Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Have you ever read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities?

I know that was for Steve, but I'd like to interject. I have not read that specific book, but I am generally familiar with his work and the arguments he makes. I read Elaine Pagels a while back and am currently going back to re-read the Nag Hammadi texts in light of what I have more recently come to understand about ancient philosophy (e.g. Plotinus) and classical literature (e.g. Plutarch). There is a lot we do not know about 1st century Christianity. At the same time, people have always known from the time of Irenaeus that there was diversity of opinion. The later is not a significant concern of mine because the differences largely revolved around the significance of Jesus's message and attempts to comprehend His nature and relationship with the Abrahamic God, not generally about the events, places, and people involved. To my mind it seems pretty clear, why some books were rejected from the canon (Thomas, Secret Gospel of John, etc), others reluctantly (John & Revelation), or embraced by only by specific sects (Maccabees, Enoch). Overall, I would say that it is important to acknowledge areas of broad agreement, take note of more speculative alternates (Ehrman, Carrier, etc.), and dismiss wild ideas (Caesar's Messiah, Mushroom Christ, etc.)