In my previous post I mentioned my second trade book, Lost Christianities (Oxford University Press, 2003). I just now looked at the beginning of the book; I hadn’t read it in years. It made me want to read it again! I do know there are things I would change if I did the book now: my understanding of Gnosticism and the Gospel of Thomas are different, for example. But on the whole, I still rather like it.
But books are like that. They’re like your children. Each one is near and dear to your heart.
Here is how Lost Christianities starts.
Chapter One
Recouping Our Losses
It may be difficult to imagine a religious phenomenon more diverse than modern-day Christianity. There are Roman Catholic missionaries in developing countries, who devote themselves to voluntary poverty for the sake of others, and evangelical televangelists with twelve-step programs to assure financial success and prosperity. There are New England Presbyterians and Appalachian snake handlers. There are Greek orthodox priests committed to the liturgical service of God, replete with set prayers, incantations, and incense, and fundamentalist preachers who view high-church liturgy as a demonic invention. There are liberal Methodist political activists intent on transforming society, and Pentecostals who think that society will soon come to a crashing halt with the return of Jesus. And there are the followers of David Koresh — still today — who think the world has already started to end, beginning with the events at Waco, a fulfillment of prophecies from the book of Revelation. Many of these Christian groups, of course, refuse to consider other such groups Christian.
All this diversity of belief and practice, and the intolerance that occasionally results, makes it difficult to know whether we should think of Christianity as one thing or lots of things, whether we should speak of Christianity or Christianities.
What could be more diverse than this variegated phenomenon, Christianity in the modern world? In fact, there may be an answer: Christianity in the ancient world. As historians have come to realize, during the first three Christian centuries, the divergent practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so vast and fundamental that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh Day Adventists pale by comparison.
Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be reformed or stamped out. As a result, the sacred texts that some ancient Christians used to support their religious perspectives came to be proscribed, destroyed, or forgotten – in one way or another lost. Many of these texts claimed to be written by Jesus’ closest followers. Opponents of these texts claimed they had been forged.
This book is about these texts, and about the lost forms of Christianity they tried to authorize.
The Varieties of Ancient Christianity
The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others
Want to keep reading? It is easy and inexpensive to join the blog — and you get five posts a week by doing so. The small fee you pay goes entirely to charity. So why not? Click here for membership options
I’m so psyched about this book! I’m curious, Mr. Ehrman, why does your wife rates it higher than all of your other books? You’ve mentioned that a few times, but you never got into the details!
I think she considers it more academic and less controversial than the others.
Hi Bart! Your course on the Triumph of Christianity is now available from the Great Courses. I’m very much enjoying it. Do you think you will be doing any more?
Ah, good to know. They didn’t tell me! I don’t have plans to do any more, but I may be doing some on my own down the road.
I read Lost Christianities when it came out and again a couple of weeks ago. I was fascinated and had a hard time putting it down. There is so much information in it.
I think it’s my favorite of your books.
Good job, Dr. E
I just started reading this one! Fascinating so far.
Do you think the author of the Book of Revelation had read the Book of Enoch?
The book of Enoch is five different books later combined into one. I think we’d be hard pressed to show that John knew it or any of its constituent parts.
Was not 1 Enoch 1:9 quoted in the book of Jude, vs 14-15? If the writer of Jude knew of Enoch, why would we assume John of the Revelation did not?
If I’ve read the Great Gatsby why should we assume you have?
Perhaps I am a member of a diverse literary community where many people read The Great Gatsby and some are familiar enough with it to quote it in their letters, some of which are shared among the members of the community. My chances of having read it go up significantly, to the point where you might indeed assume I have.
My point is that Enoch is a Jewish text, apparently very familiar to the Jewish community, and likely also with the Christians through their association with the Jews, in particular in light of the apocalyptic elements they have in common. Further, at least one canonical book of the NT references it. The Revelation is an apocalypse. The author had to learn how to write them from somewhere, why not his own community?
Frankly I think I have seen scholars make thinner arguments to support a guess (not you of course).
I don’t think Revelation was written by someone raised in a Jewish environment, though of course he could have been. Still, it’s a small slice of America that can quote Great Gatsby. Being an American doesn’t necessarily put you in that group. If you think someone is in that list, you’d probably have to give some reasons other than the fact they are Americans. So too Jews and 1 Enoch, I should think.
I don’t think he lived in a Jewish environment either, but rather in an apocalyptic Christian environment that used some Jewish texts like Enoch. In fact, at the time in question, presumably Christians would have been very familiar with Jewish texts, right? His imagery with the twelve tribes, etc, clearly points to knowledge of some Jewish concepts, presumably gleaned from his Christian teaching. So I think it is not wildly out of the question that he might have been familiar with Enoch, Daniel, and other related texts. I guess my question for you is this: How would he most likely have become familiar with the apocalypse literary form?
There were apparently a lot of books like that out there. Daniel is one obvious one, the one he clearly uses a lot.
My favorite book of yours!
I’m interested to hear how your views on Gnosticism have changed over the years. I know it’s not your area of expertise but I’m curious nonetheless.
I’ve posted on that before, and probably should again. Do a word search for Gnosticism and you’ll see the posts.
I’ve been reading and writing about the early Christian infancy gospels, and the whole time I’ve been wondering why the fascination with stories about Jesus’ and Mary’s miraculous births and childhoods. When do scholars think these stories about Jesus and Mary started to circulate, and why? Were such stories common in Greco-Roman literature of the time?
The proto-Gospel of James must date from the late second century, but (some of) the stories in it almost certainly were in circulation earlier than that. There were plenty of stories of miraculous births in Greek and Roman myth, of course; but I don’t know of anything connnecting the miraculous birth of the mother who later was to give an even more miraculous birth. The ideas driving the account — the problems with sex and the need for sexual purity — are Christian but not (in the same way) common elsewhere.
I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt that the churches begun by the earliest christians, mentioned in acts and paul’s letters always held what came to be called orthodox opinion and that these churches always made up the overwhelming majority of christians right up to and after Nicea, and that the divergent opinions you mention were small minority offshoots of christianity. Is there any reason?
Lots of reasons, yes. Paul’s own letters show that even his own followers accepted teachings that he considered false; and he mentions other apostles preaching otehr messages (Galatians; 2 Corinthians). It is interesting that almost every time a new Gospel is discovered, it is unorthodox, and some of these are early (Gospel of Thomas, e.g.) The diversity really does look massive when you look closely at both what the orthodox sources say in defending themselves and the other sources that were “left out”
Yes the diversity was early and many. But we know from Paul that the earliest churches in Rome, Greece, Turkey and Judea were all in communication with each other. And that when Origen two centuries later says “The Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many”, there’s no reason to doubt he’s speaking of a church in direct succession to what is mentioned in Paul’s letters. And that there’s no reason to doubt this church was always in the great majority, despite the many and early offshoots.
Sorry to be off topic, Professor Ehrman but I have a Richard Carrier question. He (mis)uses Bayesian theorem to challenge the historicity of Jesus/Christ. However, has he ever gone that, nit pick this and that but present the actual historical alternative? It seems he ought to be able to do that. As it is you, Professor, own the history, and can only counter punch. If he were to present a holistic history you could get your shots in.
He does present a theory about how it all started. He gets frustrated that scholars don’t take him or his theories seriously, but, well, they don’t.
Is it plausible that Peter having a just a dream of Jesus appearing to him would be enough to convince him Jesus was alive?
Sure. IT happens all the time, even now — people being convinced by dreams or visions, sleeping or awake, as long as they are vivid enough and someoen is inclined to believe it.
Professor, do you think there may also have been a “me too” phenomenon of other disciples claiming to have seen Jesus in order to be or remain important within that group?
Absolutely. And hey, I saw Elvis too.
Lo, these many years ago, when I got my first Kindle (back when that was the hot, cool new technology…) the first two books I bought for it were the then (pretty) new “Lost Christianities” and “Lost Scriptures”.
I was just arguing with a friend that Christians believe in the god of the Jews just because they started as another sect from Judaism. We could have easily been believers of Baal if the canaanites would have written the OT. Or Buddhist, or something else.
Would this be due at least in part to the decentralized nature of early Christianity? Travel and communication took longer then than they do today this making centralized control of Christianity’s message much harder. I remember hearing lectures about the Ottoman Empire where edicts issued by its ruler would be largely ignored in the outer reaches of the empire. The idea is that it was easier to issue an edict than to enforce it.
How likely is it that there was a least some sort of community of Jesus’ followers left behind in Galilee who did not go to Jerusalem with Jesus and his closest disciples? Perhaps serving as the foundation of some form of Jewish Christianity?
Thanks
It’s certainly possible. One would have to look for reasons for thinking so, of course.
I used to be in a church system that taught that originally there was one true Christianity that became corrupted over time, so they were attempting to restore the original. My studies have taught me that there were a diversity of beliefs and practices in the early church, and as the church grew came the attempt to enforce one “correct” version of the religion. I often wonder if Christianity would have been better off encouraging people to come to their own understanding of Jesus and his teachings rather than enforcing a single “orthodox” system of beliefs, with its constant attempts to determine who is in the church and who is not, who is saved and who is not, and the excessive divisions that result.
Encouraging people to come to their own understanding would probably have left us with nothing like the big money/profit center model of Christianity we have today– hard to imagine a monolith like Catholicism exerting temporal power in the aftermath of the Roman Empire’s decline. Constantine would have had to find some other basis for unifying the Empire and prolonging its life into the modern age. What a very different world it would be!
It’s also weird that the divisions don’t make many believers questions things more.
Bart can you clear something up. Who cut off the ear of the soldier/slave when they came to arrest Jesus? I know John 18:11 is the gospel that mentions Peters’ name,the other three gospels, say ,” one of them”. Was it in fact Peter and,, the slave ‘s name, Malchus, was also mentioned, only in John again. Why was this important to this author and not the other three ?
Yes, John is the only one who identifies which of the disciples it is; he may be giving the slave’s name to add verisimilitude to the account.
Are scholars in agreement,including yourself, that in fact it was Peter ? I find it strange that three of the four gospels do not identify as Peter but rather as ” one of them”. I have been comparing as you have taught us to do and it does not make sense in my limited capacity. Thanks
I don’t think it actually happened, myself.
Really fascinating how in hindsight the way things turn out seems inevitable to believers, but it could have been totally different. I’ll have to read this book. I remember being told that the Church of Christ (my parent’s church) was the only real church. And even then that seemed a bit convenient.
One thing I’ve been wondering. Would the very first converts of Paul, knowing they were to start exclusively worshipping the jewish god, and being converted by this jewish guy, think they were following judaism, a modified judaism, or something totally new? Was it, we worship the jewish god, but he’s not a jewish god anymore? I think you talked about a two part conversion, and this first part seems like a big leap to me. If the very early pagan Christians weren’t calling themselves Christians yet, and didn’t think they were jewish, I just wonder what they thought they were? And how did they view the existing jewish community?
Paul would have been clear that they were not to convert to Judaism, but that they were now worshipping the God of the Jews in the way he had planned all along when he first called Israel to be his people and then sent his prophets. They were in a sense the true Jews.
Did any of the ancient lost Christianities believe that Jesus did not identify himself as the Messiah (Christ)? Or did that interpretation begin with Albert Schweitzer?
I admit that I find it somewhat ironic that someone who believes that Jesus did not identify as Christ would call themselves a Christian, but I understand how ironic references develop 🙂
Hi Bart, I finally figured out that I misunderstood Schweitzer’s and your view of Jesus Christ. You say that he identified himself as the Messiah, the King of Israel, but not the Cosmic Son of Man. And my misunderstanding makes my above comment look like jibberish, sorry about that 🙂
Happens to the best of us.
No, all Xns thought Jesus knew he was the messiah. The idea was around long before Schweitzer; he simply had a distinctive way of understanding how it worked.
Bart I have a random question that came to mind. I’m sure you’ve answered this but I’ve forgotten the answer: if early Christians believed that Jesus was predicting an imminent apocalypse, but that didn’t occur, why would the Christians incorporate these themes in books written 40-70 years after Jesus’ death? I know Christians likely soon after argued for some theological reason, but I remember as a Christian thinking this sure sounds like Jesus is saying THIS generation (who’d he be speaking to) will be the last. Just seems confusing unless they already think the event occurred (temple falling?)
It appears that they thought it was still imminent. It may seem weird,but people still today think it was all written to say that it was imminent because it means it is imminent for *them* (Hey, it’s all about us, right?)
Professor Ehrman,
I have ordered _Lost Christianities_ and look forward to its arrival even more after reading your post.
Your scholarship and expertise has opened my eyes to the power of the culture around me.
I hope to continue building my small library with all your books.
My effort is to expand my perspective on how I was raised and taught to see the Bible and the childhood flavor of Christianity handed me.
If you would consider it, my question is how does a scholar like you look at the book _Misreading Scriptures with Western Eyes_ by E. Randolph Richards?
For me browsing the book, I found some interesting historical points but was somewhat disappointed in the “saving the world for Jesus” theme while trying to convince readers that we bring our cultural lens to reading the Bible. There can be no doubt about the cultural lens but does his beliefs about his Christianity taint the objectivity of being a scholar?
Perhaps because of my admitted lack of education on all of this, my question may seem simplistic.
Thank,
Rob
I haven’t read it; having looked at it briefly it *thought* it was like other books of that sort I’ve read over the years, that take on historical critical readings based on a knowledge of typical assumptions of peole living today inthe Middle East. Maybe it’s not that. If it is, then I think there are very serious interpretive problems with that approach. Is that what it is? But yes, he is a deeply committed Christian and has done some very good scholarship on Secretaries in the ancient world; but the data he cites do not support the conclusions he draws, as I show in my book on Forgery and Counterforty.
I’m finishing up reading the book you wrote with Zlatko Plese, “the Other Gospels”. I see you wrote another book with him, “The Apocryphal Gospels.” Can I ask what the differences in the books are.
They are the same English translations; The Apocryphal Gospels, though, gives the Greek, Latin, and Coptic texts on the facing pages of the translations and have fuller introductions with a bit more scholarly detail. So it’s really for peole who already have the langages.
I think Lost Christianities is my favorite of your books that I have read because there was so much in there that I had never even heard of (not that I haven’t learned things from every one of your books that I have read). I thought Marcionism made more sense than the Christianity we have today.
I see that it has been 15 years since I read it, so maybe it is time to read it again!
Have scholars studied early Christianity as a “revitalization movement” as described by Anthony F. C. Wallace (studies of “cargo cults” are based on Wallace’s ideas)? Revitalization movements appear when there is an occupying force such as first century Rome over Palestine. Typically a leader or messiah appears among the occupied with a message that blends the “native religion” in this case Judaism, with the religion of the occupier, in this case paganism. Jesus may have been such a figure, sparking the syncretism, which was then picked up, especially, by Paul (often a “second” appears who explains the founder and is nearly as important in establishing the ideas of the new movement). Christianity seems to merge pagan ideas of a hero (such as Heracles) with Jewish expectations of a messiah into a new definition (a sacrificial hero who is deified). Much more to compare and explore, of course. As a grad student, I wrote a study of Sun Myung Moon’s movement within the context of Japan’s occupation of Korea from 1910-1945. Moon’s movement, too, spread from its base to become a worldwide phenomenon, this time blending Christianity with Eastern philosophies.
Yes, in the 70s (?) scholars of the NT became very interested in cargo cults as analogues to what was happening in millenarian movements in antiquity.
One of the things I’ve often wondered about is why rival Christian sects are so brutal to each other, at least through to the Enlightenment. For example, as outlined by Ramsay MacMullen in his book, Christianizing the Roman Empire (A. D. 100-400), Christians in Carthage tried to whip Christians of opposing beliefs who were trying to bring food and succor to their brethren in jail (p. 92), Christians were robbed, stripped naked, flogged, imprisoned, decapitated, strangled, stoned, and beaten to death by their sectarian rivals (p. 93), laws imposed the death penalty for celebrating Easter on the wrong day (p. 93), and bishops and priests had their eyes torn out or hands and tongue cut off by other Christians (p. 94). The European Wars of Religion killed millions. I wonder if a jealous God who is envisioned as one who metes out destruction as envisioned in the Sistine Chapel gives license to Christians to do the same on earth.
I suppose if salvatoin depends on the “truth,” it’s pretty important to get it right. Christianity, of course, was the only Christian that had that view.
Bart,
Thank you first for being PART of my deconversion in 2017 from a fundamentalist street preacher in 2017 by understanding the parallel method of a bible study and seeing the birth and resurrection stories fall to pieces.
I have heard you say and stand on that Jesus had to have existed as a real person and I am personally not convinced one way or the other and I respect your authority immensely. I am entirely fascinated and pulled in by the idea that Rome being an enemy to the Jews of course would have the means with someone like Flavius Josephus and the motive as well to create an anti-Semitic literature to create detractors and new “converts” to their created messiah.
Of course then my main issue then is evidence/information/study materials from you or recommendations on how I can process this information to better understand what may or may not be accurate here historically?
If there is a way we could schedule a structured zoom call with questions that I could send you that we could discuss something like this that can be published for others to see as well it would be great of course.
Sincerely,
Carmine
Thanks! I think we also have to consider the fact that the Christian movement was still so ininitessimally tiny by the end of the first century that most peole in the Empire had never even heard of it, let alone considered it any kind of threat.
I’m afraid I can’t have individual Q&A’s, but gold members get one every month, and platinum get that and a webinar every three months!
For blog subscribers, “The Triumph of Christianity…” by Bart D. Ehrman is a useful description of the mix of political, sociological, demographic, and religious pragmatism and historical vicissitude that powered Christianity’s influence in the West for at least 2000 years. However, having read the book, I sense that the “what done it” mystery, Sherlock Holmes-like, lingers on! What most primal feature of the personality of a homeless, itinerant, crucified preacher known to history as Jesus of Nazareth, funneled all that Christianity became into Jesus-centricity? In a lecture at an institution called SES some years ago, Dr Ehrman rejects the Gospels as historically reliable sources for the resurrection. If the resurrection and miracles are to be disregarded, the only primal catalyst remaining is the authoritative preaching of Jesus as in Matthew 7:29. Such a preaching skill doesn’t seem to be sufficiently significant to promote Jesus onto the pedestal of riser from the dead and to become the focus of all the literary and religious accretion that followed. Why Jesus of Nazareth and not Harry Bloggs of Judea?
What I was arguing in my book is that Christianity did NOT derive from a primal feature of Jesus’ personality. It arose from his followrs’ belief that he had been raised from the dead. It’s a major point. I stress it even more in my book How Jesus Became God. Harry Blogs, by contrast, did not have followers who believed they saw him alive after his death.
Bart:
If you’ve read After Jesus Before Christianity: A Historical Exploration of the First Two Centuries of Jesus Movements by Erin Vearncombe, Brandon Scott, Hal Taussig what did you think of it?
Thank you.
I’m afraid I haven’t read it.
OK, thanks all the same.