To your way of thinking, is Professor Bart D. Ehrman simply mistaken about everything in his scholarship on the New Testament?
Or is he a fraud [and therefore "evil"]?
Or is he right?
Ehrman has written widely on issues of the New Testament and early Christianity at both an academic and popular level, much of it based on textual criticism of the New Testament. His thirty books include three college textbooks and six New York Times bestsellers: Misquoting Jesus, Jesus, Interrupted, God's Problem, Forged, How Jesus Became God, and The Triumph of Christianity. More than two million copies of his books have been sold, and his books have been translated into 27 languages. ~ wiki
Thoughts?
@fmf saidI think Professor Bart D. Ehrman's work is pretty interesting, I would add that biblical research is quite important, and I welcome findings and opinions from these scholars though don't necessarily agree with everything they write. Professor Bart D. Ehrman was mistaken about a number of things, but not everything.
To your way of thinking, is Professor Bart D. Ehrman simply mistaken about everything in his scholarship on the New Testament?
Or is he a fraud [and therefore "evil"]?
Or is he right?
Ehrman has written widely on issues of the New Testament and early Christianity at both an academic and popular level, much of it based on textual criticism of the New Testament. H ...[text shortened]... ks have been sold, and his books have been translated into 27 languages. ~ wiki
Thoughts?
In the first 3 centuries of the Christian era there were a great many gospel writings connected with Jesus, creating an accepted, standardized set of books with the maximum amount of legitimacy was no easy task for the church at the time.
As to your question. Or is he a fraud [and therefore "evil"]? (Your ham-handed attempt to vilify Christians and classify Prof. Ehrman as a martyr notwithstanding) No, he was not a fraud, simply incorrect in a number of his opinions.
@mchill saidThe OP is not "ham-handed". The OP asks: Is he mistaken ? Is he a fraud? Or is he right? If you feel "vilified" by this enquiry, then that is a matter for you.
As to your question. Or is he a fraud [and therefore "evil"]? (Your ham-handed attempt to vilify Christians and classify Prof. Ehrman as a martyr notwithstanding)
24 Oct 22
@mchill saidsonship was a Christian who believed Ehrman was a "fraud" and "evil", for example. Was that sonship vilifying himself?
As to your question. Or is he a fraud [and therefore "evil"]? (Your ham-handed attempt to vilify Christians and classify Prof. Ehrman as a martyr notwithstanding)
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
@fmf saidIs sonship dead, or no longer a Christian?
sonship was a Christian who believed Ehrman was a "fraud" and "evil", for example. Was that sonship vilifying himself?
Either way, why discuss him like this when he is no longer active here to respond on his own behalf?
Whatever happened to your "moral compass"? Or was that just more British irony that the rest of us stupid clods were too credulous to get?
It's not as if our world is suffering from a lack of clever people who have no moral compass.
25 Oct 22
@kevin-eleven saidSonship’s made public comments about Professor Bart D. Ehrman’s ideas, it’s those which are being discussed, not sonship himself.
Is sonship dead, or no longer a Christian?
Either way, why discuss him like this when he is no longer active here to respond on his own behalf?
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
@divegeester saidTo what extent do you believe that @sonship himself exists or existed as a distinct, reified entity?
Sonship’s made public comments about Professor Bart D. Ehrman’s ideas, it’s those which are being discussed, not sonship himself.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
@fmf saidYes, I suppose those could be considered thoughts, in written form.
To your way of thinking, is Professor Bart D. Ehrman simply mistaken about everything in his scholarship on the New Testament?
Or is he a fraud [and therefore "evil"]?
Or is he right?
Ehrman has written widely on issues of the New Testament and early Christianity at both an academic and popular level, much of it based on textual criticism of the New Testament. H ...[text shortened]... ks have been sold, and his books have been translated into 27 languages. ~ wiki
Thoughts?
@FMF
Ehrmann makes a cogent case for greater diversity in the first three centuries of Christianity than many Christians will admit or are comfortable with. The variant of Christianity which survived re-wrote its early history to retro-actively invent a doctrinal unity which was not originally there. I think that point is historically indisputable.
On the other hand, he sometimes misses the mark in details, for example interpreting too much into an alleged mistranslation in some passages of the NT (Misquoting Jesus).
“The documents have been tampered with,” as H.L. Mencken put it.
Either way, thinking Christians can ill afford to ignore his contention or dismiss him as a krank, particularly Protestants who disown the papacy and assume the NT to be the primary source whereby the will of God is made known to man.
@moonbus saidDoes not this get superseded by the whole question of the provenance and authorship - and the motivations of the authors - that hangs over the texts?
On the other hand, he sometimes misses the mark in details, for example interpreting too much into an alleged mistranslation in some passages of the NT (Misquoting Jesus).
26 Oct 22
@moonbus saidActually, I used the word superseded quite deliberately. But you're right to suggest - if that's what you meant to do - that it's simply up to Christians to ignore the issues of provenance and authorship if they want to and, instead, internalize and recite whatever "correctly quoted" words of Jesus that they happen to accept through hearsay and appeals to tradition and whatnot.
“Superseded” is too strong a word. It’s one more factor to be weighed when studying a very complex book which was composed and cobbled together over a number of centuries.
26 Oct 22
@kevin-eleven saidYou should perhaps start a thread on your interest in the extent to which sonship exists or existed as a distinct reified entity and see if others here share your interest.
To what extent do you believe that @sonship himself exists or existed as a distinct, reified entity?
27 Oct 22
@fmf saidYes, that is what I meant. For many Christians, the Bible is inerrant, not to be questioned as to authenticity or accuracy. Difficult to interpret, yes, but impossible to be wrong on any point of significance.
Actually, I used the word superseded quite deliberately. But you're right to suggest - if that's what you meant to do - that it's simply up to Christians to ignore the issues of provenance and authorship if they want to and, instead, internalize and recite whatever "correctly quoted" words of Jesus that they happen to accept through hearsay and appeals to tradition and whatnot.
For any thinking person, the Bible can and should be analyzed as any other book can be, sacred or otherwise: who wrote it? When? With what purpose and motivation? What is the chain of custody from original MS (scrolls, papyrus, whatever) to the oldest extant complete version? How accurate are the translations? What did the images, metaphors, symbols, and turns of phrase mean in their original historical context? Are there abrupt changes of style or breaks in continuity or anachronistic words within a single book, which indicate later insertions/redaction. Etc etc.
Ehrman’s writings are a contribution to a large and increasing body of scholarly work in the field of Biblical analysis. Not the final word on it, of course.
For a straight historical account of how the books of the canon came about, I recommend Lane Fox’s The Unauthorized Version. This at the very least every thinking Christian should investigate. The Bible is quite different from, for example, the Koran and The Book of Mormon, which were produced in single definitive editions over short periods of time.