K
Kevin12
Guest
I don’t think this is the same level. I mean, even looking in my Bible, there are notes on variant readings that are non-trivial. I’ve already mentioned a few in this thread.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
K
Kevin12
Guest
He says he is an agnostic, though whether or not that’s a meaningful distinction is debatable.No he is an atheist not an agnostic. He doen’t believe in God. Did you read “God’s Problem”? He doesn’t believe in God because people suffer.
K
Kevin12
Guest
I feel out of my depth. But It seems the reviews of his 1994 work that he has just been repackaging for the last 20 years “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” received positive reviews from all the sources I could find. I’ll also admit point blank, I’m afraid to delve deeper because I’m afraid Ehrman is right.I am thinking that if you spend some time in scholarly publications and writings – you will find your concerns addressed adnauseam. It’s not like this is a new question or concern. Have you checked to see where the majority of scholars fall on this issue today? Ehrman has taken a complex issue and turned it into an effective sound bite for his view and if his view/case were as strong as his popular books like to make it out to be well I think you would have seen a lot more fallout. If you are as concerned as you seem then take the time and wade through some other scholarly works.
The peace of Christ,
Mark
E
Estevao
Guest
He’s not. Check out Rodney Stark’s book “Cities of God” for the historical side and Daniel Wallace’s “Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament” for the textual criticism side for how this “competing Christianities” view of early Christianity is bunk.I feel out of my depth. But It seems the reviews of his 1994 work that he has just been repackaging for the last 20 years “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” received positive reviews from all the sources I could find. I’ll also admit point blank, I’m afraid to delve deeper because I’m afraid Ehrman is right.
Daniel Wallace talks about the "Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"
youtube.com/watch?v=4vOK0EWreAg
A
annem
Guest
Daddy’s Girl
Daddy’s Girl:
Daddy’s Girl
First, Bart is a lousy scholar. Yes, he’s made millions selling his repackaged Elaine Pagels (he studied under Pagels the Pagan)., But recall the Gospel of Judas? Well, you probably don’t. Doesn’t matter. He didn’t figure it out although it was given to him first . April DeConick had to come along and translate it properly.
And “faith”? Um, doesn’t sound like a Catholic to me. Unlike Protestants, who insist the only thing needed for conversion is faith, and reiterate how we have to rely on faith all the time (fine in its own way, but only a partial truth) Catholics would be more likely to start an argument and pretty soon whole monasteries would be full of fulminating position papers. . Ever read Jerome and Augustine or heard of their debate about the gourd? And as for faith, Catholics have always noted how Jesus said “repent” to every sinner he came across before anything else.
That might be something you want to ponder.
I pray that you will be flooded with light. And love. God bless, Annem
Sorry, this is incorrect. First, you are very incorrect about ‘biblical experts’ - unless, perhaps, you only read atheists, Next , it is highly likely that the names were in currency from the beginning, or how do you end up with every single manuscript, from every remote corner of the world, having the same author’s name given to it, all by the second century? Please explain. In fact, I beg you to explain.Most scholars and biblical experts agree that many parts of the bible were written by authors unknown, and then given a name to make it “authentic”. Indeed, the gospels did not have names on them like Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John when they were first written, it seems–not until many, many decades later.
Daddy’s Girl:
Once, again, you only read atheists, do you?I’s pretty much universal agreement, I think, that many of Paul’s letters were not written by him, for example.
Daddy’s Girl
Dear, dear Daddy’s Girl . You really need to pick up something better than what you appear to be reading.:Those who put the books of the bible…went on “faith”. But with modern examination, we now know that some of the authors assigned to some of the books in the canon could not be authentic.
Was this because of error or was it deliberate?Seems to me that Bart is saying it’s a combination of both.
First, Bart is a lousy scholar. Yes, he’s made millions selling his repackaged Elaine Pagels (he studied under Pagels the Pagan)., But recall the Gospel of Judas? Well, you probably don’t. Doesn’t matter. He didn’t figure it out although it was given to him first . April DeConick had to come along and translate it properly.
And “faith”? Um, doesn’t sound like a Catholic to me. Unlike Protestants, who insist the only thing needed for conversion is faith, and reiterate how we have to rely on faith all the time (fine in its own way, but only a partial truth) Catholics would be more likely to start an argument and pretty soon whole monasteries would be full of fulminating position papers. . Ever read Jerome and Augustine or heard of their debate about the gourd? And as for faith, Catholics have always noted how Jesus said “repent” to every sinner he came across before anything else.
That might be something you want to ponder.
I pray that you will be flooded with light. And love. God bless, Annem
A
annem
Guest
Commentator:
IProtestants don’t usually argue this point, because there will always be some Protestants in the audience who agree.
What’s never argued is the Catholic position. That there was a church from the first day, and the church was universal and that it was in charge. This is hardly a position you will hear the average Protestant taking. And that having a church in charge meant errors would be dealt with.
For the most part, Second Temple Jews, according to both Philo and Josephus, believed in both an oral and written tradition. The early Christians believed in both oral and written tradition as well… And you can prove it by going to the earliest source, Paul, who keeps mentioning it.
The Church had a deposit of faith which guided them (not to mention the Holy Spirit) when it came to scripture.
God bless, Annem
Here’s the problem with the Ehrman/Protestant debates: Ehrman’s whole take on the bible is that if ONE WORD is incorrect (he went through a brief Fundamentalist stage as a teenager) then of course the entire Bible needs to be abandoned. It’s all a lie if so much as a word here or there is incorrect.Those who have seen the debates between Ehrman, and like minded people, and Protestant scholars: how did the debates go? Do you think the evangelicals were able to communicate any points of Christianity that Ehrman or Dawkins - or the audience were likely unaware of?
IProtestants don’t usually argue this point, because there will always be some Protestants in the audience who agree.
What’s never argued is the Catholic position. That there was a church from the first day, and the church was universal and that it was in charge. This is hardly a position you will hear the average Protestant taking. And that having a church in charge meant errors would be dealt with.
For the most part, Second Temple Jews, according to both Philo and Josephus, believed in both an oral and written tradition. The early Christians believed in both oral and written tradition as well… And you can prove it by going to the earliest source, Paul, who keeps mentioning it.
The Church had a deposit of faith which guided them (not to mention the Holy Spirit) when it came to scripture.
God bless, Annem
A
annem
Guest
Schaeffer:
I pray God will flood you with light, Annem
I would argue not much of one. Remember the Gospel of Judas? Ehrman had it first, but it was April DeConick that had to correct his errors. Because he;'s a lousy scholar.Erhlman …is a scholar
This is something Ehrman claims, as well as few other atheists scholars. It’s simply not true. The data does not support this at all. In fact, the reverse.I have read other books by other scholars that also speak of “forgeries” and how they were a regular, if not accepted part of sharing ideas and theories.
Please try to prove this statement. Which of the Gospels includes myth, and how do you know it’s myth?Modern Christianity does seem especially sensitive to the idea that their religion, like all others, contains a certain amount of mythology.
I pray God will flood you with light, Annem
A
annem
Guest
Duane1966:
God bless, Annem
Is it just me, or do others think if the Church did change scripture to conform to their ideology, that they did a terrible job?
Yours is the best point I have read in a long time. Would you consider going into biblical scholarship?Like wouldn’t you have Jesus say: Peter you are rock…and you will be head of my church and of the other Apostles as will your successors? And this is my body And I AM NOT BEING SYMBOLIC? And change some of Jesus’ quotes to be word for word out of the disputed books? Baptize in the name of…and INFANTS also? And put the word TRINITY in also?
God bless, Annem
A
annem
Guest
DAVE NOONAN:
And why isn’t somebody encouraging one or two seminarians to go into biblical studies?
God bless, Annem
Alas, this is so true today, I think there are a number of French biblical scholars, but who’s going to translate them? All the main publishers of Christian biblical scholars, such as Eerdman’s and Fortress, only seem to carry Protestant scholars.The Catholic Church has lots and lots of biblical theologians but not very many biblical scholars, and of that small subset, even fewer that do text criticism. It’s a very specialized area of study and my guess is that there simply aren’t the people out there that do this kind of work. I only know of one Catholic who does text criticism.
And why isn’t somebody encouraging one or two seminarians to go into biblical studies?
God bless, Annem
K
Kevin12
Guest
As far as I can tell, Ehrman claims forgeries were common, but they were not accepted.This is something Ehrman claims, as well as few other atheists scholars. It’s simply not true. The data does not support this at all. In fact, the reverse.
But even scholars who disagree with him like James White and Daniel Wallace seem to respect him to some extent. And N.T. Wright, though I’m not 100% certain of his orthodoxy.
Since you seem to have some knowledge of the field, could you shed some light on the issue of patristic quotations that Ehrman uses to claim Luke 3:22 should be read “This day I have begotten you.”?
K
Kevin12
Guest
Could you elaborate on this? I saw DeConick’s criticisms of the National Geographic thing, but I’m not sure of Ehrman’s participation in it.Schaeffer:
I would argue not much of one. Remember the Gospel of Judas? Ehrman had it first, but it was April DeConick that had to correct his errors. Because he;'s a lousy scholar.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
You might try this guy: gtu.edu/academics/faculty-directory/m/racine-jean-francois-jstbCould you point me to him or her? I’d love to ask a person who actually could answer some of these questions, from a Catholic perspective (so at least I could get a view other than agnostic or Evangelical - really, even someone Greek Orthodox would do)
Luke Timothy Johnson does historical Jesus studies, but I’m not sure how much text criticism he does.
S
schaeffer
Guest
I did not claim there was any mythology in the Gospels. I said in the Christian religion.Schaeffer:
Please try to prove this statement. Which of the Gospels includes myth, and how do you know it’s myth?
I don’t believe that the Catholic Church teaches that the creation story is absolute fact as written. A number of details among the lives of the saints are considered myth, such as St George and the dragon. The St Christopher story catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=36
There is nothing wrong with these legends/myths. But most Christians I have met get very upset when anyone mentions that there are myths in the Bible or in the traditions of the lives of the saints (again not I did NOT say Gospel) .
Legends and myths serve an important role. Their existence does not render a religion false or “made up”.
Scholars, no doubt, have biases. So do readers. Sometimes people “see” what they are looking for. Perhaps you “saw” in my previous comment, a claim that there were myths in the Gospels.
K
Kevin12
Guest
I agree with you, I think people just have a problem with the worth “myth” given the way its used to mean “a false story meant to deceive”. I think anyone who reads Virgil, Homer, or even Spenser wouldn’t think that way.I did not claim there was any mythology in the Gospels. I said in the Christian religion.
I don’t believe that the Catholic Church teaches that the creation story is absolute fact as written. A number of details among the lives of the saints are considered myth, such as St George and the dragon. The St Christopher story catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=36
There is nothing wrong with these legends/myths. But most Christians I have met get very upset when anyone mentions that there are myths in the Bible or in the traditions of the lives of the saints (again not I did NOT say Gospel) .
Legends and myths serve an important role. Their existence does not render a religion false or “made up”.
Scholars, no doubt, have biases. So do readers. Sometimes people “see” what they are looking for. Perhaps you “saw” in my previous comment, a claim that there were myths in the Gospels.
K
Kevin12
Guest
Yeah, someone else mentioned him. I sent him an email, but I’m not expecting much.You might try this guy: gtu.edu/academics/faculty-directory/m/racine-jean-francois-jstb
Luke Timothy Johnson does historical Jesus studies, but I’m not sure how much text criticism he does.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Sorry, what I was meaning to point out is that this is probably outside LTJ’s area of expertise.Yeah, someone else mentioned him. I sent him an email, but I’m not expecting much.
K
Kevin12
Guest
Apparently he’s participated in talks as a counterpoint to Ehrman before, so I suppose its worth a shot.Sorry, what I was meaning to point out is that this is probably outside LTJ’s area of expertise.
A
annem
Guest
Kevin 12:
Note: Although I have never really investigated this area, since my interest was always in the New Testament. I would be delighted to have a clarification of this issue. Does anyone out there know much about it?
Please forgive me, God bless, Annem
I beg your pardon. I must have been reading too quickly, because I apparently completely mistook you. I am most truly sorry. . And of course, you didn’t say anything about myths in the gospels. Also, you are quite right, we are allowed to believe the first book of the bible could have mythic elements.I did not claim there was any mythology in the Gospels. I said in the Christian religion.
I don’t believe that the Catholic Church teaches that the creation story is absolute fact as written
Note: Although I have never really investigated this area, since my interest was always in the New Testament. I would be delighted to have a clarification of this issue. Does anyone out there know much about it?
Please forgive me, God bless, Annem
A
annem
Guest
Kevin 12:
Then he presents quotes from Gnostic works undermining Christian belief, right next to those of the Gospels, while never mentioning the dates when the Gnostic work and the Gospels were written. Never noting that the Gospels were accepted immediately. Gnostic works rejected immediately. Oh, once or twice in a book he might mention the date of a Gnostic work, but it’s always in the chapter after he talks about how hard it was for anyone to figure out. Very, very crafty.
Never once does he mention that Paul’s letter and the gospels were written about a century before we can locate a single Gnostic on the ground. Never does he mention (and most emphatically, never can he believe) that there was a flourishing church in plain view, rejecting errors as soon as they cropped up.
It’s the flourishing church that utterly squashes his argument, and it’s right in plain view, even in the works that weren’t old enough to make the bible - 1 Clement, in the letters of Ignatius, and the Didache. Not to mention in plain view from the beginning, in Paul’s letters.
And oh sigh, we don’t have any Catholic scholars out there fighting to present this view.
God bless, Annem
Ah, you must not have read all of his books. Because in some of them he does this dance around the truth, saying that there were so, so many different types of Christianities, no one of them more important or worthy than the others. So many different kinds of Jesus, how to choose! What, what is the truth? Poor Bart just can’t figure it out.As far as I can tell, Ehrman claims forgeries were common, but they were not accepted.
Then he presents quotes from Gnostic works undermining Christian belief, right next to those of the Gospels, while never mentioning the dates when the Gnostic work and the Gospels were written. Never noting that the Gospels were accepted immediately. Gnostic works rejected immediately. Oh, once or twice in a book he might mention the date of a Gnostic work, but it’s always in the chapter after he talks about how hard it was for anyone to figure out. Very, very crafty.
Never once does he mention that Paul’s letter and the gospels were written about a century before we can locate a single Gnostic on the ground. Never does he mention (and most emphatically, never can he believe) that there was a flourishing church in plain view, rejecting errors as soon as they cropped up.
It’s the flourishing church that utterly squashes his argument, and it’s right in plain view, even in the works that weren’t old enough to make the bible - 1 Clement, in the letters of Ignatius, and the Didache. Not to mention in plain view from the beginning, in Paul’s letters.
And oh sigh, we don’t have any Catholic scholars out there fighting to present this view.
God bless, Annem
A
annem
Guest
Kevin 12:
Anyway, look carefully at how the collection of essays (I assume you mean the collection of essays about orthodoxy, a book by Wallace, sorry I forget the title) goes about dismantling every single position Ehrman ever takes. I would say that Wallace’s book is full of respect, but that it succeeds in proving that Ehrman’s an idiot.
As for N T Wright, he is an Anglican, and I believe an Anglican bishop, with typical Anglican beliefs, not Catholic beliefs. One problem I always have with Wright is that I find him a boring writer.
But as for Wright thinking of Ehrman as a decent scholar, ha! In the one and only book I have ever read by a scholar that actually comes very close to accusing other scholars of lying, - I am not kidding, you must get a copy of this - Wright’s “Judas and the Gospel of Jesus”.
Really, Wright is very, very polite, but he very firmly points out that Pagels, Ehrman, and some other scholar whose name I have forgotten, try to deceive people about the Gnostics. The Anglican bishop almost outright accuses them of lying. I was stunned. Not something you ever see in books of biblical scholarship. And by and Anglican bishop, at that.
God bless, Annem
If you mean they are polite, why yes, they are. The Protestant scholars all try to exude Christian love and kindly attention to the other person’s viewpoint. I know this is the right thing to do - really, I do - but once in a while I long to hear from somebody with the testy temperament of Jerome.But even scholars who disagree with him like James White and Daniel Wallace seem to respect him to some extent. And N.T. Wright, though I’m not 100% certain of his orthodoxy.
Anyway, look carefully at how the collection of essays (I assume you mean the collection of essays about orthodoxy, a book by Wallace, sorry I forget the title) goes about dismantling every single position Ehrman ever takes. I would say that Wallace’s book is full of respect, but that it succeeds in proving that Ehrman’s an idiot.
As for N T Wright, he is an Anglican, and I believe an Anglican bishop, with typical Anglican beliefs, not Catholic beliefs. One problem I always have with Wright is that I find him a boring writer.
But as for Wright thinking of Ehrman as a decent scholar, ha! In the one and only book I have ever read by a scholar that actually comes very close to accusing other scholars of lying, - I am not kidding, you must get a copy of this - Wright’s “Judas and the Gospel of Jesus”.
Really, Wright is very, very polite, but he very firmly points out that Pagels, Ehrman, and some other scholar whose name I have forgotten, try to deceive people about the Gnostics. The Anglican bishop almost outright accuses them of lying. I was stunned. Not something you ever see in books of biblical scholarship. And by and Anglican bishop, at that.
God bless, Annem
- Status
- Not open for further replies.