In Lost Christianities, Professor Bart Ehrman offers an accessible account of Christianity’s diversity from its beginning. He asserts that there was never one, monolithic church determining doctrine and condemning those who would not adhere to the “regula fidei,” the rule of faith (194). Rather, there were many sects regarding themselves as the true followers of Christ. His focus...
more In Lost Christianities, Professor Bart Ehrman offers an accessible account of Christianity’s diversity from its beginning. He asserts that there was never one, monolithic church determining doctrine and condemning those who would not adhere to the “regula fidei,” the rule of faith (194). Rather, there were many sects regarding themselves as the true followers of Christ. His focus are the texts utilized by all viewpoints: how and why the texts were chosen, the historical reliability and accuracy of the manuscripts, and the influence of these writings on the eventual orthodoxy from which, “whether they acknowledge it or not,” Christians today all descend (4). While his argument is sound, though not earth-shattering, and his presentation is deftly written so as to draw in non-academics, his biases against those he calls “proto-orthodox” are obvious, and his preferential treatment of Gnostics borders on proselytizing.
Ehrman divides his work into three sections. Part One is a discussion of forgery. In it, he questions the motives for falsification: be they the author’s, the scribe’s, or those who made the modern day discoveries. In Part Two, Ehrman contrasts the conflicting coteries. Part Three tackles what lay behind the eventual success of one sect over the others. His organization is easy to follow although the divisional lines are often blurred due to Ehrman’s propensity towards repetition throughout the book. For example, forgery is the primary topic in Part One, but it is also central in Part Three. Rather than simply building upon the earlier information, the author reiterates much already in the reader’s cache. A specific case is his use of 2 Clement. On pages 23-24, Ehrman quotes from the letter and informs the reader that nowhere is this interaction between Jesus and Peter found in the canonical writings. Later, in Part Three on page 237, he not only gives the quote in full but also highlights its absence again. Aside from the fact that one could argue the interaction is found, though not word for word, in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, there are more than a few of these redundancies.
In Part One, Ehrman examines four specific instances of forgery. It is here that he develops the habit of supporting his theses by referring to “most scholars.” Even for the layperson or undergraduate, his target audience, simply saying that most scholars agree is not enough. Which ones agree? What are their credentials? His notes offer some help, but the bibliography reveals the small number of scholars from which he drew and the heavy reliance on his own previous works. However, the forgery section does offer excitement. The section concerning Morton Smith’s “discovery” of The Secret Gospel of Mark reads like a mystery, and Ehrman’s intimate knowledge spices it up, but it ultimately disappoints when the author fails to draw a conclusion.
Part Two moves beyond simple words on a page and examines those who used the texts to push a point of view. Here, Ehrman accuses all of Christianity of exclusivity and intolerance. He attributes the arguments amongst the sects to the “unique concern” in Christianity of being “right” (91). Because of this need, these “Christianities” engaged in internecine fighting and, according to Ehrman, went so far as to use known forgeries for support. Ehrman gives fair treatment to those eventually called heretics; however, the proto-orthodox are dealt with harshly. It is here that Ehrman’s past as a former fundamentalist is manifested.
The final section builds on Part Two’s exploration of the disparate Christianities and examines the strategies utilized by each to gain the upper hand. The polemics alone make this section interesting, but Ehrman’s chronology of biblical criticism is a must read for anyone aspiring to understand the history of biblical scholarship. Where Ehrman stumbles is his assumption that power must have been the primary motivation for these groups. His lack of objectivity shows when he suggests that other churches were afraid to break from Rome for fear they might lose the large amounts of money Rome gave away. This characterization is challenged earlier when he pointed out that a large donation from the heretic Marcion was returned upon his denouncement. Ehrman fails to consider the faith of these people.
In all, Lost Christianities is accurate and readable. Ehrman’s humor and relaxing style mix well with his scholarship. It should be considered by anyone desiring a quick and easy understanding of the history of the biblical texts and those that were excluded from the canon.
hide
Yes (0) 
No (0) 
