Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew

292 Pages·2005·1.4 MB·English

by  Bart D. Ehrman

Introduction: 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 who run twelve-step programs to ensure financial
success. 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 Koreshstill todaywho think the world has
already started to end, beginning with the events at Waco, a fulfillment of
prophecies from 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 practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves
Christian were so varied 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 forgottenin 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 the lost forms of Christianity they tried to
authorize.
The Varieties of Ancient Christianity
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. 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
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. And there were other books written as well,
with equally impressive pedigreesother Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses
claiming to be written by the earthly apostles of Jesus.
The Lost Scriptures
The Gospels that came to be included in the New Testament were all written
anonymously; only at a later time were they called by the names of their reputed
authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But at about the time these names were
being associated with the Gospels, other Gospel books were becoming available,
sacred texts that were read and revered by different Christian groups throughout
the world: a Gospel, for example, claiming to be written by Jesus' closest
disciple, Simon Peter; another by his apostle Philip; a Gospel allegedly written
by Jesus' female disciple Mary Magdalene; another by his own twin brother,
Didymus Judas Thomas.
Someone decided that four of these early Gospels, and no others, should be
accepted as part of the canonthe collection of sacred books of Scripture. But how
did they make their decisions? When? How can we be sure they were right? And
whatever happened to the other books?
When the New Testament was finally gathered together, it included Acts, an
account of the activities of the disciples after Jesus' death. But there were other
Acts written in the early years of the church: the Acts of Peter and of John, the
Acts of Paul, the Acts of Paul's female companion Thecla, and others. Why were
these not included as parts of Scripture?
Our New Testament today contains a number of epistles, that is, letters written
by Christian leaders to other Christians, thirteen of them allegedly by Paul.
Scholars debate whether Paul actually wrote all of these letters. And there are
other letters not in the New Testament that also claim to be written by Paul, for
example, several letters sent by "Paul" to the Roman philosopher Seneca, and a
letter written to the church of Laodicea, and Paul's Third Corinthians (the New
Testament has First and Second Corinthians). Moreover, there were letters
written in the names of other apostles as well, including one allegedly written by
Simon Peter to Jesus' brother James, and another by Paul's companion Barnabas.
Why were these excluded?
The New Testament concludes with an apocalypse, a revelation concerning the
end of the world in a cataclysmic act of God, written by someone named John
and brought into the New Testament only after Christian leaders became
convinced that the author was none other than John the son of Zebedee, Jesus'
own disciple (even though the author never claims to be that John). But why
were other apocalypses not admitted into the canon, such as the apocalypse
allegedly written by Simon Peter, in which he is given a guided tour of heaven
and hell to see the glorious ecstasies of the saints and, described in yet more
graphic detail, the horrendous torments of the damned? Or the book popular
among Christian readers of the second century, the Shepherd of Hermas, which,
like the book of Revelation, is filled with apocalyptic visions of a prophet?
We now know that at one time or another, in one place or another, all of these
noncanonical books and many others were revered as sacred, inspired, scriptural.
Some of them we now have; others we know only by name. Only twenty-seven
of the early Christian books were finally included in the canon, copied by scribes
through the ages, eventually translated into English, and now on bookshelves in
virtually every home in America. Other books came to be rejected, scorned,
maligned, attacked, burned, all but forgottenlost.
Losses and Gains
It may be worth reflecting on what was both lost and gained when these books,
and the Christian perspectives they represented, disappeared from sight. One
thing that was lost, of course, was the great diversity of the early centuries of
Christianity. As I have already pointed out, modern Christianity is not lacking in
a diversity of its own, with its wide-ranging theologies, liturgies, practices,
interpretations of Scripture, political views, social stands, organizations,
institutions, and so on. But virtually all forms of modern Christianity, whether
they acknowledge it or not, go back to one form of Christianity that emerged as
victorious from the conflicts of the second and third centuries. This one form of
Christianity decided what was the "correct" Christian perspective; it decided
who could exercise authority over Christian belief and practice; and it
determined what forms of Christianity would be marginalized, set aside,
destroyed. It also decided which books to canonize into Scripture and which
books to set aside as "heretical," teaching false ideas.
And then, as a coup de grace, this victorious party rewrote the history of the
controversy, making it appear that there had not been much of a conflict at all,
claiming that its own views had always been those of the majority of Christians
at all times, back to the time of Jesus and his apostles, that its perspective, in
effect, had always been "orthodox" (i.e., the "right belief") and that its opponents
in the conflict, with their other scriptural texts, had always represented small
splinter groups invested in deceiving people into "heresy" (literally meaning
"choice"; a heretic is someone who willfully chooses not to believe the right
things).
What Christianity gained at the end of these early conflicts was a sense of
confidence that it was and always had been "right." It also gained a creed, which
is still recited by Christians today, that affirmed the right beliefs, as opposed to
the heretical wrong ones. Relatedly, it gained a theology, including a view that
Christ is both fully divine and fully human, and a doctrine of the Trinity which
maintained that the Godhead consists of three personsFather, Son, and Holy
Spiritdistinct in number but equal in substance. Moreover, it gained a hierarchy
of church leaders who could run the church and guarantee its adherence to
proper belief and practice. And it gained a canon of Scripturethe New
Testamentcomprising twenty-seven books that supported these leaders' vision of
the church and their understanding of doctrine, ethics, and worship.
These gains are obviously significant and relatively well known. Less familiar
are the losses incurred when these particular conflicts came to an end. It is these
losses which we will be exploring throughout this book. It is striking that, for
centuries, virtually everyone who studied the history of early Christianity simply
accepted the version of the early conflicts written by the orthodox victors. This
all began to change in a significant way in the nineteenth century as some
scholars began to question the "objectivity" of such early Christian writers as the
fourth-century orthodox author Eusebius, the so-called Father of Church History,
who reproduced for us the earliest account of the conflict. This initial query into
Eusebius's accuracy eventually became, in some circles, a virtual onslaught on
his character, as twentieth-century scholars began to subject his work to an
ideological critique that exposed his biases and their role in his presentation. The
reevaluation of Eusebius was prompted, in part, by the discovery of additional
ancient books, uncovered both by trained archaeologists looking for them and by
ancient books, uncovered both by trained archaeologists looking for them and by
bedouin who came across them by chance, other Gospels, for example, that also
claimed to be written in the names of apostles.
In this book we will examine these lost books that have now been found, along
with other books that were marginalized by the victorious party but have been
known by scholars for centuries. We will also consider how the twenty-seven
books of the New Testament came to be accepted as canonical Scripture,
discussing who made this collection, on what grounds, and when. And we will
explore the nature of these early conflicts themselves, to see what was at stake,
what the opposing views were, how the parties involved conducted themselves,
what strategies they used, and what literature they revered, copied, and collected
on the one hand and despised, rejected, and destroyed on the other. Through it
all, we will be focusing our attention on the diversity of early Christianity, or
rather the diversity of early Christianities, a diversity that came to be lost, only to
be rediscovered, in part, in modern times.
The Stakes of the Conflict
Before launching into the investigation, I should perhaps say a word about what
is, or at least what was, at stake. Throughout the course of our study I will be
asking the question: What if it had been otherwise? What if some other form of
Christianity had become dominant, instead of the one that did?
In anticipation of these discussions, I can point out that if some other form of
Christianity had won the early struggles for dominance, the familiar doctrines of
Christianity might never have become the "standard" belief of millions of
people, including the belief that there is only one God, that he is the creator, that
Christ his son is both human and divine. The doctrine of the Trinity might never
have developed. The creeds still spoken in churches today might never have
been devised. The New Testament as a collection of sacred books might never
have come into being. Or it might have come into being with an entirely
different set of books, including, for example, the Gospel of Thomas instead of
the Gospel of Matthew, or the Epistle of Barnabas instead of the Epistle of
James, or the Apocalypse of Peter instead of the Apocalypse of John. If some
other group had won these struggles, Christians might never have had an Old
Testament; if yet a different group had won, Christians might have had only the
Old Testament (which would not have been called the "Old" Testament, since
there would have been no "New" Testament).
Moreover, we will see that as vital as the outcome of these early Christian
struggles was for the internal character of the religion, it was even more
significant for the effect and impact that this religion had externally, on the
history of civilization itself. It is conceivable that if the form of Christianity that
established itself as dominant had not done so, Christianity would never have
become a major world religion within the Roman Empire. Had that happened,
the empire might never have adopted Christianity as its official religion. In that
case, Christianity would never have become the dominant religion of the
European Middle Ages, down to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and on to
today. Had the conflicts been resolved differently, as odd is this may seem,
people in the Westwe ourselvesmight have remained polytheists to this day,
worshiping the ancient gods of Greece and Rome. On the other hand, the empire
might have converted to a different form of Christianity and the development of
Western society and culture might have developed in ways that we cannot
imagine.
However one plays such games of imagination, it is clear that the victory of one
form of Christianity was a significant event both for the internal workings of the
religion and for the history of civilization, especially in the West. But it was also
a victory that came with a price. In this study, as I have indicated, we will be
exploring both what was gained and what was lost once the conflicts of the early
Christian centuries had been resolved.
The Shape of Our Study
For those who like to have a road map for their journey, I can explain how the
book has been structured. It contains three major parts. The first, "Forgeries and
Discoveries," looks at several intriguing literary texts: (a) a Gospel allegedly
written by Jesus' disciple Peter, (b) a legendary account of Thecla, a female
companion of the apostle Paul, (c) a Gospel claiming to be written by Judas
Thomas, supposedly Jesus' twin brother, and (d) a longer, but until recently lost,
version of the Gospel of Mark.
Although differing from one another in significant ways, these texts all appear to
represent forgeries, three of them ancient, one of them (possibly) modern;
moreover, they all advocate understandings of Jesus and/or forms of Christianity
that were not destined to come into the mainstream. To this extent, they may be
taken as representative of a larger number of fabricated accounts known from the
early Christian centuries, some recognized as forgeries already in antiquity,
others not discovered (or rediscovered) until relatively recent times.
others not discovered (or rediscovered) until relatively recent times.
As we will see, it is principally through such literary textsmany of them lost, and
only some now foundthat we know about alternative forms of Christianity, as
there are very few archaeological discoveries (for example, of buildings, coins,
or artwork) that can contribute to our knowledge.
After examining these four instances of forgery at some length, we will move to
the second part of the book, "Heresies and Orthodoxies," to consider broader
social phenomena, based on information drawn from such forgeries and from a
wide array of other surviving sources. In particular, we will discuss the widely
disparate beliefs of several important Christian groups: the Jewish-Christian
Ebionites, the anti-Jewish Marcionites, and a variety of groups called "Gnostic."
Standing over and against each of these groups was a form of Christianity that
endorsed the beliefs and practices that eventually came to dominate the religion
toward the middle of the third century. Since, from the distance of a later
perspective, this group (or groups) may be considered the forebears of Christian
orthodoxy, we will call them the "proto-orthodox."
This will take us to the third part, "Winners and Losers," where we move beyond
the diverse texts, beliefs, and practices of these various groups to consider the
conflicts that raged between them, as each of them contended for converts,
insisting that its views were right while those of the others were wrong. In
particular, we will consider how proto-orthodox Christians engaged in these
internecine battles which eventually led to their victory. As we will see, these
confrontations were waged largely on literary grounds, as members of the proto-
orthodox group produced polemical tractates in opposition to other Christian
perspectives, forged sacred texts to provide authorization for their own
perspectives (forgeries, that is, claiming to be written by Jesus' own apostles),
and collected other early writings into a sacred canon of Scripture to advance
their views and counteract the views of others. It is out of these conflicts that the
New Testament came into being, a collection of twenty-seven books taken to be
sacred, inspired, and authoritative.
The study will conclude then with some thoughts on the significance of the
victory of this one form of Christianity over the others, as we reflect on what
was achieved and what was sacrificed when so many alternative forms of
Christianity and the texts they espoused came to be lost to posterity, only to be
found again, in part, in modern times.
Part One: FORGERIES AND
DISCOVERIES
Almost all of the "lost" Scriptures of the early Christians were forgeries. On this,
scholars of every stripe agree, liberal and conservative, fundamentalist and
atheist. The book now known as the Proto-Gospel of James claims to have been
written by none other than James, the brother of Jesus (see Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19).
It is an intriguing text in which, among other things, Jesus' mother, Mary, is said
to have remained a virgin even after giving birth, as proved by a postpartum
inspection by an overly zealous midwife who finds her "intact." But whoever
actually wrote the book, it was not James. So, too, with a book now called
Pseudo-Titus, allegedly written by the Titus known from the New Testament as
a companion of the apostle Paul. It also is an interesting book, arguing page after
page against sexual love, even within the confines of marriage, on the grounds
that physical intimacy leads to damnation: "Why," it asks, "do you strive against
your own salvation to find death in love?" But whoever actually wrote the book,
it was not Titus. The same holds true for nearly all of the Gospels, Acts, Epistles,
and Apocalypses that came to be excluded from the canon: forgeries in the
names of famous apostles and their companions.
That Christians in the early centuries would forge such books should come as no
surprise. Scholars have long recognized that even some of the books accepted
into the canon are probably forgeries. Christian scholars, of course, have been
loathe to call them that and so more commonly refer to them as "pseudonymous"
writings. Possibly this is a more antiseptic term. But it does little to solve the
problem of a potential deceit, for an author who attempts to pass off his own
writing as that of some other well-known person has written a forgery. That is no
less true of the book allegedly written to Titus that made it into the New
Testament (Paul's Letter to Titus) than of the book allegedly written by Titus that
did not (Pseudo-Titus), both claiming to be written by apostles (Paul and Titus),
both evidently written by someone else.
Forgery, of course, is not the only kind of pseudonymous writing there is. In the
modern world, at least, pseudonymity occurs in two forms. On the one hand,
there are simple pen names, usually considered innocent enough. When Samuel