How diverse was early Christianity? I had been transfixed by this question for a long time when I decided to write a trade book, Lost Christianities. It was a blast to write and in some ways launched my career of writing for general audiences. My earlier book Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet was definitely directed to that crowd, but it was with Lost Christianities that I started kicking broader communication to a wider readership into gear.
Here’s I’ll excerpt by explanation of the book in its Introduction (from Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press, 2003). This will take three posts.
*********************
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 who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.
In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity (why else would the world be filled with such misery and hardship?). Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering.
In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired.
In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. But there were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine, and not human at all. (For them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son, but not himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles, but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath.
In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died.
How could some of these views even be considered Christian? Or to put the question differently: how could people who considered themselves Christian hold such views? Why did they not consult their Scriptures to see that there were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had died? Why didn’t they just read the New Testament?
It is because there was no New Testament. To be sure, the books that were eventually collected into the New Testament had been written by the second century. But they had not yet been gathered into a widely recognized and authoritative “canon” of Scripture.[1] And there were other books written as well, with equally impressive pedigrees — other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses claiming to be written by the earthly apostles of Jesus.
[1]The term “canon” comes from a Greek word that means “measuring rod” or “straight edge.” It came refer to a “standard,” and then to a “standard collection of writings.”
Lost Christianities was a favorite of mine.
Lost Christianities is not the first of your books I read but I did find it enlightening. Most significant to me is your treatment of the orthodox efforts to stifle what they considered heretic beliefs and to destroy what they considered heretic writings. Elaine Pagels also addresses document destruction efforts in The Gnostic Gospels. To me, this confirms that contemporary liberal democracies and science has created an openness of thought that did not exist prior, particularly during the early development of the orthodox churches.
I shared with a conservative christian friend an overview of some lost christianty beliefs. Their response was “well we know those beliefs aren’t true.” I found this response typical of people who have never been presented with the history of christianity so that they have not considered the questions “who has controlled the beliefs you have accepted?” and “what age or zeitgeist of christian thinking are we living, and will it morph into something different?”
I’m watching the first of three How Jesus Became God – UCC videos to see how you mention Jesus became God with God the Father not Yahweh, the god of Temple Judaism.
First, I noticed when speaking of messiah, you speak of a king the Jews had not had for hundreds of years without mentioning King Herod (who was great). So, if Jews wanted a messiah who would be king, they should have had a messiah list showing someone who did as much as Herod the Great but needed even more.
Jesus saw himself as a messiah because he had a staffing plan for being messiah and king. Judas spilled the beans and Jesus was charged with trying to be the king of the Jews (when the empire over Judea did not see someone filling the shoes of King Herod the Great since Antipater II was executed.
Then you say, Jesus didn’t see himself as the crucified messiah.
Does that mean you think the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, which said the son of the vineyard landowner would be killed, was not an authentic saying of Jesus? Jesus did not believe that God-inspired parable of prophecy?
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Yes, I don’t think Jesus told the parable of the Wicked Tenants as it is recorded in the Gospels.
Steefen:
There are other places where Jesus knew Holy Week was going to end with him as messiah, dead.
Mark 8:31
He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
Mark 10:33
“Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn Him to death and will deliver Him over to the Gentiles,
There are no cross-references to gospel of John (Why?) except Judas betraying him. Jesus didn’t think he was going to survive that.
= = =
Sure the story goes that he was raised to life but that did not include him freeing Judea from being a client kingdom of Rome in 40 days before Ascension.
Do you know if this book is available in Spanish? I own the English version, but my wife really only speaks/reads Spanish.
There is a Spanish translation, but I don’t know what it is called.
Go to AbeBooks.com and search for Cristianismos perdidos.
Let the buyer beware, of course. I notice that *every* seller is rated five stars, which raises a red flag (for me).
If anyone else is interested, I went to Amazon and searched for Bart Ehrman Spanish. Once I found the correct title, I looked on AbeBooks.
Hey Bart. I have a question about Paul’s view about faith and curious if you would agree with me or not. I believe that what Paul was preaching wasn’t “faith alone” doctrine. He believed that “faith” would bring the love, kindness, good-doers(Galatians:5:22-26) and that would be what would help enter the kingdom. Without “faith”, he believed that everyone was doomed to follow the ENTIRE law and wouldn’t get a salvation. Even with “faith”, one could still do bad things but Paul believes that Christ exactly died for this to bring another justification system as the old one(following the law was a trap and not a good one). I don’t really find any contradiction in Paul’s thoughts and I also agree that Matthiew’s chapter is not the same as Paul, but Jesus’s words in Matthew really says very little whereas Paul just uses theology to go deeper which for sure doesn’t make his opinions true as he might be wrong as well. My first question would be if you agree with all this and my second question is where did he get the idea that one would need to follow the ENTIRE law for righteousness ?
Paul certainly thought that faith in Christ’s death and resurrection are what brought about a right standing before God, and he also certainly thought that having faith would lead a person to lead a morally good life. It’s not that Paul argued someone could be saved by keeping the entire law. It’s that he thought no one did keep the law, since as human descendants of Adam, they were controlled by the Power of sin, even if they did keep MOST of the law (as he himself claims to have done in Philippians 3). The Law was good — a fantastic gift from God; the problem was that it indicated God’s will but did not provide the power to do God’s will. Only Christ did.
I’ve been reading some of your older blogs on sources used in the New Testament gospel accounts. These blogs are so well done that I highly recommend all blog members who haven’t read them to do so. In reading these, your technical expertise, years of study and hard work become apparent to all those who have the wherewithal to see it. But these blogs really raise questions about the origin of the sources in all four canonical gospel accounts. Do you think any of these sources go back to, or come from, the Jerusalem church? What do you think the original disciples of Jesus were saying about Jesus? Were they telling stories like walking on water and curing blind people? Thanks in advance for answering these questions.
https://ehrmanblog.org/what-really-happened-at-jesus-trial-before-pilate/
I think lots of our later traditions originated with Jesus’ original followers, but most of them have been changed considerably. ONe of the main tasks of historical scholarship is to figure out which are oldest, and among those, which actually go back to Jesus. Unfortunately, we don’t have any independent sources/information about what specific peole in Jerusalem were saying about him after his death.
Thanks for posting the link. It was very interesting.
One question for Bart – you comment in that article that Jesus could not have answered Pilate without a translator, since he would not have known Greek or Latin.
I read recently a couple of articles by Stanley Porter contending that Jesus did know Greek. One article was in “Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus” pp2455ff “The Language(s) Jesus Spoke”.
The other was in the Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (Nov 1993) pp.199ff “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?”. On page 225 he concludes that Jesus must have spoken to Pilate in Greek on the basis of the text, presupposing the historicity of the event as described in the Gospels! He claims a translator is ruled out! He goes so far as to say we have Jesus’ ipsissima verba in Greek in some passages!
While this is highly unconvincing, to say the least, he does include other arguments and quotes other scholars who say Jesus must have known some Greek, and I’m wondering on a scale of 1-10 what you would rate Jesus’ probable competence in Greek, where 0 is no knowledge whatsoever, and 10 is fluent.
Yes, Stanley has long insisted on that, along with lots of other scholars. I think it’s completley implausible. They like so many others never take seriously what life was like in rural Galilee for the poor. I’d rate Jesus probably 1. Hey, he’s #1!
Dr. Ehrman, when is your next live online event? I work to join if my schedule allows it. I will maybe interact verbally, if I able to ans feel confident about the subject. Thanks!
I’m afraid it hasn’t been scheduled yet.
Understood. Thank you. If you ever do a live event on the Book of Acts, I am in. If my schedule allows it of course.
Boy, I don’t know which came first, the question I formulated and sent to you, or your answer to it!
So I see you have covered it all already, and a long time ago. Back to the bookstore to buy more Bart Ehrman books: Lost Christianities, and Lost Gospels, and surely more, like the one about Christianity conquering the roman world – forgot the title. Just listened to a documentary showing how the roman emperors might have played a role, before Constantine, in this. Will want to read your take on it also.
Keep it up. You sure are not only informative, but entertaining also. Rekindled my interest in this phenomenon that is Christianity and JC.
The Council of Nicea chose to be the official one, one of the versions of the nature of Christ, one God with three… personalities? persons? Not sure how they worked this out.
Doesn’t Matthew 24:36 rule out this unity dogma, giving more weight to the affirmation that Christ was created by God? (Arianus?)
Matthew 24…
36“But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son but only the Father.”
Depends which fourth century theologian you ask. And no, there are not three personalities but three distinct “persons” (it’s a technical term) made of one “essence” (another technical term)
Seems to me that some of them were in deep trouble trying to still be monotheistic while juggling with three characters in their story.
If they had our version of Matthew 24 36, seems the conclusion has to be that the Son not knowing what the Father has in mind, they can’t be one. Does being of the same essence make them one? What is this essence? Were they pulling at straws?
Where could I read an intellectually sound explanation of what they understood Trinity to be, if there is one? Maybe you have written about this in one of your books already…
Thank you for your time, professor…
Well, I do talk about it a bit in Lost Christianities, and more fully in How Jesus Became God. You may be interested in the book by Rusch, The Trinitarian Controversy.
Read the second one a while back. I’ll dig it out. Just bought a few more of your earlier books I just found out about: Lost Christianities, Lost Scriptures, After the New Testament (biiiiig book! Worth the price.), Apocalyptic Prophet… I’m slowly building up a more comprehensive and detailed (in an amateurish way) picture of the subject. Captivating.
With a few of Tabor’s books…
But by comparison with many, perhaps most, Christianity is an intolerant religion, so it can hardly be a surprise when religions claiming to be Christian say others are wrong.