Very slapdash. Your attempt at an informal style undermines the serious nature of the formation of the Canon. You may be all jokey about it, but most people aren’t. If you’re Ehrman (and the rest of the authors you cite), you must ridicule the ancient Catholic doctrine of the Holy Spirit inspiring the process of the formation of the Canon. I suggest you read more mainstream Catholic and Orthodox exegetes to come to appreciate why the postulations of Ehrman, et al, haven’t budged the needle outside of a very small coterie curled up inside the SBL.
Thanks, I never quite understood the public fascination with the gnostics. Their primary message of the inherent corruption of the material world, and therefore only the spiritual world matters, does not seem very attractive to me. You end up with a fatalistic world view - why fix what is wrong, when everything is corrupt?
I kind of see echoes of this in some flavors of Christianity. Why preserve the environment when it is all going to be swept away anyway?
I keep coming back to the essential teachings of Jesus and find them perfectly valid and relevant. The historical analysis is fascinating but absent a Time Machine we will never know the full truth and context of His Life.
If orthodoxy was merely the theology of the imperial winners, why did ancient Christian traditions outside the Latin West including Ethiopia, preserve broader canons while still rejecting the Gnostic reversal of the Creator, creation, incarnation, and resurrection?
Very slapdash. Your attempt at an informal style undermines the serious nature of the formation of the Canon. You may be all jokey about it, but most people aren’t. If you’re Ehrman (and the rest of the authors you cite), you must ridicule the ancient Catholic doctrine of the Holy Spirit inspiring the process of the formation of the Canon. I suggest you read more mainstream Catholic and Orthodox exegetes to come to appreciate why the postulations of Ehrman, et al, haven’t budged the needle outside of a very small coterie curled up inside the SBL.
Thanks, I never quite understood the public fascination with the gnostics. Their primary message of the inherent corruption of the material world, and therefore only the spiritual world matters, does not seem very attractive to me. You end up with a fatalistic world view - why fix what is wrong, when everything is corrupt?
I kind of see echoes of this in some flavors of Christianity. Why preserve the environment when it is all going to be swept away anyway?
Lots of questions raised, no conclusive answers.
I keep coming back to the essential teachings of Jesus and find them perfectly valid and relevant. The historical analysis is fascinating but absent a Time Machine we will never know the full truth and context of His Life.
However, I did enjoy reading your piece.
If orthodoxy was merely the theology of the imperial winners, why did ancient Christian traditions outside the Latin West including Ethiopia, preserve broader canons while still rejecting the Gnostic reversal of the Creator, creation, incarnation, and resurrection?