8908Re: "The Lost Gospels"
- Jan 2, 2004--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
>general introduction, but while also using terms there
> In his book, After the New Testament, he defines "orthodox" in the
like "heterodox" and "heretics," these aren't clarified until several
chapters into the text. That's especially odd since the ungainly
term "heresiologists" is also explained in the introduction, but by
neglecting to elaborate on "heresy" itself, readers who may be
newcomers to the subject may be left to conclude that every reference
to these dissenting groups carries the popular implication that the
adherents believed "incorrectly," even "wickedly."
>when Ehrman describes the chapter on the development of church
> Yet another example from the same book comes in the introduction
offices. Each chapter gets a one-paragraph overview, but while he
presents a clearly "historical" perspective in some of these, this
particular instance really caught my attention:
>eventually, settled in order to help define and shape the nature
> Just as the canon of Scripture came to be discussed and,
of "orthodox" Christianity, so too there was a movement to solidify
and structure the organization of the church, in part to
prevent "heretics" from acquiring any kind of foothold within it.
Early in the second century, there were calls for a rigid church
structure that could bring order out of chaos in the early Christian
communities and so guarantee the preservation and perpetuation of the
true religion . . . . [emphasis added] (pg. 5)
>to be speaking from a historical perspective, but he would have
> By using certain labels within quotation marks, the author appears
better maintained that position if he had similarly treated the
phrase "true religion." If I were truly suspicious of him, I might
add that he perhaps has a penchant for the conventional Christian
view, but again, this is not what comes across in the gist of his
>how Scripture was manipulated to more concretely represent the manner
> In another book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Ehrman shows
in which the orthodox already interpreted the sacredly held writings.
Now, this may be a really sad example, Cari, but I'm curious to see
if this comment strikes you the same way:
>words of their sacred texts to make them more patently orthodox and
> My thesis can be stated simply: scribes occasionally altered the
to prevent their misuse by Christians who espoused aberrant views.
>seemed a bit harsh. LOL Oddly enough, in the most recently published
> Okay, I'm probably quibbling on this one, but "aberrant" just
of his books cited thus far, the author deftly addresses my miniscule
concern in his introduction to Lost Scriptures:
>these alternative theologies are aberrations because they are not
> Historians today realize that it is over-simplified to say that
represented in the New Testament. For the New Testament itself is the
collection of books that emerged from the conflict, the group of
books advocated by the side of the disputes that eventually
established itself as dominant and handed the books down to posterity
as "the" Christian Scriptures. [emphasis Ehrman's] (pg. 2)
>>Gerry, you're probably asking the wrong person because I can remember
a few incidents when I was very young that make me twinge when
hearing terms like the "true religion" and "aberrant."
Now, surely, my playmate down the street wouldn't have known a term
like "aberrant" at her young age, but she certainly didn't mince her
words when indicating she nonetheless had a clear idea of the meaning
behind this term. I wasn't a member of her "true religion" and since
I also didn't know the catechism, I was going to hell, you see.
Yes, those were her words. I was truly straying from what she had
been taught was the "true" path.
And, I've been doing my darnedest to keep straying from such mean-
spirited opinions ever since... ;-)
It's very possible that Dr. Ehrman was speaking only contextually
from what would be an orthodox viewpoint in particular instances, but
it would be helpful to clarify this to avoid confusion. Since we see
him later addressing this particular word, "aberrant," perhaps
someone did bring this to his attention or perhaps he even caught
this himself. Nonetheless, in the same work _Lost Scriptures_, you
mentioned earlier that he equated "heresy" with "false belief."
Hopefully, in the future he'll continue to shed light on the context
of a few questionable terms.
On the whole though, you seem to *not* find his writing showing
a "penchant for the conventional Christian view." I'll be interested
to see what your impressions are when you have a chance to hear Dr.
Ehrman in person at the upcoming seminar.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>