After the New Testament: The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

by Bart D. Ehrman

A lecture series on the topic in the title.

Genres: Religion, History, Christianity, Audiobook, Nonfiction, Theology, Church History

12 pages, Audio CD

Published January 1, 2005

About the author

Bart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Reviews

[Melody Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a very informative set of lectures with a very interesting lecturer. If only he didn't have such disdain for the Bible. It's not that I can't learn things about early church history from historians who are atheists or skeptics or members of other religions. I don't mind it at all, so long as it's approached from a purely historical lens.

The problem here was that he frequently asserted things that directly contradicted the Bible without giving any sources to back it up. For example, he made the claim that Jesus clearly began as a student of John the Baptist, which contradicts all four of the gospels, which say that John claimed to be unworthy to even tie Jesus' sandals, and that he initially refused to baptize him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” (Matthew 3:14)

Now, if you're going to make a claim like that in a Christian history course, I expect you to back it up with facts. None were given, and in fact elsewhere in the course he had said that the New Testament is the only significant contemporary record we have of Jesus' life. So where does he get this shocking new claim of his? What scholarship led to this view?

The course overall was very interesting, but all the direct contradictions to scripture make me wonder how many times he used the same method of distortion with the works of the early church fathers. A real shame.

[Jess · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to the Great Courses audio course on the Apostolic Fathers by Bart Ehrman because I wanted to visit again the development of early Christianity that I first addressed while in divinity school and to hear Ehrman’s voice in a lecture format rather than through one of his numerous books [Lost Christianities, etc]. Ehrman is controversial, particularly with evangelicals, but these lectures are at the level of a college survey class and the views come across as remarkably mainstream within the stream of biblical and historical scholarship that I received in divinity school 40+ years ago. He treats writings both well known [Ignatius, Polycarp] and not so well known [Shepherd of Hermas] today. He also treats a variety of topics in the development of early Christianity: church structure, doctrine, heresy and proto-orthodoxy, scripture, authority, ritual and Christian practices [baptism & eucharist], anti-Semitic, oral tradition, apologetics and apocalypses. He makes clear the role of the development of creeds, the canon of scripture and the clergy/episcopate. Overall, Ehrman presents a very serviceable survey of developments in early Christianity—with a focus on the second century.

[Donna Partow · Rating 1 out of 5]

RUN as fast as you can from anything by Bart D. Ehrman.

I can't for the life of me understand why someone who clearly doesn't believe in the Bible insists on teaching it anyway. Or why someone with contempt for the church is determined to position himself as a church historian.

It's impossible to count the number of times he made a completely unsubstantiated claim that invalidated the scripture or traditional views of church history - dismissively declaring "scholars agree."

He never offered any evidence. In fact, "scholars agree" became the code to watch for. It meant he was about to launch another baseless attack against Christianity.

I can't believe I finished this...it was painful. But I was determined to hear what our college students are being taught about Christianity. And Ehrman's drivel is it.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

For all those folks trying to decide whether they want to listen/watch these 24 lectures, first know that Dr Erhman (aka Bart) is very well prepared and organized. His friendly and conversational presentation style will make these lectures enjoyable and easy to understand. His subject is history, not religious dogma...this is not about belief, it's about the early christian church history as told by early Christians (10 of them in this series) writing from between about 100-150 CE...after the New Testament writings (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John...and Paul...written from 50-100 CE), but before those writings/books were 'approved' as canon by Christians in the 4th century CE. As Bart explains in his introduction: This body of work (aka writings from the Apostolic Fathers) "...is made up of different genres, written by different authors, at different times, for different purposes." Most did not become part of the canon, but all were influential in forming the doctrines of the Christians throughout the ages since their writing.

Before signing up for these lectures, make sure you read the thumbnail summaries as they will give you a clear notion as to what you'll be hearing...just so, like (too) many reviewers, your expectations aren't focused on gaining spiritual insight...this is the wrong place for that. What you will get is a thorough discussion of early christian history through the eyes of early church leaders in the 1 or 2 generations following the death of Jesus. Dr Erhman presents the proto-orthodoxy of Christianity, as well as some hetero-orthodoxy, that the early church leaders struggled with to establish the 'true' doctrinal direction of the 'faith'.

Highly recommended, especially when blessed with a sale and a coupon.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

Part 1:

I think I've made my mixed to negative thoughts about the professor pretty clear in my previous reviews on materials of his I have encountered [1].  Why, then, subject myself to six hours of listening to him talk when I do not trust him as an interpreter of scripture?  As might be imagined, my thoughts on this are complicated, in that I view Ehrman as the scholarly equivalent of a pointer dog.  I certainly do not trust his opinions or his supposed insight into the scriptures or even books that were almost nearly possibly scripture, depending on your perspective.  Where he is trustworthy, though, is in pointing out the existence of interesting texts, some of which are unfamiliar to me, that I would like to read and acquaint myself with at my own leisure.  This is perhaps not the best way to be thought of, as someone who could draw attention to other, more worthwhile texts, but given that Erhman's own belief system and worldview and approach to the Bible is very objectionable, it is perhaps more to be appreciated that I view him as having any value whatsoever.

The format of this course, as is generally the case for Great Courses, is that this particular part takes up twelve lectures of half an hour apiece.  The lectures begin with the lecturer talking about the identity and context of the Apostolic fathers (1) as being part of the generation that followed after the Apostles and who may have known them personally.  After this there is a discussion of the letter of 1 Clement (2) as well as a use of this letter to look at church structures in early Christianity, where the author mistakenly believes that the pastoral epistles were a post-Pauline development (3).  Then the professor moves on to a discussion of the letters of Ignatius (4) and their context in discussing various doctrinal disputes about the place of law (5) and the path to salvation through martyrdom that some people (including Ignatius) appear to have sought (6).  AFter this there is a discussion about the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians (7) that shows the use of authorities in the early church given Polycarp's noted interest in citing or referencing the Scriptures as well as collecting other writings together for posterity (8).  A discussion of the martyrology of Polycarp, itself an interesting document, follows (9), after which there is a thoughtful commentary on the political reasons why Christians were and are persecuted because of heathen beliefs of the lordship of the state and its false gods (10).  The last two lectures then deal with the interesting church manual known as the Didache (11) as well as the importance of ritual and ceremony involving baptism and the Passover/Eucharist (12) in the early Church.

Ultimately, while the author is not a trustworthy guide to scriptures, it happens that we share a profound interest in the early texts of Christianity of a variety of forms.  The author views the texts included in the Apostolic Fathers as a demonstration of proto-Orthodox views, and though my thoughts on the books themselves are rather varied, ranging from considerable praise (1 Clement, the Polylcarp materials) to mixed views (the Didache and the letters of Ignatius), I do find the whole collection itself rather interesting.  The second century and the struggle for the soul of Christianity between antinomian Hellenists and those who sought to preserve the apostolic faith and various other Judaizing and Gnostic groups has always been deeply interesting for me and these sources are some of the only material we have of that time of great but largely subterranean importance in the development of Christianity and the struggle for power over Christian institutions that led to the development of an autocratic and ungodly Roman Catholic Church in later centuries.  It is interesting to read about what happened before everything went south from the standpoint of genuine faith and belief among those who professed Christianity, and for those reasons alone the texts that are discussed here are of interest to those of us who study early Christianity.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

Part 2:

The only times I am even remotely fond of the professor of this course, whose work I am familiar with, is when this author introduces me to new texts to read and interpret for myself.  I care little for his interpretations, and we are on very different sides of the larger dispute over faith and the meaning of religious texts [1], but we do share a deep interest in ancient books and desire that these books be better known, if not necessarily to be agreed with or to be viewed as authoritative, at least to be understood as the raw material from which our view of history must spring.  And although I do not consider myself a particularly generous-minded person when it comes to viewing people with radically different worldviews than my own, or even different political views within a larger worldview agreement, I do consider our shared love of ancient texts and our shared perspective as outsiders to be worthy of at least some fondness.  To the extent that the author genuinely wrestles with these texts and seeks to understand and not merely view them as being convenient for his own ulterior motives and agendas, we have at least some ground of common discourse and interest if not necessarily belief, and that is worth something, at least

This collection of lectures is, like most of the ones within the Great Courses series, made up of twelve lectures of 30 minutes apiece on six cds, for ease of listening.  This section of the course begins with a discussion of the Epistle of Barnabas and its opposition to the Jews [13] along with a discussion of the rise of Christian Anti-Semitism during the second century [14], although the lecturer does not discuss how the Jews contributed to this through their rejection of Sabbatarian Jews within the synagogue through the so-called "blessings" which included a curse on Jesus Christ.  After this the author discusses 2 Clement as an early sermon [15] and looks at the use of early scripture and its complexity in the early church, at least as the professor understands it [16].  Following this is a discussion of Papias as an early interpreter of oral tradition within early Christianity [17] after which follows a discussion of his millennial views (quite congenial to my own) and the opportunity the professor has of bolstering his negative view of oral tradition [18].  A humorous discussion of the lengthy apocalypse the Shepherd of Hermas follows [19] along with a look at the importance of apocalypses (and not just the canonical books of Daniel and Revelation) in early Christianity [20].  A discussion of the last work of the Apostolic Fathers follows, the letter to Diognetus [21] along with a look at the importance of apologetics in early Christanity [22].  The course concludes with a look at the Apostolic Fathers as a collection [23] along with a look at their contribution to our understanding of proto-Orthodoxy as it developed in the period after the Apostles [24].

As can be said of any of Ehrman's works both as an instructor as well as an author, he is at his best when he is encouraging others to read and become familiar with ancient texts and at his worst when he presumes to speak as an authority upon said texts.  Ultimately, the author's worldview and perspective and his favoring of Gnostic ideas and his general lack of piety makes him a poor interpreter.  Even so, this series of lectures is at its best when the author shows a good-humored appreciation of the writers and writings he talks about and a love of appreciating ancient literature that few people understand and not many care to become familiar with.  As a result, if it is impossible to agree with everything, or even with very much, of what the author has to say about the Bible and about these texts that are worthwhile and edifying nonbiblical texts, it is at least possible to share with Ehrman an appreciation of these works and a desire that they be better known, a worthwhile endeavor to join in for those of us who do value a better understanding of early Christianity and where things went wrong.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm impressed with Ehrman's breadth, but his depth is lacking. He manages to give an overview of a vast range of topics, but he often selects narrow possibilities and makes them probabilities and then builds whole theories on them, without properly considering other options or acknowledging the potential flaws in his conclusions. But overall I enjoyed hearing his insights into the writings of the earliest Apostolic fathers and their impact on the development of early Christianity. It's such a fascinating period of world history, I want to learn more.

[. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Какво беше написал един ревюър на този курс, към 15% от книгата е това което е в заглавието. Останалото са обичайните мърлявщини на Бард Ърман.

Много малко от курса е относно животите и реалните писания на ранните свети отци, и по голяма част Брад използва за да заблуждава и лъже за банални неща, като например как има несъответствие между евангелията (което първо не е по темата на книгата, евангелията са преди писанията на Св. Отци и второ е лъжа - он използва два метода за заблуждава и лъже. Първо само защото някакво събитие е пропуснато да се напише в някое от евангелията не е равносилно на да е написано, ЧЕ НЕ СЕ Е СЛУЧВАЛО. И второ, едно събитие като се наблягат на различни не самоизключващи се детайли не означава, че двете описания се самоизключват.

Той това обича да го прави.

В едното евангелие пише, че Исус е роден във Витлеем, в другите не пише. ЗНАЧИ ИМА НЕСЪОТВЕТСТВИЕ...

Все едно в другите не просто е пропуснато, къде е роден, т.е. може да е роден навсякъде ВКЛЮЧИТЕЛНО ВЪВ ВИТЛЕЕМ, а все едно че е написано, че НЕ Е РОДЕН ВЪВ ВИТЛЕЕМ.

Скандално е колко евтин метод е това, но и как явно работи.

Ерман обожава да го прави.

Намира две писма за твоя живот. В едното пише, че майка ти е от Враца, а баща ти от Сливен, в другото пише, че баща ти е от Сливен, а майка ти се казва Иванка. Следователно има несъответствие и майка ти СЪС СИГУРНОСТ НЕ Е РОДЕНА ВЪВ Враца, защото не го пише във второто писмо, а е наблегнато на името й.

Скандално е на какви евтини трикове опират антитеистите в отчаяните си опити да не вярват.

Също така и нещо друго.

Като Ерман започне да лъже колко много други християнства е имало, говори за ересите Гностицизъм, и арианизъм.

И двете са налични и днес и са логически и теологично и всякак пълна простотия.

Който е сериозен в изучаването на библията ще види, че нито творението (макар да има грехове и изкушения в него) е зло (каквото ереста гностицизъм учи), и също, че това, че Исус е Бог е пределно ясно че е Месията, Бог в плът (както НЕ учи арианството).

И просто ортодоксалните както ги нарича той, били случайно преуспяло, докато другите не били... Ами може би защото лъжите базирани на егоцентричността на конкретни еретици, които са приели за цел на живота си да стават известни с разкол в църквата и техни философски анализи върху христовата вяра бързо замират след като умрат вождовете им.

Както и да е.

15% от курса беше полезен и и тересен, останалото беше с извинения лайна.

Да не говорим, че Брад е мърльо. Щом дори аз успях да му хвана някои елементарни грешки, значи просто човека не му пука.

А и защо да му пука, като ско е внимателен в анализа и говоренето си ще е просто пореден богослов, но ако разчете мърляво някой текст ще е иновация.

Проблемът на Брад е че той е избрал да се кланя на богът на материализма и съответно чудеса няма как да се случват, и няма как да има Бог, и Исус да възкръсне защото това не е съвместимо с богът на материализма.

А за лайната наречени. "исторически Исус" това означава следното:

Нека хванем текстовете където се говори за живота на Исус, нека махнем абсолютно цялата възможна контекст, нека махнем традицията, нека махнем всичко, и просто да четем и да си представяме според нас, какво значат думите и нещата които Исус прави и казва.


Тва е...

Случайна прищявка.

И то от човек който не знам колко да е близко до светия дух, че да Го направлява и пази от грешка и объркване, при все че он нито е монарх нито дори е сериозен човек, а е интелектуален мърльо.

Ся чета една соц книга дето е буквално същия неверник, използва същите трикове, вероятно баща му или дедовия.

Ама защо просто ортодоксалните са оставили само тия писания, а не са сложили евангелието на младия меринджей?

Ами защото , от това което съм слушал за останалите неканонични евангелия - еми ТЕ ГОВОРВТ РАНДЪМ ГЛУПОСТИ НЕСЪВМЕСТИМИ С ОСТАНАЛИТЕ и с елементарно чувство за логика.


Брат е просто завършека на протестанството, за което е виновен папа огре причинил схизмата между Рим и православието поначало...

Финалните фази на протестанството, когато махнеш целия Ко текст и се правиш, че библията е паднала от небето, а не е една ЧАСТ наследена от църквата на Исус,

Тогава резултата е да си и терпеетираш което както ти харесва игнорирайки истината.

Исках да бъда много кратък е тва ревю ама не стана.


Просто Брад вътрши мърлява работа, умишлено и елементарно лъже, и лъже включително за какво е курсът. Няколко лекции бяха за писанията на светите отци, но повечето бяха за това какво не му изнася на Брат в новия завет и ранната църква и как малоумни ереси било то гностицизъм или други били много интересни и трябвало да им се било обърнело внимание, защото ортодоксивта ги потъпкала.

Еми обърнете им внимание и ще видите че са пълна простотия, вкарваща хората в заблуда и неводеща до спасение, и изобщо до път към спасение.

Няма покаяние, няма изповед, няма причастие няма църква при тях..

15% съдържание останалото лайна.




Даже му дадох 3 звезди, са ще му дам 2.

Не понасям интелектуално мърляви хора.
Не понасям манипулатори и лъжци.

Щеше да е страхотен курс ако отговаряше на заглавието и вместо да евангелизират как според неговата интерпретация, игнорирайки православната интерпретсция християнството е тъпо,

Ако вместо това просто беше разгледал светите отци, техните животи и техните писания в подробности.

А може и на по-късно отци св. Йоан Златоуст, св. Василии Велики и св. Григорий Богослов

Не по-добре да ни лъже как липса на доказателство значи доказателство за липса. Щом не е написано роден във видлеем, а е пропуснато къде е роден в някое от текстовете, значи СЪС СИГУРНОСТ НЕ Е РОДЕН ВЪВ ВИТЛЕЕМ .

Скандалното е колко елементарен човек всъщност трябва да си за да бъдеш известен системен злодей в СРАЩ.

Не ти трябва нито да си умен, нито прецизен или сериозен, а просто да говориш глупости по убеден начин.

Той поне знае много за християнството, хора като Доукинс и. Сам Харис не знаят нищичко и говорел ама пълни простотии.

Кат цяло.нивото на богословски диспут в СРАЩ включително и от уж разумните и обосновани атеисти и критици е под всякаква критика.

Тотално огре.

[Cynthia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bart Ehrman makes too many (problematic) assumptions and while I appreciate a healthy, objective look at scripture and the early apostolic fathers, he declares various matters as if they were fact - which they are not. I was not the least bit familiar with the author/narrator and yet I was able to pick up quickly that he not only appears to take a objective/critical look at church history but that he appears to do so as a non-believer. After listening to his book I was so intrigued that I did an Internet search about him. Quite controversial and appears so intent on promoting HIS beliefs that he skews the truth.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ehrman remains one of my favorite synthesizers of early Christian writing. His in-depth analysis of the scriptural canon and the Gnostic gospels was by my side constantly in university while studying the origins of the faith.

I really enjoyed this series of lectures tying in the apostolic fathers. While it covers lots of ground I knew before, my focus was always much more in the proto-orthodoxy movement and the early division of the church, so this did expound some areas more fully. It also served as a great refresher on some concepts that I’d forgotten. Appreciated and valued for Ehrman’s even-handed scholarship.

[Kade · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm slowly working my way through all of Dr.Ehrman's courses, books and YouTube videos so I'm obviously a big fan but...

I made the mistake of reading another review for this course and one person critiqued the "lecturer" saying "if only he didn't have such disdain for the Bible. It's not that I can't learn things about early church history from historians who are atheists or skeptics or members of other religions [... But I disagree with things he said and thus he's wrong]"

In response to that statement I would point out that this course is taught by a professor who does NOT come to the material from the perspective of an atheist, skeptic OR member of another religion NOR from a position of disdain.

As he points out MULTIPLE times , he only is discussing the material from a historical perspective. If you don't want a historical perspective and consider that point of view "disdainful" then I would suggest a different course (or perhaps, a church service for whatever your specific denomination happens to be, to reaffirm whatever subtle ~truths~ you happen to want to believe).

I think these courses are entertaining (I frequently laugh out loud, no shame) AND educational and Dr.Ehrman has such a solid grasp on the VAST landscape of material that it's boggling.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting dive through various Second Century writings of the “Apostolic Fathers.” It wasn’t quite as interesting as I was hoping it would be, as Ehrman spent so much time talking about the writings of the New Testament, I suppose to give these later writings context. Still, he already has a whole series of lectures on the NT which I don’t plan to listen to because I already know what I’m in for there. Which brings me to my other point…

A lot of reviewers have hated these lectures because Ehrman is clearly an unbeliever, and his conclusions reflect that. He is upfront about it. If you’re going to be offended by the author of anything you read or listen to having a bias, you’re not going to read or listen to anything. I would say to anyone who can’t handle hearing points of view different from their own, that there are many ways in this Internet age to filter out such views. So get you back to your echo chamber and quit bellyaching.

These were all right I guess.

[Michael McGrath · Rating 5 out of 5]

My journey has carried me from a narrow fundamentalism to C. S. Lewis and from Lewis to the open minded Thomas Merton, and from there a springboard to Ehrman's books, all which I have thoroughly enjoyed. Do I draw the same conclusions? No, but how he gets his own is fascinating and well-researched to the core. These lectures are a summa of the post New Testament writings, which have been woefully ignored by many Christians, and oddly so as they give a fuller picture of the early Christianities that filled the Roman world and beyond. The more I read, the more I realize how little I know.

[Nicholas Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

The writing of the apostolic fathers are almost unknown outside of academia but are incredibly illuminating for anyone with an interest in the early years of the church and how the core orthodox values became fixed. This sets out what what of the main texts says and focuses on certain key ideas showing how it came to shape future theology. In comparison to some of his books, these lectures focus on facts and less on opinion and are all the stronger for it. Highly recommended.

[Philip · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a very poor lecture series. It doesn’t deserve even one star. Ehrman is disrespectful of the texts he is supposed to comment on, frequently ignoring their content. Rather he uses them as a springboard to give his own, sometimes factually incorrect, opinions about the early Christian church. He clearly comes from a Protestant background and whatever he may or may not believe now, he takes the Protestant viewpoint as given.

[Brian White · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good overview of the writings of the early church fathers. I like the approach of this course with alternating historic and interpretive chapters. It is useful to pair this course with the Loeb Classical Library of The Apostolic Fathers, Volumes I & II (Edited and Translated by Bart Ehrman) in order to experience the primary material.

[Marcus · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fascinating look at early church history, but it is pretty deep "inside baseball" for all but the most dedicated listeners. I really enjoyed it. It was a very interesting look at an often overlooked part of church history.

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting survey of the earliest proto-Orthodox Christian writers. Very light summaries, and each Father is used as evidence for an aspect of early Christianity, rather than a more in-depth discussion of each author, it was still work the listen.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good introduction into early Christianity after the death of the apostles. Bart Ehrman has researched this subject extensively.

[John Morris ii · Rating 4 out of 5]

I always learn from Listening to DR Ehrman! I am a ministers child. So i find this subject matter very compelling!

[Andrew Mosteller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating to see the development of Christian orthodoxy from such an initially diverse set of peoples and beliefs.

[Al Green · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very instructive.
The authors sometimes takes a stance as if he does not believe the Bible, and his study is purely historical.

[MG · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great survey of the earliest Christian literature (The Apostolic Fathers) after the New Testament.

[Lewis Peterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I consider this recommended reading for any serious Christian. Learning about the development of proto-orthodoxy strengthened my understanding of Scripture and my faith.

[Abdul Alhazred · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kind of unfocused and it intersects a lot of familiar topics better covered in his other courses. Making of the NT canon is better.

[Karl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fine, clear treatment, but the material of this course is not that interesting compared to other Ehrman books and courses.

The apostolic fathers were quite dull writers. Very little in what we know about them seems to lend itself to giving a course like this a plot.

[Christian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Writers of Limited Category

AT A GLANCE:
Quasi-Apostolic and Proto-Orthodox

CONTENT:
The Apostolic fathers are very hard to categorize: by date? connections? orthodoxy? This is a central concern and is revisited many times in the course. Each writer is given some time and quotation, and quite a lot of material is covered in a memorable way.
There are some faults familiar from the professor's other works. The presentation is occasionally bogged down by repetition, with maybe 15% of the content repeated in at least 3 lectures. He pulls in a good deal of irrelevant material from wider biblical studies such as the New Testament canon and the historical Jesus. He makes an insistent point about the legality of early Christianity in Rome, but it verges on incoherence and seems more confusing each time he repeats it.

NARRATOR:
A lot of "uhm, ah, the, um, Hebrew, um, prophets," but this is Ehrman after all. It gets less distracting as you get used to it.

OVERALL:
These early Christians are little-known and this course is more than adequate as an introduction. I doubt I will listen through it again but would recommend it to students of early Christianity. It would be an easy resource to tell if you'd like to pursue reading some of these individual writers or not.

[Drew Weatherton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ehrman continues his discussion from the New Testament itself to the early Christian church and its evolution as well as relevant letters and writings that were important for many early Christians but are no longer widely known. There is a lot of great information here, from the martyrdom of Polycarp to the proliferation of the Roman brand of Christianity as orthodoxy.

[Glenn Bowlan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting series of lectures on the Christian communities & ideas in the Roman world of the first and second century as evidenced through the writings of the apostolic fathers - Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, etc. The lectures are lively and engaging and Ehrman does a great job of bringing this distant time and place alive.

[Johannes Bertus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bart Ehrman can do no wrong.