity precludes them from being Xian is anachronistic and presumes that the key definition of a Xian is someone who accepts the divinity of Christ. This is precisely contrary to the very heart of Ehrman's thesis throughout most of his recent work. It is also inaccurate to say that we only know of the Ebionites from Paul. In the first place Paul never refers to the ebionites by name and it is only hypothesized that the "Judaizers" he refers to MAY be Ebionites. It's equally likely he is referring to Nazareans or possibly emissaries from the Jerusalem congregation. There was considerable controversy in the earliest Xian movements as to whether one should continue to follow the mosaic law or not.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? All the preceeding presupposes that in order to be Xian one must accept the Pauline program. While this is perhaps true today it was not true in the early movement. The Ebionites WERE heretics from the perspective of other Jews in the period by virtue of accepting Jesus' as messiah.

This is based entirely on the one text we DO have from the Ebionites which is called The Gospel of the Ebionites by scholars, which was known in antiquity (the text that has survived is excerpted in a work by the Heresiologist Epiphanus of Salamis) and looks for all intents and purposes like a version of GMt that harmonizes the synoptic gospels.

Your analysis totally misses the point of Ehrman's work and belies some kind of bias on your part. Ehrman is first and foremost an historian of early Xianity and, in the opinion of many, one of the finest scholars of early Xianity in the world today. The only legitimate criticism of him I've seen is that he completely accepts the primacy of the Alexandrian text family.

CX

I've finished this book (unlike a recent critic I did actually read the entire thing). At present I don't have my copy handy so it'll be another day before I post a full review. That being said I enjoyed this book immensely and would strongly recommend it to anyone with an interest in early Xianity. It should be pointed out that this book is intended for a popular audience and as such it does not present any earth shattering discoveries or controversial theses to anyone familiar with the early variety of Xian belief. It does however provide an excellent overview of what the earliest strands of Xianity looked like, how we know about them and how the conflict between the "proto-orthodox" Xians and other, now lost, groups transpired.

capnkirk

Bottom line is still: Ehrman IS a Xtian, and IS vulnerable to bias because of it. As for MY bias, I have concluded that the Xtian Christ is (and was viewed by Jews then as) heretical to Judaism. That points an arrow STRAIGHT AT PAUL as the original source of the concept of Jesus the deity. All the rest of my objections arise from this nexus.My claim that he considered the "orthodox" position as special rests solely on the fact that the "orthodox" position, no matter how corrupted, SURVIVED to become the basis of virtually all Xtian denominations today. How can that outcome NOT constitute "specially situated"?If that were true, then I find it difficult to understand how he could still be Xtian. If there was "no original or authentic strand that has survived" then his Xtian belief has no basis...unless you are saying that he believes, in spite of all this corruption, that HJ WAS the Christ. If so, then we are NOT in disagreement, for this is precisely the point I was making. Exactly. The entire argument is framed around the premise that there WAS an HJC, and there were a lot of factions competing for dominance. All other possibilities were excluded.

P.S. I have not read "orthodox corruption", but the more corruption he cites, the more he makes my point. In the face of all the corruption, he survived his 'crisis of faith'. Sorry, I cannot view one who under those circumstances remains a Xtian as UNBIASED.Yet, it is clear that the gospels were heavily edited from their earliest editions. It is my view that this editing was done by Paulists (like Luke) to convert a Jewish (political) messiah to the spiritual one Paul advocated. I contend that the 'later proto-orthdox Xians' did far more than falsely attribute the authors of the gospels.I contend that THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON that very few observant Jews converted to Xtainity is that the "Christ" concept was/is antithetical to mainstream Judaism. From the Judaic point of view, Jesus (as professed by Paul) represented a completely new religion that had nothing to do with Judaism. One simply cannot believe that Jesus was the Jewish (political) messiah, AND that he was the human/divine savior of the world. While Ehrman points out in when discussing the Marcionites that one must be very careful about accepting the characterization of a group by its opponents, he fails to make that same point when discussing the Ebionites, (though as you demonstrate below when you declare "the text that has survived is excerpted in a work by the Heresiologist Epiphanus of Salamis") that the same situation exists). I don't see how you can call the work of a proto-orthodox" heresiologist anything but oppositional. It is, as I claimed, the opponents of the Ebionites upon whose descriptions you (and Ehrman) are depending. Though there were some groups of Hellenized Jews that accepted Xtianity, they did NOT claim that Jesus was the human fulfillment of Jewish prophesy! That part of the characterization by Epiphanus is what precludes his further assumption that they were in any way, shape or form, Xtains.

Because I recognize Paul's epiphany as the actual birth of the Christ, I most certainly DO (and am supported by 99.9% of Xtian ministers) that belief in the divinity of Christ is an essential prerequisite to being a Christian.Sir, you misquote me. I did NOT say that we only know of the Ebionites from Paul. I said, "all we actually know of them is from the writings of the Paulinist Christian Church". I WAS specifically characterizing the writings of Epiphanus as such. Why do I say Paulinist? Because only one of the following choices can be true: Either Jesus was from birth a spiritual messiah with no political agenda and all his disciples and all his followers were just too dumb to "get it", OR HJ was a fully human Jewish (political) messiah and was understood to be such by those who knew him, and Paul "converted" Jesus into the Christ on the road to Damascus. the cumulative weight of my studies has brought me solidly down on the side of the latter.

In fact, the Jerusalem 'church' was no 'church' at all, but a synagogue of observant Jews who called themselves Nazarenes. I contend that the Ebionites WERE the descendants of the disciples and followers that were The Jerusalem Church (TJC) (Nazarenes), who were waiting for Jesus to return and establish the prophesied Kingdom of God (Israel). They no more considered the resurrected Jesus to be divine than they did the resurrected Lazarus to be divine. After 70 CE, the surviving members of TJC were forced to flee form the Romans, and certainly fell on hard times (hence the name "Ebionites", meaning "poor"). If you believe that observant Jews considered the Ebionites 'heretics' for believing that Jesus was 'the Christ', then you must concede that they must have thought of Paul the same way! If they thought of Paul that way, then you have now arrived at the critical realization that all I have written here derives from.

The "presupposition" rests on this foundation: The differences between the various contending Xtian sects and movements are dwarfed by the differences between any of them and Judaism. For that reason, and Paul's presence at the nexus of the schizm, I have labeled all of them essentially Paulinist in nature. If that is being obtuse...so be it.Sir, there is NO such surviving text; only a few tiny fragments! Our only source for "The Gospel of the Ebionites" (GEb) is preserved in a few quotations in the writings of Epiphanius. The original title of this gospel is unknown. The designation customary today is based on the fact that this was the gospel probably used by the Ebionites. Epiphanus incorrectly entitles this the 'Hebrew' gospel, and alleges that it is an abridged, truncated version of the Gospel of Matthew. Although Irenaeus (late in the second century) attests to the existence of this gospel, we are dependent solely upon the quotations given by Epiphanius for our knowledge of the contents of the text.I stand by my previous conclusions and caveats. Personally, I NEVER accept a singular source at face value (Axiomatically: Trust...but verify.). In this book, I found many "dots" (as in 'connect the') that support my contentions about Paul's "invention" of Xtianity, I was extremely disappointed that Ehrman failed to connect any of them. (One brief closing example: He talks at some length about the early Church's 'need' of a claim to antiquity, that claim being its 'Judaic roots'. I say that such recognition first occurred much earlier; that Paul himself recognized this need, but found himself in a dilemma because the Christ revealed to him on the road was antithetical to Judaic philosophy, and the Jerusalem Church despite his best effort to convince them, still regarded his belief as heretical. Further, I contend that much of the redaction of the gospels was to bring them in line with Paul's vision of HJC.)

CX

I'm not sure the first part of that statement is true. Ehrman is understandably closed mouthed about what his personal beliefs are. If he is more than nominally Xian he's part of an extremely liberal minority. Further nearly all the major players in biblical studies are at least nominally Xian. Crossan considers himself a catholic, Spong considers himself Anglican, Finkelstein considers himself Jewish, Elaine Pagels considers herself Xian and on and on. With a few notable exceptions (Michael Goulder for one) the vast majority of biblical scholars are, in fact, at least nominally religious. Are you therefore contending that ALL biblical scholarship is biased? My second point would be that noone is capable of being completely unbiased. We all filter the information we receive through the lens of our own assumptions, presuppositions and beliefs. If potential bias precludes someone from doing dispassionate scholarship than there is none anywhere.

My point is that my reading of Ehrman seems to suggest that he thinks the modern orthodox position holds no special claim to truth. He makes it quite clear that orthodoxy as we know it survived for historical and political reasons, not necessarily because it is the one true faith. Over and over he speculates in LC how the culture may have been affected if some other early strand of Xian belief. All indication is that he thinks such could have happened at least in theory.

I don't think he necessarily is Xian by any conventional definition at least in the modern sense. Further I'm not sure he believes Jesus = Christ. He is rather closed mouthed about his personal beliefs. He does state repeatedly however that he is first and foremost an historian and his work seems to support that statement.

Fair enough. He, along with the majority of mainstream biblical scholars, assumes there was an historical Jesus. That issue doesn't really bear on his work in LC.

We can never know because Ehrman is quite adept at insulating his scholarship from whatever he believes privately. Personally I don't think he did survive his "crisis of faith" and if he still does consider himself Xian it is in a sense not recognized by the majority of believers. And regardless he is a good historian so his personal views are not terribly important as far as I'm concerned.


But then my accusation that you are being anachronistic stands as you are applying the tenets of the fully developed modern Xian church to the early Xian movements. It is clear from the very beginning that there was considerable disagreement among people who called themselves Xians regarding the divinity of Jesus. Even almost 300 years later it was still controversial as evidenced by the Council of Nicaea and the work of subsequent church fathers.

Based on what? The only thing we know of the Ebionites comes from Epiphanus.

When have I ever said or implied otherwise. I contend that Paul was entirely rejected by Jesus' original followers. He was viewed just as heretical by the Jewish-Xian congregation in Jerusalem as they were within the larger Jewish culture. What has any of this to do with Ehrman?