The Lost Way: How Two Forgotten Gospels Are Rewriting the Story of Christian Origins

See Also: A more conservative viewpoint is expressed here, but there are comments that provide a somewhat tired interprettation from a more doubting standpoint too. For instance, the end of Mark -- "why did God allow it to be lost" etc.  The all or nothing approach is not compelled -- the fact the Bible was written and translated by imperfect humans results in imperfections, but it is a bigger leap to say it is not sacred at all.  "Gotchas" pointing out time based sexism or whatnot is more child's game than anything else past dealing with certain literalists. If you wish to say that fine; requires a bit more work though. And, "sacred" need not just be "the literal word of some entity in heaven" or something either. 

During an abortion discussion, Catholic doctrine came up, and I corrected a statement about their belief over vasectomies. Someone replied "who gives a damn." I found this both depressing (even the original person granted I was correct; caring about others to me is a good thing) and misguided (her desire was basically to have religious people keep their views secret and not push them on her -- noted how knowing them can be useful here).  But, the comment is not unique -- it is a standard mindset.

Find it overall interesting and helpful to understand religious faith and history with a personal leaning toward Christianity, particularly a sort of rational view, given the majority in this country and my general upbringing (grew up Catholic). Some disfavor "religion," which to many means a limited sort of faith, particularly of a certain irrational sort that is easily ridiculed by "the reality based community." (The murders in Paris would be a ready example.)  But, there are emotion laden sorts among those who use such terms (or "the village" and not as applied to a bad movie.)  

A more fulfilling and complete view of religion to me is possible here.  This need not be limited to books of this sort, which ultimately ends with the author laying his cards on the table -- he doesn't believe in the "end of days" sentiments of the four canonical gospels or really that Jesus is uniquely the "Son of God" (like gays and lesbians speaking of fellow "brothers and sisters," various times in the New Testament and elsewhere we read of "children of God" ... in effect "sons and daughters of God").  He isn't studying the "Q" source (the basically agreed upon idea that Matthew and Luke used Mark, some separate source ["quelle"] along with independent material sometimes called "M" and "L")  and Thomas (helpful in this context since it has a lot of overlap with "Q," providing an independent source of early Christian beliefs)  just for historical curiosity.

More conservative approaches can be useful here -- after all, as the book itself notes, even there it is generally accepted by many "Paul" did not write many of the "Pauline" epistles.  In other words, even if you take the Bible as the word of God, just how it was created and what it says and reflects can be a complicated enterprise.  I admit to be sympathetic to the p.o.v. of this book, so am not reading many books from a more conservative viewpoint though they also provide some useful insights. Overall, people in general can gain a lot of insight, including in promotion of their religious beliefs in "Jesus Christ" or other religious figures by deep reading here.

This is an ongoing theme of mine but it bears repeating, at least from my vantage point when reading comments like the one cited earlier.  Anyway, I have a general interest in history, so trying to gain insight into early Christians is my thing too. On that level, besides having a nice colorful cover, this book covers some standard ground (for those familiar with the genre) but in a good down to earth fashion with a specific focus. It adds some intriguing insights such as wondering why would they "bless the poor" (the word implying the destitute) -- do they have certain special insights?  And, a core early tradition appears to be for early disciples to be wandering evangelists, trading food for service to the poor. 

The book is careful to hedge and note that we don't know various things here, including the date of early gospels except to some vague range. But, it does at times cross that line where reasonable hypothesis moves into "this is how it was," especially since we aren't talking about an erudite journal article here (each chapter has a collection of sources; no notes). It isn't really clear why -- because such and such an area appears to be into the author of the Gospel of Thomas -- that is where it was written. Looking at the few verses that speak of Apollos, there was just not enough to reach the conclusions about his beliefs expressed here. Maybe, the longer works cited would be more convincing there.  Somewhat doubtful.  

Still, Apollos, the mention of something called "the Way" in Acts (related to the "two ways" of Didache, an early Christian writing that deserves more attention?)  and a slew other tidbits does provide a lot of fascinating (to me at least) questions.  The effort here to focus on a more wisdom and present day tradition (the idea that the "kingdom of God" was here, not in the future, not even reliant on Jesus' death/resurrection which these two "gospels" don't appear to even reference) overall is well worth a read. This is so even if I'm unsure about certain things like use of "empire of God" (as a sort of alternative to the Roman Empire) in part since I thought "kingdom" was at least in part a nostalgic look back to King David. 

Like various things, what seems old hat continues to intrigue.