What do you think?
Rate this book
The Forgotten Creed: Christianity's Original Struggle against Bigotry, Slavery, and Sexism
Long before the followers of Jesus declared him to be the Son of God, Jesus taught his followers that they too were the children of God. This ancient creed, now all but forgotten, is recorded still within the folds of a letter of Paul the Apostle. Paul did not create this creed, nor did he fully embrace it, but he quoted it and thus preserved it for a time when it might become important once again. This ancient creed said nothing about God or Christ or salvation. Its claims were about the whole human there is no race, there is no class, there is no gender.
This is the story of that first, forgotten creed, and the world of its begetting, a world in which foreigners were feared, slaves were human chattel, and men questioned whether women were really human after all. Into this world the followers of Jesus "You are all children of God. There is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male and female, for you are all one." Where did this remarkable statement of human solidarity come from, and what, finally, happened to it? How did Christianity become a Gentile religion that despised Jews, condoned slavery as the will of God, and championed patriarchy?
Christian theologians would one day argue about the nature of Christ, the being of God, and the mechanics of salvation. But before this, in the days when Jesus was still fresh in the memory of those who knew him, the argument was a different how can human beings overcome the ways by which we divide ourselves one from another? Is solidarity possible beyond race, class, and gender?
This is the story of that first, forgotten creed, and the world of its begetting, a world in which foreigners were feared, slaves were human chattel, and men questioned whether women were really human after all. Into this world the followers of Jesus "You are all children of God. There is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male and female, for you are all one." Where did this remarkable statement of human solidarity come from, and what, finally, happened to it? How did Christianity become a Gentile religion that despised Jews, condoned slavery as the will of God, and championed patriarchy?
Christian theologians would one day argue about the nature of Christ, the being of God, and the mechanics of salvation. But before this, in the days when Jesus was still fresh in the memory of those who knew him, the argument was a different how can human beings overcome the ways by which we divide ourselves one from another? Is solidarity possible beyond race, class, and gender?
184 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 3, 2018
31 people are currently reading
199 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
0-not-to-read-or-did-not-finish
January 5, 2019In 2018, I want to read about the Civil War and fight to eliminate slavery as a theological struggle. This title hit my zz-books-i-ve-decided-not-to-read folder after this from Marvin Olasky:
"The title of Stephen Patterson’s The Forgotten Creed: Christianity’s Original Struggle Against Bigotry, Slavery, and Sexism (Oxford, 2018) is misleading. I thought it might be a useful correction to those who equate Christianity with bad stuff—but Patterson downgrades Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and Titus, arguing that “every beginning student of the Bible learns that these letters are pseudonymous, forgeries. Paul did not write them.” Oh really? He takes seriously much later cultist texts like the Acts of Judas Thomas. Result: a useless mess."
Link:
https://world.wng.org/2019/01/bible_b...
"The title of Stephen Patterson’s The Forgotten Creed: Christianity’s Original Struggle Against Bigotry, Slavery, and Sexism (Oxford, 2018) is misleading. I thought it might be a useful correction to those who equate Christianity with bad stuff—but Patterson downgrades Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and Titus, arguing that “every beginning student of the Bible learns that these letters are pseudonymous, forgeries. Paul did not write them.” Oh really? He takes seriously much later cultist texts like the Acts of Judas Thomas. Result: a useless mess."
Link:
https://world.wng.org/2019/01/bible_b...
April 13, 2019
Short thoughts: I have nearly 1700 words on my blog. I really considered stopping the book about five different times. I also considered asking for a refund from Audible because they have an easy refund of books you don't like. But I didn't. I bought the book and I am reviewing it so you don't have to.
There are a couple big problems with the book, the largest is that I can't figure out who Patterson is trying to persuade, because his argument would be unpersuasive to most, even though I think he may be right about the larger point that Gal 3:28 was derived from an early baptismal creed. The introduction dismisses several books attributed to Paul as pseudonymous writing. Others do as well, I don't particularly have a problem with that take. But if, as Patterson suggests, Paul was not actually sexist or in favor of slavery because Paul wasn’t really the author of 1 Timothy, that doesn’t really help solve the problem for people that are going to take seriously 1 Timothy regardless of whether Paul wrote it.
Another good example of the problems of the book is that Patterson argues that the books of Acts was likely written to both counter Marcion but affirm supersessionism. If this is the case, Acts could not have been written any earlier than 150-160. Many scholars date the book of Acts of the Apostles to around 80 or 90. If the earlier dating, which is more commonly held by most scholars is accurate, the whole argument around Marcion co-opting Paul and Acts being written to counter parts of Marcionism but to affirm a type of supersessionism completely falls apart. There are several other places where odd datings also make his argument difficult. But the Acts one is the worst. Even if I agreed with the underpinnings (Paul’s attempt as cross ethnic table fellowship in Antioch was a failure and Acts was in part of repudiation of it), which I don’t, the dating makes the argument unworkable.
There are a number of problems with the book and I can't recommend it. But if you want to read my longer comments, you can go to my blog at http://bookwi.se/the-forgotten-creed/
There are a couple big problems with the book, the largest is that I can't figure out who Patterson is trying to persuade, because his argument would be unpersuasive to most, even though I think he may be right about the larger point that Gal 3:28 was derived from an early baptismal creed. The introduction dismisses several books attributed to Paul as pseudonymous writing. Others do as well, I don't particularly have a problem with that take. But if, as Patterson suggests, Paul was not actually sexist or in favor of slavery because Paul wasn’t really the author of 1 Timothy, that doesn’t really help solve the problem for people that are going to take seriously 1 Timothy regardless of whether Paul wrote it.
Another good example of the problems of the book is that Patterson argues that the books of Acts was likely written to both counter Marcion but affirm supersessionism. If this is the case, Acts could not have been written any earlier than 150-160. Many scholars date the book of Acts of the Apostles to around 80 or 90. If the earlier dating, which is more commonly held by most scholars is accurate, the whole argument around Marcion co-opting Paul and Acts being written to counter parts of Marcionism but to affirm a type of supersessionism completely falls apart. There are several other places where odd datings also make his argument difficult. But the Acts one is the worst. Even if I agreed with the underpinnings (Paul’s attempt as cross ethnic table fellowship in Antioch was a failure and Acts was in part of repudiation of it), which I don’t, the dating makes the argument unworkable.
There are a number of problems with the book and I can't recommend it. But if you want to read my longer comments, you can go to my blog at http://bookwi.se/the-forgotten-creed/
November 28, 2018
Well researched, poorly argued.
November 26, 2023
A great read. I will be mentioning this book often in the months to come. Grateful I finally made the time.
February 25, 2019
An exigesis of one Bible verse from the book of Galations, this took me back to my days as a religion major at college where I studied with Dr. Robert Jewett, whose work is one of this author's sources. Patterson concludes that this passage (Galations 3: 26-28) was a baptismal creed of the very early Christian community. There is a lot of fascinating detail here about the context of this creed: "There is no Jew or Greek; there is no slave or free; there is no male and female. For you are all one in the Spirit." Paul, himself, only half-heartedly embraced this creed. And certainly the early church fathers rejected it entirely, adding interpolations into the Pauline letters, and writing entirely fictitious epistles which are part of our modern Bible. Race, class, and gender: these were, and continue to be, ways that human beings exert power over others. As the author says in his introduction, "The church is the last institution in America where it is still legal to discriminate on the basis of gender." I was particularly struck by the chapter on gender, the Greek mythology of Hermaphroditus, and the rabbinical commentary on Genesis that Adam was created an hermaphrodite. Although this is a scholarly work, I think it is accessible to anyone. The message that diversity is to be celebrated should be taken to heart in our current culture of discrimination.
Book Description: Long before the followers of Jesus declared him to be the Son of God, Jesus taught his followers that they too were the children of God. This ancient creed, now all but forgotten, is recorded still within the folds of a letter of Paul the Apostle. Paul did not create this creed, nor did he fully embrace it, but he quoted it and thus preserved it for a time when it might become important once again. This ancient creed said nothing about God or Christ or salvation. Its claims were about the whole human race: there is no race, there is no class, there is no gender.
This is the story of that first, forgotten creed, and the world of its begetting, a world in which foreigners were feared, slaves were human chattel, and men questioned whether women were really human after all. Into this world the followers of Jesus proclaimed: "You are all children of God. There is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male and female, for you are all one." Where did this remarkable statement of human solidarity come from, and what, finally, happened to it? How did Christianity become a Gentile religion that despised Jews, condoned slavery as the will of God, and championed patriarchy?
Book Description: Long before the followers of Jesus declared him to be the Son of God, Jesus taught his followers that they too were the children of God. This ancient creed, now all but forgotten, is recorded still within the folds of a letter of Paul the Apostle. Paul did not create this creed, nor did he fully embrace it, but he quoted it and thus preserved it for a time when it might become important once again. This ancient creed said nothing about God or Christ or salvation. Its claims were about the whole human race: there is no race, there is no class, there is no gender.
This is the story of that first, forgotten creed, and the world of its begetting, a world in which foreigners were feared, slaves were human chattel, and men questioned whether women were really human after all. Into this world the followers of Jesus proclaimed: "You are all children of God. There is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male and female, for you are all one." Where did this remarkable statement of human solidarity come from, and what, finally, happened to it? How did Christianity become a Gentile religion that despised Jews, condoned slavery as the will of God, and championed patriarchy?
April 14, 2021
This is a decent summary of a lot of New Testament scholarship around Paul.
He references Elisabeth Schuessler Fiorenza’s classic work, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins several times which has been on my to-read list for a while.
He references Elisabeth Schuessler Fiorenza’s classic work, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins several times which has been on my to-read list for a while.
November 6, 2018
Well thought out and referenced
Patterson expands in detail with Biblical and non-Biblical references his position on this what he suggests was an early and original creed. This can be read and understood with out needing to go to other sources but does have generous citations that would allow one study his original sources for your own review and interpretation. An important and critical part of this work is putting the Biblical text and Patterson's argument s in context of the cultural of the time that these Biblical writings were made.
Patterson expands in detail with Biblical and non-Biblical references his position on this what he suggests was an early and original creed. This can be read and understood with out needing to go to other sources but does have generous citations that would allow one study his original sources for your own review and interpretation. An important and critical part of this work is putting the Biblical text and Patterson's argument s in context of the cultural of the time that these Biblical writings were made.
July 22, 2023
Partially related to an article I wrote a few months ago about body/spirit dualism and also related to "I said so" supremacist moralism, someone recommended this book to me.
The New Revised Standard Version translates: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, no longer slave or free, no longer male and female.” This hearkens back to what Paul said just a few phrases earlier: “we are no longer [ouketi in Greek] under a guardian.” (Galatians 3:23–25). But when Paul says “there is no Jew or Greek,” etc., (Gal. 3:28) using ouk eni, short for ouk enesti, he means these three dyads, all of which "involve a differential of power," don’t exist (and never existed).
“So here was the heart of the original creed," Patterson says. "There is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male and female. Even though human beings very typically make distinctions based on race, class, and gender, they in fact do not rest on anything real. Gender is a construct; class is a conceit; race is not real.” This creed “was repeated again and again by people who were baptized as followers of Jesus. It is a statement about the convictions of the Jesus people. It is not a statement about a statement about God, or about the mysteries of Christ. It is about people and who they are, really. In baptism they were committed to giving up old identities falsely acquired on the basis of baseless assumptions—Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female—and declared themselves to be children of God.”
However, he notes: “The problem is that we are not all the same in every respect. Are Jews and Greeks the same? Are women and men?" No. Everyone's unique, and we form groups based on certain similarities. And so: "‘You are all one’ should not mean, then, ‘You are all the same.’ It works for ‘slave and free,’ but for ‘Jew and Greek’ and ‘male and female,’ it’s a disaster.” I see the point. It is obvious to me that we can recognize race and gender differences without implying that one type of person should have dominance over another. That's what my own online discussion was about.
The book doesn't focus heavily on that. It's more about what Paul, and people of his time, understood early Christianity to be.
The New Revised Standard Version translates: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, no longer slave or free, no longer male and female.” This hearkens back to what Paul said just a few phrases earlier: “we are no longer [ouketi in Greek] under a guardian.” (Galatians 3:23–25). But when Paul says “there is no Jew or Greek,” etc., (Gal. 3:28) using ouk eni, short for ouk enesti, he means these three dyads, all of which "involve a differential of power," don’t exist (and never existed).
“So here was the heart of the original creed," Patterson says. "There is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male and female. Even though human beings very typically make distinctions based on race, class, and gender, they in fact do not rest on anything real. Gender is a construct; class is a conceit; race is not real.” This creed “was repeated again and again by people who were baptized as followers of Jesus. It is a statement about the convictions of the Jesus people. It is not a statement about a statement about God, or about the mysteries of Christ. It is about people and who they are, really. In baptism they were committed to giving up old identities falsely acquired on the basis of baseless assumptions—Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female—and declared themselves to be children of God.”
However, he notes: “The problem is that we are not all the same in every respect. Are Jews and Greeks the same? Are women and men?" No. Everyone's unique, and we form groups based on certain similarities. And so: "‘You are all one’ should not mean, then, ‘You are all the same.’ It works for ‘slave and free,’ but for ‘Jew and Greek’ and ‘male and female,’ it’s a disaster.” I see the point. It is obvious to me that we can recognize race and gender differences without implying that one type of person should have dominance over another. That's what my own online discussion was about.
The book doesn't focus heavily on that. It's more about what Paul, and people of his time, understood early Christianity to be.
March 25, 2021
Really disappointed in this book.
The author wants to argue that an early baptismal creed has resources for Christians to think about justice, especially identity-based justice, today. I’m all in for that.
I have two problems with his approach.
First, he speaks with little urgency. This was especially pronounced because I read this book immediately after “Reading while Black.” He waffles on whether Christianity condemns slavery. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, the author doesn’t think it’s so certain. Surely you should care more?
I hate to say it, but I would have a hard time imagining a black or woman theologian writing with this level of detachment. I’m sure what the diagnosis is. Maybe the author finds a way to reconcile an all-loving God who brought slaves out of Egypt with present day oppression. Maybe the author is happy to yield the Christian faith to slavers and nationalists and misogynists. Or maybe this is just the detachment of academic New Testament / Early Christianity studies?
Second, his weight on different sources is uneven and biased. He puts little weight on the canonical gospels and epistles, or assigns them straw man (often hyper-literal) interpretations. He basically ignores most of the Old Testament, picking only occasionally from Genesis. Meanwhile, he puts a great deal of weight on the lost gospels of Thomas and Mary and always assigns them the most credit and accuracy.
Now, I’m not a literalist and I don’t think the divide between the Revealed Word and everything else is black and white. The Apocrypha exists, the writings of the church fathers exists, etc, in the middle. I’m totally open to reading lost gospels! But the authors fanboying over them does no favors for his argument.
For example, he discusses how Mary Magdalene is not accorded respect as an apostle, and how we have to go to the Gospel of Mary to get the full picture. But there’s plenty of scriptural resources to defend Mary Magdalene’s role in the canonical gospels! To dismiss that evidence is to offer a strictly weaker argument for Christian opposition to misogyny.
Pros: Interesting facts about ethnicity, class, gender in the Roman Empire circa 50 AD
The author wants to argue that an early baptismal creed has resources for Christians to think about justice, especially identity-based justice, today. I’m all in for that.
I have two problems with his approach.
First, he speaks with little urgency. This was especially pronounced because I read this book immediately after “Reading while Black.” He waffles on whether Christianity condemns slavery. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, the author doesn’t think it’s so certain. Surely you should care more?
I hate to say it, but I would have a hard time imagining a black or woman theologian writing with this level of detachment. I’m sure what the diagnosis is. Maybe the author finds a way to reconcile an all-loving God who brought slaves out of Egypt with present day oppression. Maybe the author is happy to yield the Christian faith to slavers and nationalists and misogynists. Or maybe this is just the detachment of academic New Testament / Early Christianity studies?
Second, his weight on different sources is uneven and biased. He puts little weight on the canonical gospels and epistles, or assigns them straw man (often hyper-literal) interpretations. He basically ignores most of the Old Testament, picking only occasionally from Genesis. Meanwhile, he puts a great deal of weight on the lost gospels of Thomas and Mary and always assigns them the most credit and accuracy.
Now, I’m not a literalist and I don’t think the divide between the Revealed Word and everything else is black and white. The Apocrypha exists, the writings of the church fathers exists, etc, in the middle. I’m totally open to reading lost gospels! But the authors fanboying over them does no favors for his argument.
For example, he discusses how Mary Magdalene is not accorded respect as an apostle, and how we have to go to the Gospel of Mary to get the full picture. But there’s plenty of scriptural resources to defend Mary Magdalene’s role in the canonical gospels! To dismiss that evidence is to offer a strictly weaker argument for Christian opposition to misogyny.
Pros: Interesting facts about ethnicity, class, gender in the Roman Empire circa 50 AD
January 31, 2019
There is much to like about the discussion of what Patterson argues is a baptismal creed quoted by St. Paul in Galatians. (Neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female.) His argument that it is a creed quoted by Paul & not Paul's own words strike me as cogent. One of the arguments being that Paul doesn't seem otherwise to embrace all three points. This "Creed" is mostly left dangling in early Christian history with its origins enveloped in mist and almost no historical context for it. Patterson gives a helpful study of Paul's attitudes to all three points, with the "neither Jew nor Greek" being the one Paul is clearly fully committed to. There is also an examination of how counter-cultural this "Creed" was, which basically explains why it died out in much Christian practice as soon as it did. The biggest puzzle is how this "Creed" might have gone back to Jesus' teachings. Here, there is much work to be done examining the parables that feature slaves (if "doulos" means slave rather than servant as in a paid servant, which is likely) to see if there might be subversive intents in terms of the institution of slavery. My biggest concern about Patterson's argument is that ii is detached from the Paschal Mystery of Christ. It is true that the Gospel of Thomas seems to present Jesus as a wise teacher without the Paschal Mystery & it is conjectured that the document referred to as "Q" might be a collection of sayings only (but then we don't have the document) but I have a hard time believing that the Paschal Mystery could have been anything but central to at least most Christians of the Early Church. The background of the Passover would have brought the issue of slavery to the forefront to the first Christians. In the case of St. Paul, our only source for this credal statement, there most certainly would have been no detachment of the ethical treatment from the dying and rising of Christ. This book is a helpful probing of what is arguably the most intriguing and most important mystery in the first Christian century.
August 26, 2020
When scholarship challenges orthodoxy opinions divide rather dramatically. So one would expect Patterson's book to have a very divergent reception. Patterson asserts a very early Christian baptismal creed made its way into Paul's letter to the Galatians. He explores the implications of that creed then and now. He provides historical and cultural context for creed. He presents his arguments in rather great detail often pointing out where scholars disagree and provides extensive documentation of source material and expanded discussion. His thesis is that ancient people used class, race, and gender as primary ways to establish identity, and as justifications for claims of superiority, the inequalities of power and position in their societies and the brutalities against those defined as "other." Patterson contends the early Christian communities stood against and in contrast to these societal norms using baptism, and this early baptismal creed, as a ritualistic means to establish a different more universal human identity. Much his argument centers around Paul, his writings and the history of the early church and the communities in which the church evolved. I found his insights and arguments compelling. I suppose if one disagrees with him in essence one must be arguing that the church then and now condones, encourages or at best is indifferent to injustices based on class, race and gender which seems to me a sad indictment of Christianity.
Read
October 2, 2019At church our Pastor is taking 12 weeks during the fall of the year to talk about "The Fall of Paul". I had already read "Man in White" by Johnny Cash and I noticed this book at the local library. It is based on Galations 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." It takes the text and breaks it down to each phrase and explains the history of what is happening or has happened in that time frame. Basically, this was a Baptismal Prayer that was said by the early Apostles while baptizing new believers. St. Paul was a new Apostle to the Gentiles. The other 12 were the follower of Jesus and walked with him. Paul encountered Jesus on the Road to Damascus and his explosive turn around from a persecutor to the early Christians to an Apostle to the Gentiles to allow them to become followers of Jesus. It is a powerful scripture with such depth that I didn't understand until I plowed through this book. I didn't completely finish the book but got the concept of what it was about. We are all set free by Jesus and no longer in bondage to man's limitations on humanity! Freedom!!!
January 10, 2022
Despite my rating, there was a lot of good information in this book. I liked most of the background and context that the author brought to different NT texts. There are some valuable insights into the early thoughts and doctrines of the first Christians. However, I disliked the author's perspective and assumptions that he brought to the text, obviously steeped in the long tradition of higher criticism and heightened skepticism. The problem isn't being critical perse, but rather the bias and blind confidence that this perspective brings to interpretation. When your interpretation of early Christianity strips away the deity of Jesus and rather finds that the "earliest" Christians thought in ways and taught ideas that just happen fit extremely well with your own modern/postmodern values and ideas, you probably should raise a red flag. It is not only the fundamentalists that remake Jesus in their own image.
March 27, 2023
A must read for progressive Christians looking for ways to argue Christianity has always been at the forefront of social justice issues.
The notion that Christianity could have actually paved the way for human equality is exciting to imagine. It's also depressing to reflect on how badly they've fumbled this issue.
Galatians 3:28
There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
may in fact be the most underrated passage in the entire Bible.
Could Paul be an even more progressive thinker than Jesus? Or is he only half committed to this progressive creed?
Was Adam the original hermaphrodite?
Was Mary Magdalene one of Jesus' apostles?
Patterson also brings up the issue of Pauline forgeries in the Bible. Could all of Paul's regressive and sexist comments come from someone else's mouth? If we have scholarly consensus on which epistles are forgeries can we go ahead and delete them from the canon?
The notion that Christianity could have actually paved the way for human equality is exciting to imagine. It's also depressing to reflect on how badly they've fumbled this issue.
Galatians 3:28
There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
may in fact be the most underrated passage in the entire Bible.
Could Paul be an even more progressive thinker than Jesus? Or is he only half committed to this progressive creed?
Was Adam the original hermaphrodite?
Was Mary Magdalene one of Jesus' apostles?
Patterson also brings up the issue of Pauline forgeries in the Bible. Could all of Paul's regressive and sexist comments come from someone else's mouth? If we have scholarly consensus on which epistles are forgeries can we go ahead and delete them from the canon?
April 10, 2023
Some interesting insights here. Patterson lost me when he began using gnostic texts to shape his New Testament interpretations. Also, ironically, for a book that seeks to show the centrality of equality to the early Christians, and their concomitant struggle against the hierarchical diseases (bigotry, sexism, and so forth), the tone of this book struck me as smug and entitled. Like stating 1 and 2 Timothy are not actually written by Paul without giving any defense of this claim other than appeals to Patterson's own chosen authorities, then using gnostic gospels as if they have the same credibility as any old New Testament document. Patterson might be right in all of that, I don't know, but it was all asserted without any defense.
July 3, 2023
This book was fascinating and informative. I had some pretty substantial disagreements with Patterson, namely his interpretations of Paul in issues of sexuality and his view that many books attributed to Paul were not actually written by him and therefore could be dismissed. Despite these disagreements, I found much of this book informative and helpful for understanding gender roles, and the influence of slavery in the Greco-Roman world and beyond. While I wouldn’t take this book as authoritative, mainly because of our substantial disagreements, I hope to reference it in the future.
April 12, 2020
I really appreciate this book for its deep dive into this baptismal creed, with each chapter focusing on the context of one of the phrases (both early Christian and broader Roman contexts).
Though quite academic, this book is fairly accessibly written (like for undergrads or a very enthusiastic church book group), but I certainly found it more engaging/interesting because I could draw on a lot of the cited materials from my coursework.
Though quite academic, this book is fairly accessibly written (like for undergrads or a very enthusiastic church book group), but I certainly found it more engaging/interesting because I could draw on a lot of the cited materials from my coursework.
October 29, 2021
I think this is an important contribution to the study of Galatians 3, and I found much of it to be an illuminating study of slavery, women, and the relationships between Jews and Greeks in antiquity. I took off one star because I found some of his argument too speculative for my taste.
January 8, 2022
Intriguing Read
This book gave me a lot to reflect on. It was a book that was well researched but was also accessible for clergy and laity. Looking forward to reading more from Patterson
This book gave me a lot to reflect on. It was a book that was well researched but was also accessible for clergy and laity. Looking forward to reading more from Patterson
June 26, 2023
This was an interesting book, but there were a lot of claims made that I'd need to follow up on. But at least the argument for the structure of a creed makes a lot of sense, and I appreciated the history/context of the ancient world in which this was written.
October 29, 2018
A beautiful and wondrous book. If only we could be the creed that early Christianity so quickly lost, but that Patterson so eloquently explores.
March 5, 2019
An honest attempt to drill down to original Christian teaching. Good humor, as well.
July 9, 2019
I originally read this for sermon prep, but ended up finishing it for enjoyment. I found the scholarship good and the writing done and to the point. I really liked this one.
September 21, 2019
I enjoyed this book. It has helped me to better understand Paul and given me new insights into the very early church just after Jesus died.
December 6, 2019
Not news to me, but we'll done.
January 21, 2020
Read my review here: https://joeburnham.com/review/the-for...
January 30, 2020
at p.74 of 160
Draft notes
reading for the historic perspective and a better understanding of how Christian perspectives developed vis-a-vis fundamental issues of bigotry, slavery, and sexism
Draft notes
reading for the historic perspective and a better understanding of how Christian perspectives developed vis-a-vis fundamental issues of bigotry, slavery, and sexism
November 22, 2020
Scholarly yet very readable. "No Jew or Greek, no free or slave, no male or female; you are all the children of God."
December 10, 2020
I learned some very strange and interesting facts about early religious practices and Greek and Roman history (not like what I remember from school!)
September 18, 2021
I really enjoyed Patterson’s review of Christianity’s first creed. The Forgotten Creed was so enlightening and will give me much to chew on.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews