Candida Moss – Blogging Non-Blogger

You may have already heard the news: Candida Moss has a blog. One of the first things she says on it is that she isn't a blogger. I'm not sure how to make logical sense of that, but we will all surely want to follow her blog to find out!

Welcome, Candida, to the blogosphere!


"And I think too that, in Mark, just as the tearing of the veil symbolizes ..."

Mythicists Shock Bart Ehrman, Set Off ..."
"I think the most straightforward reading of the Corinthian Creed is that the immediately "pre ..."

Mythicists Shock Bart Ehrman, Set Off ..."
"You only got around to trying to turn the main question into the last points ..."

Cherry-Picking from the Bible: Lessons Learned ..."
"Yes, the Gospel of John is the one place where Jesus said it explicitly - ..."

Gaps in Jesus’ Fossil Record?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Just Sayin’

    Her book just got rubbished on First Things:

    • Nick

      Yes, because First Things doesn’t have an ax to grind here *at all*.

      Talk about an uncharitable hatchet job of an article, too, “I’m not saying she’s a fraud that plagiarized Gibbon, but…”

      • John

        Actually that review was pretty fair. As if a book on the “myth of martyrdom” has no axes to grind *at all*

        • Just Sayin’

          Precisely, John. Always amazes me when someone sees one person’s bias — which is glaringly obvious because it’s unconcealed — but not another’s.

          Of course, bias is not the point.

          • Nick Gotts

            Why does it amaze you when something that’s “glaringly obvious because it’s unconcealed” is more readily seen than something that isn’t?

          • Just Sayin’

            Because of the obvious bias of the (partial) perceiver!

  • Gary

    She makes logical sense. Saying “I have no illusions, I’m no blogger. I don’t think I have the stamina for it”…. Answering all the yahoos who don’t like a woman scholar challenge the ideas of the church father’s propaganda from 300 AD, like creeds, martyrdom, unity, etc. I bet Pagels and King might say the same thing. Just reading “First Things” review shows that yahoos waste everyone’s time. Blogging is an avocation, not a profession.

  • arcseconds

    ceci n’est ne pas une blog

  • Trooper Keeton

    Candida Moss as uncovered by Trooper Keeton.
    The woman is being true to her
    Protestant education. That being Oxford and Yale. She is employed by Notre
    Dame, but with anti-discrimination laws that means little. Not all, but some
    Protestants wrestle with apostolic accession, for this is a key pillar of the
    Catholic Church. So when we read her writings claiming the Christians were not
    persecuted, then how can we believe that all the Popes before the fourth century
    were martyred. It has been said to know history is to cease being a Protestant.
    So Ms. Moss choses to rewrite history.
    Having said that, please do not be
    upset if you are my, as we say, separated brethren. If you believe all that
    about indulgences, then you are probably true to your heart and will go to
    heaven and be united the Jesus. Whether Protestant or Catholic, let us ponder
    that this woman may have an axe to grind. Maybe she is quilted over the all-male
    priesthood or the over-scrutinized Obama Care. May I steer you to the fullness
    of the truth on the early church with The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. Now
    Jimmy’s book is like reading the Bible so you may not want to read cover to
    cover, just indulge in the Chapters that grab you. Now a fun read is The
    Miracles of the Coliseum. Fun because some of it may be hyperboles. It is
    written in this book a line that I coveted , The Blood of the Martyrs are the
    Seeds of Christianity.

    • James F. McGrath

      What a bizarre comment. You talk about having axes to grind, as though you do not have one or perhaps several yourself (why else would you be commenting on this very old post?). And to accuse Moss of rewriting history without presenting counter-evidence yourself, recommending that people not read relevant primary and secondary sources come from, and not seeming even to know where an important quote from a church father comes from, seems to me quite frankly astonishing.