I thought I knew the answers. Well, perhaps I knew that I didn’t really know, because I had never really thought about it (and certainly hadn’t read about it). But when I was a believer, aiming to base my life and theology on what I believed to be the holy book that had somehow (don’t ask) been written by god, if you had asked me about how the New Testament had come about, I would have given the impression that I did know.
- There was a unity amongst believers (the good guys).
- The heretics appeared and started writing nasty things (the bad guys).
- The good guys got together and for the sake of preserving the faith, said only these 27 books were kosha.
- Everyone who mattered (all the good guys) agreed.
- The New Testament was born.
- The bad guys and their writings disappeared.
Of course, such a version of history helped me maintain my faith in the New Testament for a long time, but such a version is far from the truth, as Bart Ehrman points out in Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and Faiths We Never Knew. My faith wasn’t based on fact, but on what I wanted to believe.
In this book Professor Ehrman looks at all the competing versions of Christianity and their writings that were around in the first three centuries CE and describes the battles for dominance. He also hypothesizes about how modern Christianity might have been different if different parties had won - a Christianity with more than one god, with no trinity, with a radically different Jesus, with a greater adherence to Jewish custom, were all amongst the many possibilities.
I think it was J.F.Kennedy who said that the main threat to truth was not the outright, clear-cut lie, but the all-pervasive, accepted cultural myth. For that reason, I know that Lost Christianities will not have a wide readership amongst the faithful who want to believe in a certain foundation for what they believe. This book at least raises big questions about that desired certainty.
Several things seem worth remembering:
- Despite the belief amongst some Christians that every jot and tittle of the New Testament is inspired by god, and despite there being a relatively large number of manuscript copies, the earliest copies are relatively late, and there are a large number of differences between them. There are more differences amongst the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.
- The order wasn’t ‘a large body of accepted truth existed that was then threatened by a few heretics’, but ‘large numbers of competing groups from the beginning’. Many of the so called ‘heretics’ had a wide following and their writings were widely circulated and read in churches. Some of non-canonical literature was well known down to the Middle Ages.
- Although some of the stories and sayings in the non-canonical literature seem laughable (and I did laugh a lot while reading the book), in some ways, they are no more laughable than many of the stories that got included in the canon.
- Character assassination and dirty tricks were used in winning. It was a very dirty and unChristian war in parts.
- Even once one man had decided to make a list of books in the New Testament, it wasn’t immediately obvious to everybody which books should be included, and some of the included books have a long history of being seriously doubted (Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude for example).
- One of the original arbitrary criterion for judging which books should be included nearly back-fired right at the beginning. The books had to have apostolic authority. This poses problems for books not written by the apostles (most of them weren’t), so the criterion had to be extended to those written by those with known close links to the apostles. However, that doesn’t solve the problem of Hebrews, and the assignation of authors to the four accepted gospels is relatively tenuous. And it does mean that some of the New Testament would now be excluded as Pauline authorship of some of the epistles ascribed to him has been seriously challenged by many respected scholars.
- Apart from character assassination and excluding the works that the winning party didn’t like, there is evidence that the text of the included books was also changed by the scribes who copied them in order to ‘tidy things up’ or bolster up a particular doctrinal position. The words allegedly spoken by god at Jesus’ baptism in Luke’s gospel and the problematic verses at the end of Mark’s gospel are examples of this.
I used to believe that the New Testament was a solid foundation for my faith. I now no longer have a faith, and can see that what I had was based on something very wobbly. There is room for much debate about what books should go into the canon defining Christian belief. And even if that canon could be convincingly established, there is still room for much debate about which textual versions of those books (if any) are accurate. And even if that could be agreed (I see flying pigs!) there would still be the problem of interpreting what the texts actually mean - and of course, Christians down the ages have never had any problem in agreeing about that.
I’ve read several of Ehrman’s books, including this one, and enjoyed them all. If his lectures are anything like his books, he must be a great teacher.
Christian ministers and scholars must know about this- if they have studied the history of theology as much as I think they should or do.( Having a friend in the ministry). I wonder how they can explain it away to themselves and still have an intact faith.
I must take a look at this book someday.
I suspect that most of them don’t know it in the detail that Ehrman gives it, and that many inside evangelical circles don’t know it at all. I suspect also that for many who do know bits of it, they have the traditional version of events that I described above - the one that I had before reading the book.
If you had read this as a Christian ATM, would this book have started you down the path of leaving the faith?
Zoe
I suspect that either I wouldn’t have read it as a Christian, or I would have read it with a closed mind. The fact that so much diversity existed might have unnerved me a bit - especially the degree of change in the text. It makes it hard to continue to see the NT as a crystal clear, fixed book - which is what I believed for years.
Thanks ATM. I can imagine I would have read it with fascination and then tried to reconcile it with my “then” fundamentalist views. Of course, that would have been impossible…but I still would have tried. Even as a Christian, I read books that I would have been told not to read. They’d get me to thinking and then I’d have to read ten books written by inerrantists to prove that my way was the right way.
If it were me, I would not have dared to read such a book at all. I already had enough doubts, as it were.
‘Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of heaven.”
Christianity was originally known as a protest movement against the Roman Empire, yet our bible, and the religion as we know it, was compiled from selected religious stories by a depraved Roman emperor, Justinian. He funded mightily his version of the bible and church, while proclaiming writings not included in his compilation, and sects that disagreed with his church as heresy and heretics, disposing of them with prejudice and violence. The empire, once targeted as the world’s ultimate evil, was now to be called the holy empire. Jesus and his apostils couldn’t protest this, as they were many years dead at the time, and great wealth welcomed those who complied with the empire. “Whoever finds the world and becomes rich, let him renounce the world.”
After that, it was commonplace to be killed for misinterpreting Christianity and the bible, and it was depraved politicians who defined the correct interpretation. This has led to the politics and religion we know today, and disagreeing with the political definition of a religion is no less dangerous now than it was in emperor Justinian’s or Jesus’ time. Spirituality is still conformities greatest threat.
“Men think, perhaps, that it is peace, which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war.”
My whole life I have been derided by fundamentalist Christian conservatives for not taking the bible literally. “If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit.” An independent student of Christianity, someone biblically literate and historically knowledgeable, someone who believes in spirituality and mysticism, or an atheist, is a great threat to the fundamental believers. I do not mind their criticism, as I do not care for their views, ideas, or interpretations, but their violence is a bit scary.
“I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind.”
When contemplating the life of Jesus, the political situation of his time, the construction of the bible and the history of Christianity, while comparing that with the political situation and the state of Christianity today, it is clear that Jesus would be no more welcomed in today’s churches or political arenas than he was in his time. “No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him.” That gives new meaning to the phrase,” he died for our sins”. That also explains why churches have crosses on them. He really isn’t welcome there and better not come around with his radical ideas, or else.
“Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you. For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest.”
I have a renewed sympathy to Jesus’ plight. He would never be a Christian, because the religion and politics we see now are no different than the ones Jesus saw then. Modern and Roman religious and political institutions are very similar. They are violent, oppressive, domineering, and hypocritical. They should not be taken seriously, as they are little more than the refuge for scoundrels and the tools for depraved emperors. An update would be good, but I’ll not hold my breath. The people, they still know not what they do, forgive them. “ Love your brother like your soul, and guard him like the pupil of your eye.”
Merry Christmas.