« Review of the day | Main | What we've learned »

May 18, 2006



Burge's Protestantism eeks out in this paragraph:

"Ehrman's more important effort appears in the companion volume, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford). Here Ehrman says that early Christianity witnessed remarkable theological chaos. Everything was in dispute: monotheism, Jesus' divinity, creation. Then, Ehrman says, in the second and third centuries, powerful clerics imposed their views on rivals, ending a golden age of diversity and tolerance. The vanquished rivals supposedly were reformed, suppressed, or forgotten. Other religions and other Christian voices, those outside the mainstream, were crushed. And it is only now, Ehrman says, with the discovery of their lost scriptures, that these long-silenced voices are being heard once again."

Why is this work of Bart Ehrman "important"? Because it casts "one, holy, Catholic and apostolic" into question. A significantly important matter coming from one teaching at Wheaton College, a bastion of evangelical Christianity.

John Henry

Why is this work of Bart Ehrman "important"? Because it casts "one, holy, Catholic and apostolic" into question.

I didn't take "important" to imply an endorsement.


Good article. Unwittingly, this may lead Protestants to ask the question, "exactly who decided the authentic canon?" - a question that leads directly to the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church...


I glanced at Ehrmans "Misquoting Jesus" a couple of weeks ago and noted some of the passages he claims were "doctored". Then I went home and looked up the passages in my Bible (Revised Standard Version newly published by Ignatius Press). Every verse, every single one, had a footnote saying "other ancient authorities say...or other ancient authorities omit..." They seemed very nit-picky and his arguments sounded like the arguments some protestants use against Mary's perpetual virginity. I did not actually see him point out any of Jesus' sayings (granted, I didn't read the whole book, just gave it a glance). The covers of his books feature gushing reviews by writers such as Elaine Pagels. It looks like he's playing up to the "we need a bible that includes everything anyone ever said about Jesus even if it isn't based on reality" crowd.

Tom faranda

this is certainly a good and important article. I see nothing in it that casts "one holy catholic and apostolic" into question. In fact, quite the opposite.


In re the great enthusiasm demonstrated by so many on behalf of the thesis of the "divine feminine": can anyone quickly sketch out for me the essential and inherently "masculine" aspects of the putative divine masculine which allegedly drove it into eclipse?

I propose that on that point the "sacred feminine" project is just "and ye shall be as gods" dressed up with little Betty Friedan pamphleting.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)