Bart Ehrman, Textual Criticism and Lack of Catholic Engagement

[CrossofChrist]

I’m talking about just one claim Ehrman makes: early NT manuscripts were intentionally altered by scribes to make them say something different from what they originally said. I want to know the extent to which that is actually the case or not.

You mentioned Luke 3:22. Which is ultimately based on Psalm 2:7, and Ratzinger talks about that for roughly 10 pages in his Introduction to Christianity. That is worth taking a look at.

He explains it better than I could. But I’ll briefly do my best.

Psalm 2:7 is about the idea of the Messiah, about the Man being crowned king. Being the son of God was more than just a phrase; rather, it denotes that God has anointed that individual as king. But it is important to realize that the early Christians didn’t view this begetting as something done apart from a point of view they had after the Cross and Resurrection. The Cross is, in the eyes of the early Christians, the place where Christ is fully shown forth to be the true King. It is humility and sacrifice, an offering to God of pure love–a complete “being for”, that make Christ rule. Jesus’ one offering of his life is completed and culminates/climaxes on the Cross, which is why that is the place of his “begetting”, why Jesus rules from the Cross.

That’s why St. Paul could say that he gloried in the Cross (see 1 Corinthians and Galatians). Because by opening the door to God by the Cross and Resurrection, we can rule with God in love.

So we can see how Christocentric the early Christians were. The later developments, the Nicene Creed, Chalcedon, Ephesus, etc., were all from the Church’s understanding of Christ as received from the Apostles. So different wording (why St. Luke may have written “with you I am well pleased” rather that “today I have begotten you”) reflects the theological outlook of the disciples in a way that was more pastorally suited to the person Luke was writing to. The same could be said of the other Gospels–they convey the truths of Jesus’ life, but they reveal his life in a way that the recipients could better understand the Truth Christ revealed and apply it to their own lives.

To suggest that the disciples “really” had something in mind other than what was later believed by the Church–which is disproved by an honest reading of St. Paul regardless–presumes a priori that the Resurrection never took place, that the disciples never had an understanding of the divinity and humanity of Christ, even if they didn’t fully articulate it in a way like Chalcedon.

In fact, Ehrman does a priori preclude the possibility of the Resurrection being a historical fact that historians can recognize, and says that belief in it is a theological opinion:

*I’m fine if Bill wants to argue that theologically God raised Jesus from the dead or even if he wants to argue theologically that Jesus was raised from the dead But this cannot be a historical claim, and not for the reason that he imputed to me as being an old, warmed over 18th century view that has been refuted ever since. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. …

Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical research, we can’t claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition, it probably didn’t. And history can only establish what probably did.

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman#ixzz3FEfR1CAs*

So he takes an early 20th century view, that of logical positivism, and his philosophy limits his views as a historian. We can’t look back at something in pure objectivity–in that sense, “reason alone” does not exist.

“For human reason is not autonomous at all. It is always living in one historical context or other. Any historical context, as we see, distorts the vision of reason; that is why reason needs the help of history in order to overcome these historical limitations." - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Ironically, the “pure (objective) reason” philosophical positivism tries to establish is limited by its own (subjective) historical context. Sure, it’s helpful for some parts of history. But when the supernatural is involved, there can be no objectivity if it assumes beforehand that there is no supernatural element.

(to be continued…)

 

[CrossofChrist]

(continued…)

So how do we find the truth about Jesus? In fact, we can still find the truth about God and the Christian, and therefore its fullness in the Catholic, religion (Catholic=Christian) by reason alone.

Intelligence must reach the necessary and absolute Principle which governs the universe; recognize the historical proofs which show the divinity of Jesus Christ and the divine mission of the Church; and then stop before the mystery of God, who, being infinite, always remains obscure in his nature and in his operations. - Pope St. John Paul II

The way to do so, is to see the effects of God’s divine love. The love of Christ shines forth through his saints, and their charity and sincerity proves the truth of their message. Because the way to try and “disprove” the Resurrection is by either claiming there was some form of change in the Christian community and their teaching, whether it’s a radical break in Tradition or a slow development from believing some vague undefined teaching about the Resurrection not involving a body, or claiming the disciples lied. It is irrational, contrary to the truly “pure reason”, to believe so.

For a very concise and brief synopsis, see: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19890125en.html

A little more in depth on this particular topic: ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm#_ednref20

Sorry if I rambled a bit, but hopefully that got to the heart of what you were asking.

Because this ultimately goes much deeper than a debate about text changes–it goes to the origins of Christianity, whether or not Christ is Risen and that He is present continually in a community (the Church!) through all the ages to eternity since the Resurrection.

Do not be afraid–He is Risen!

 

[HoistedSheep]

I would not take too much stock in the theories of liberal Bible scholars. Keep in mind that Bart Ehrman and scholars who side with him depend on their reputation more than they depend on truth. If he or any other secular scholar were to change their opinions, they would immediately be tossed off the Ivory tower. Bart and his fellow secular crusaders might have began their careers with a legitimate interest in the truth of the scriptures, but the dread of job security seduced them away from this honest pursuit. This compromise leads to academic fame and tenure. For a young teacher, the prospect of a higher salary and benefits is an apple that’s hard not to bite. Eventually, they earn the approval of their peers, and become too snug behind university walls to see beyond them. Bart’s own arguments are not new. They are the same old theories put forth by liberal scholars since the Enlightenment. I like to call him and his ilk " Wheel Scholars", because that’s exactly what they are. They manufacture a theory, sell it to the public, maintain their hip reputation, and watch the cash flow in. Take a look at how Bart promotes his books. He goes on popular late-night shows and authors op-ed pieces for mainstream newspapers. The audience bites, his class maintains an enrollment, and his theories are recycled with a few minor alterations by another scholar, usually an admirer or friend. The wheel just keeps turning.
As to why Catholics are largely silent on him and his peers, the fact is Bart and other secular scholars prefer debates with fundamentalists , because they represent the straw man Christian Bart and his friends love to construct in their arguments. They are also more at their speed, intent-wise. Bart and other liberal scholars are fundamentalists themselves. They never give a non-biased argument or read the scriptures with an open heart and mind. They only stick to their pet theories, and are oblivious to truth that might not fit with them, because this would not keep the wheel turning. A twenty minute debate with a friendly Jesuit would knock their hands off this wheel and send it rolling down a hill.

 

[Kevin12]

I would not take too much stock in the theories of liberal Bible scholars. Keep in mind that Bart Ehrman and scholars who side with him depend on their reputation more than they depend on truth. If he or any other secular scholar were to change their opinions, they would immediately be tossed off the Ivory tower. Bart and his fellow secular crusaders might have began their careers with a legitimate interest in the truth of the scriptures, but the dread of job security seduced them away from this honest pursuit. This compromise leads to academic fame and tenure. For a young teacher, the prospect of a higher salary and benefits is an apple that’s hard not to bite. Eventually, they earn the approval of their peers, and become too snug behind university walls to see beyond them. Bart’s own arguments are not new. They are the same old theories put forth by liberal scholars since the Enlightenment. I like to call him and his ilk " Wheel Scholars", because that’s exactly what they are. They manufacture a theory, sell it to the public, maintain their hip reputation, and watch the cash flow in. Take a look at how Bart promotes his books. He goes on popular late-night shows and authors op-ed pieces for mainstream newspapers. The audience bites, his class maintains an enrollment, and his theories are recycled with a few minor alterations by another scholar, usually an admirer or friend. The wheel just keeps turning.
As to why Catholics are largely silent on him and his peers, the fact is Bart and other secular scholars prefer debates with fundamentalists , because they represent the straw man Christian Bart and his friends love to construct in their arguments. They are also more at their speed, intent-wise. Bart and other liberal scholars are fundamentalists themselves. They never give a non-biased argument or read the scriptures with an open heart and mind. They only stick to their pet theories, and are oblivious to truth that might not fit with them, because this would not keep the wheel turning. A twenty minute debate with a friendly Jesuit would knock their hands off this wheel and send it rolling down a hill.

I really think you’re not understand the situation. Ehrman debates Evangelicals, but they are most certainly not, I as I have seen, straw men Christians. Even Ehrman admits he respects the Evangelicals he debates, and most of them have published in the same journals as him. I actually think the Jesuits might get beaten pretty handily, because as it seems, we haven’t put as much emphasis on the Bible as Evangelicals and Protestants of other stripes, like Bruce M. Metzger, who was Ehrman’s mentor. These are not liberals, but faithful Christians. I feel its just this sort of arrogance that is keeping the Church behind on these matters.

 

[Kevin12]

You mentioned Luke 3:22. Which is ultimately based on Psalm 2:7, and Ratzinger talks about that for roughly 10 pages in his Introduction to Christianity. That is worth taking a look at.

He explains it better than I could. But I’ll briefly do my best.

Psalm 2:7 is about the idea of the Messiah, about the Man being crowned king. Being the son of God was more than just a phrase; rather, it denotes that God has anointed that individual as king. But it is important to realize that the early Christians didn’t view this begetting as something done apart from a point of view they had after the Cross and Resurrection. The Cross is, in the eyes of the early Christians, the place where Christ is fully shown forth to be the true King. It is humility and sacrifice, an offering to God of pure love–a complete “being for”, that make Christ rule. Jesus’ one offering of his life is completed and culminates/climaxes on the Cross, which is why that is the place of his “begetting”, why Jesus rules from the Cross.

That’s why St. Paul could say that he gloried in the Cross (see 1 Corinthians and Galatians). Because by opening the door to God by the Cross and Resurrection, we can rule with God in love.

So we can see how Christocentric the early Christians were. The later developments, the Nicene Creed, Chalcedon, Ephesus, etc., were all from the Church’s understanding of Christ as received from the Apostles. So different wording (why St. Luke may have written “with you I am well pleased” rather that “today I have begotten you”) reflects the theological outlook of the disciples in a way that was more pastorally suited to the person Luke was writing to. The same could be said of the other Gospels–they convey the truths of Jesus’ life, but they reveal his life in a way that the recipients could better understand the Truth Christ revealed and apply it to their own lives.

Okay, but in that case, why did Justin Martyr and Augustine quote 3:22 as containing the part about “This day I have begotten you”? That is actually the crux of what I am trying to figure out.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Okay, but in that case, why did Justin Martyr and Augustine quote 3:22 as containing the part about “This day I have begotten you”? That is actually the crux of what I am trying to figure out.

You said earlier (p.1) that you’re concerned from Ehrman’s arguments about a change in the earliest times of the Church, yet you say as late as Augustine a certain translation was used? If the change was after Augustine, what’s the worry?

On the USCCB page Bible footnote, it also says the Psalm 2:7 reading was a Western reading, that the best reading from the Greek manuscripts is what Luke commonly has. Or just has .

But that’s been discussed earlier in the thread.

The Bible was written for the Church, for believers. It is meant to help us come to a better knowledge of God. Maybe he reason why Catholics rarely get involved in these debates is because it really is insignificant. The Bible isn’t some document that exists for itself, that word for word has to be preserved the same. A new translation of the text is acceptable if it better helps edify the people of God, if it helps avoid confusion. It belongs primarily in a context of prayer, not modern day standards of scrutiny. When the order gets flipped, problems arise.

It’s the Spirit that writes the Scripture using human hands. So long as the spirit of what is being said is the same, it’s ok. E.g whether or not St. Paul personally wrote a certain letter or if it was from the “Pauline school” is insignificant, since it was from St. Paul regardless.

So did Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write the Gospels? Is the sacred author also the saint? Remember only St. Matthew and St. John were among the Twelve Apostles. We must keep in mind that in the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen. Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author. Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his thought and in his spirit even though a “ghost writer” did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the psalms even though clearly he did not write all of the psalms.

catholicherald.com/stories/Straight-Answers-Who-Wrote-the-Gospels,1253?sub_id=1253

 

[CrossofChrist]

You said earlier (p.1) that you’re concerned from Ehrman’s arguments about a change in the earliest times of the Church, yet you say as late as Augustine a certain translation was used? If the change was after Augustine, what’s the worry?

On the USCCB page Bible footnote, it also says the Psalm 2:7 reading was a Western reading, that the best reading from the Greek manuscripts is what Luke commonly has. Or just has .

But that’s been discussed earlier in the thread.

The Bible was written for the Church, for believers. It is meant to help us come to a better knowledge of God. Maybe he reason why Catholics rarely get involved in these debates is because it really is insignificant. The Bible isn’t some document that exists for itself, that word for word has to be preserved the same. A new translation of the text is acceptable if it better helps edify the people of God, if it helps avoid confusion. It belongs primarily in a context of prayer, not modern day standards of scrutiny. When the order gets flipped, problems arise.

It’s the Spirit that writes the Scripture using human hands. So long as the spirit of what is being said is the same, it’s ok. E.g whether or not St. Paul personally wrote a certain letter or if it was from the “Pauline school” is insignificant, since it was from St. Paul regardless.

So did Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write the Gospels? Is the sacred author also the saint? Remember only St. Matthew and St. John were among the Twelve Apostles. We must keep in mind that in the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen. Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author. Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his thought and in his spirit even though a “ghost writer” did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the psalms even though clearly he did not write all of the psalms.

catholicherald.com/stories/Straight-Answers-Who-Wrote-the-Gospels,1253?sub_id=1253

So since you were concerned with later additions, keep in mind the spirit of the text. If there are later additions–which has little proof AFAIK, it’s only speculation–it clarifies the original author’s intent, and ultimately is in the same spirit of the Evangelist.

Was the Gospel of St. John written by St. John or by the presbyter John? Either way it’s in the tradition and spirit of St. John the Evangelist, and it is in the Holy Spirit that the meaning is preserved. Something to keep in mind.

 

[commenter]

I really think you’re not understand the situation. Ehrman debates Evangelicals, but they are most certainly not, I as I have seen, straw men Christians. Even Ehrman admits he respects the Evangelicals he debates, and most of them have published in the same journals as him. I actually think the Jesuits might get beaten pretty handily, because as it seems, we haven’t put as much emphasis on the Bible as Evangelicals and Protestants of other stripes, like Bruce M. Metzger, who was Ehrman’s mentor. These are not liberals, but faithful Christians. I feel its just this sort of arrogance that is keeping the Church behind on these matters.

The secular world will always label the Church as “behind” on this, and many other matters. Even if the Church attended every single debate, the Church would still get labelled as “behind”. The secularists have an agenda. They will applaud the liberal denominations as “up to date” since they agree with them, even if the liberals never attend any debates.

The reality is that Catholic scholars have a limited amount of time. There are many groups - some Christians, Jews, Muslims, others - who are genuinely interested in what Catholics have to say. Ehrman, etc. already knows our views. I don’t have a sense that he is curious about Catholic views. Some debates are more productive for Catholic scholars to attend than others.

 

[Estevao]

I would not take too much stock in the theories of liberal Bible scholars. Keep in mind that Bart Ehrman and scholars who side with him depend on their reputation more than they depend on truth. If he or any other secular scholar were to change their opinions, they would immediately be tossed off the Ivory tower. Bart and his fellow secular crusaders might have began their careers with a legitimate interest in the truth of the scriptures, but the dread of job security seduced them away from this honest pursuit. This compromise leads to academic fame and tenure. For a young teacher, the prospect of a higher salary and benefits is an apple that’s hard not to bite. Eventually, they earn the approval of their peers, and become too snug behind university walls to see beyond them. Bart’s own arguments are not new. They are the same old theories put forth by liberal scholars since the Enlightenment. I like to call him and his ilk " Wheel Scholars", because that’s exactly what they are. They manufacture a theory, sell it to the public, maintain their hip reputation, and watch the cash flow in. Take a look at how Bart promotes his books. He goes on popular late-night shows and authors op-ed pieces for mainstream newspapers. The audience bites, his class maintains an enrollment, and his theories are recycled with a few minor alterations by another scholar, usually an admirer or friend. The wheel just keeps turning.
As to why Catholics are largely silent on him and his peers, the fact is Bart and other secular scholars prefer debates with fundamentalists , because they represent the straw man Christian Bart and his friends love to construct in their arguments. They are also more at their speed, intent-wise. Bart and other liberal scholars are fundamentalists themselves. They never give a non-biased argument or read the scriptures with an open heart and mind. They only stick to their pet theories, and are oblivious to truth that might not fit with them, because this would not keep the wheel turning. A twenty minute debate with a friendly Jesuit would knock their hands off this wheel and send it rolling down a hill.

Good post. I went to the library to get Ehrman’s latest book because of this thread (I should try to keep up with the attacks on the Bible I guess), and the reviews on the back are from the prestigious authors who also know what to write to get their books in the right places.

OP have you read Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth or Fulton Sheen’s life of Christ? That’s two Catholics responses to the critical attacks on the Bible right there.

 

[schaeffer]

The secular world will always label the Church as “behind” on this, and many other matters. Even if the Church attended every single debate, the Church would still get labelled as “behind”. The secularists have an agenda. They will applaud the liberal denominations as “up to date” since they agree with them, even if the liberals never attend any debates.

The reality is that Catholic scholars have a limited amount of time. There are many groups - some Christians, Jews, Muslims, others - who are genuinely interested in what Catholics have to say. Ehrman, etc. already knows our views. I don’t have a sense that he is curious about Catholic views. Some debates are more productive for Catholic scholars to attend than others.

The question this thread is addressing isn’t about seculars or Ehrman himself asking why Catholic scholars aren’t addressing these points (in the ancient texts).

It is a question from a believing Catholic as to why the largest Church in the world isn’t addressing a point, that they themselves have noticed in writings of some of Catholics most respected theologians (Augustine for example).

This is about the actual quote in scripture, if Ehrman had never written a single word on the matter, the matter would still remain. There is a difference between what we see written now in the scripture as opposed to what Augustine quoted as that scripture reading.

That is not something that can be blamed on seculars, Ehrman or anyone else other than the writers and authors of the texts themselves.

Ehrman and liberal faiths might well have an agenda. I think the question at hand is whether or not the scribes of that textual quote in particular had an agenda.

Are the scholars of the Catholic Church too busy to address the questions and clarifications that it’s own members seek answers to?

From what I know of the Catholic Church in general, over it’s 2000 year history, I would be greatly surprised if there is an jot or tiddle of the Scripture that hasn’t been studied extremely carefully. I am confident that the Catholic response to this apparent discrepancy is out there. I don’t know where, in all the tens of thousands of writings in the annals of the Church it exists. But I truly believe it does exist.

I feel discouraged often the devout Catholic response to honest questions is to shout “agenda! we don’t have time to respond to troublemakers like you.” Then if someone says, “no, truly, I was just asking a question” they get the “well, we HAVE to act that way because people are always attacking us.”

I fear a lot of people don’t have the patience, or care enough to run the gauntlet of suspicion and accusation they get for seeking information and answers. I’ve bowed out of discussions many times myself because there were only so many ways to say “I am not attacking you.” And I just decided it really wasn’t worth it.

I don’t know that the Church itself ever responds that way. But unfortunately it is a common response from members of the Church. I suppose they don’t feel like it’s worth the effort…just as you say…to respond to someone who they suppose is just looking for trouble.

It’s an unfortunate impasse.

 

[Kevin12]

The secular world will always label the Church as “behind” on this, and many other matters. Even if the Church attended every single debate, the Church would still get labelled as “behind”. The secularists have an agenda. They will applaud the liberal denominations as “up to date” since they agree with them, even if the liberals never attend any debates.

The reality is that Catholic scholars have a limited amount of time. There are many groups - some Christians, Jews, Muslims, others - who are genuinely interested in what Catholics have to say. Ehrman, etc. already knows our views. I don’t have a sense that he is curious about Catholic views. Some debates are more productive for Catholic scholars to attend than others.

I don’t think this is the case. Ehrman’s books are best sellers and are in many cases leading the faithful down the wrong path. We don’t need to address him for his own sake but for ours.

 

[Kevin12]

The question this thread is addressing isn’t about seculars or Ehrman himself asking why Catholic scholars aren’t addressing these points (in the ancient texts).

It is a question from a believing Catholic as to why the largest Church in the world isn’t addressing a point, that they themselves have noticed in writings of some of Catholics most respected theologians (Augustine for example).

This is about the actual quote in scripture, if Ehrman had never written a single word on the matter, the matter would still remain. There is a difference between what we see written now in the scripture as opposed to what Augustine quoted as that scripture reading.

That is not something that can be blamed on seculars, Ehrman or anyone else other than the writers and authors of the texts themselves.

Ehrman and liberal faiths might well have an agenda. I think the question at hand is whether or not the scribes of that textual quote in particular had an agenda.

Are the scholars of the Catholic Church too busy to address the questions and clarifications that it’s own members seek answers to?

From what I know of the Catholic Church in general, over it’s 2000 year history, I would be greatly surprised if there is an jot or tiddle of the Scripture that hasn’t been studied extremely carefully. I am confident that the Catholic response to this apparent discrepancy is out there. I don’t know where, in all the tens of thousands of writings in the annals of the Church it exists. But I truly believe it does exist.

I feel discouraged often the devout Catholic response to honest questions is to shout “agenda! we don’t have time to respond to troublemakers like you.” Then if someone says, “no, truly, I was just asking a question” they get the “well, we HAVE to act that way because people are always attacking us.”

I fear a lot of people don’t have the patience, or care enough to run the gauntlet of suspicion and accusation they get for seeking information and answers. I’ve bowed out of discussions many times myself because there were only so many ways to say “I am not attacking you.” And I just decided it really wasn’t worth it.

I don’t know that the Church itself ever responds that way. But unfortunately it is a common response from members of the Church. I suppose they don’t feel like it’s worth the effort…just as you say…to respond to someone who they suppose is just looking for trouble.

It’s an unfortunate impasse.

Thank you for articulating just what I wanted to say. I don’t feel my faith is diminished by those sorts of reactions, but it certainly isn’t helped. But seeing that there are people like you trying to honestly engage these questions in good faith does encourage me, at least a bit.

 

[schaeffer]

Thank you for articulating just what I wanted to say. I don’t feel my faith is diminished by those sorts of reactions, but it certainly isn’t helped. But seeing that there are people like you trying to honestly engage these questions in good faith does encourage me, at least a bit.

I participate on a variety of discussion forums, and I know that for every one member and poster, hundreds of others read the thread as well.

Even IF the OP has an agenda, there are 100 eyes reading that probably do not, and any information that is supplied in the thread informs those people as well.

Often there is a question I never thought to ask, but someone else did, and I greatly benefit from the discussion even if I don’t join in.

I think it is really important that we all be mindful of that fact…that what we say and the way we say it is seen and absorbed by many more people than the handful who are active in the discussion.

Just this morning on CAF I came across a thread, where someone asked a question…and were immediately accused of having an agenda…the people who did respond amicably and provided information greatly enlightened me on a subject I didn’t previously know much about, and I am grateful to them, and their willingness to put aside any suspicion and answer informatively.

It’s very disappointing when a good thread gets derailed with accusations, etc.

I am really enjoying this thread and have followed up on several links etc. Lots of great information and food for thought. Thank you for starting it and hanging in there!

 

[HoistedSheep]

I really think you’re not understand the situation. Ehrman debates Evangelicals, but they are most certainly not, I as I have seen, straw men Christians. Even Ehrman admits he respects the Evangelicals he debates, and most of them have published in the same journals as him. I actually think the Jesuits might get beaten pretty handily, because as it seems, we haven’t put as much emphasis on the Bible as Evangelicals and Protestants of other stripes, like Bruce M. Metzger, who was Ehrman’s mentor. These are not liberals, but faithful Christians. I feel its just this sort of arrogance that is keeping the Church behind on these matters.

I apologize if my post came off arrogant. I am new to the faith and have barely stretched my wings when it comes to theological arguments. That Jesuit comment was meant to be tongue and cheek. But I did not say all Evangelicals are straw men Christians. That’s why I used the term " fundamentalist". I respect many Evangelical scholars, William Lane Craig especially, who happened to hold up well in his debate against Bart. I understand your question pertains to the theory that the scriptures were doctored years after they were passed around. While I agree there is a lack of response from Catholic scholars, and an unfortunate silence when it comes to matters of scripture, my frustration mainly comes from the amount of faith people place in these liberal scholars. It is not Bart’s questioning I object to. It is the way he reacts to these questions. He has formulated his theory, and will only seek answers that conform to it. Hence why I compared him to fundamentalist Christians, who also form theories on a Bible verse and ignore all possible answers that go against them. I too wish there was more Catholic scholars engaged in scriptural debates.
Can I suggest you send this question to Father Robert Barron? He will have a better answer for your question. I’m not entirely sure how to find his email, but his twitter might be sufficient. twitter.com/FrRobertBarron

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think it is because Catholic scholars find no real need; perhaps they feel it is needed, but they don’t have the ability to engage the Ehrmans of the world.

That’s frankly just silly. There are plenty of scholars who have refuted Ehrman. Granted, most of the ones I know about who have directly engaged him are Protestants: Ben Witherington is the first one who comes to mind. As you can see from this review by Witherington of one of Ehrman’s books, Witherington has no problem citing other reputable scholars who disagree with Ehrman, including Ehrman’s own mentor, the highly respected Bruce Metzger. N. T. Wright and Richard Bauckham are other evangelical Protestant scholars who disagree strongly with Ehrman’s kind of scholarship. While Witherington teaches at an evangelical seminary (Asbury), Wright and Bauckham have a history of employment at the most prestigious British universities. It simply isn’t true that more conservative scholarship (moderate scholarship, not the kind that insists on defending traditional views hook, line, and sinker with no serious attention to critical issues) finds no place in the modern academy. In NT scholarship, at least, it’s grown considerably stronger in recent decades.

Edwin

 

[Kevin12]

I apologize if my post came off arrogant. I am new to the faith and have barely stretched my wings when it comes to theological arguments. That Jesuit comment was meant to be tongue and cheek. But I did not say all Evangelicals are straw men Christians. That’s why I used the term " fundamentalist". I respect many Evangelical scholars, William Lane Craig especially, who happened to hold up well in his debate against Bart. I understand your question pertains to the theory that the scriptures were doctored years after they were passed around. While I agree there is a lack of response from Catholic scholars, and an unfortunate silence when it comes to matters of scripture, my frustration mainly comes from the amount of faith people place in these liberal scholars. It is not Bart’s questioning I object to. It is the way he reacts to these questions. He has formulated his theory, and will only seek answers that conform to it. Hence why I compared him to fundamentalist Christians, who also form theories on a Bible verse and ignore all possible answers that go against them. I too wish there was more Catholic scholars engaged in scriptural debates.
Can I suggest you send this question to Father Robert Barron? He will have a better answer for your question. I’m not entirely sure how to find his email, but his twitter might be sufficient. twitter.com/FrRobertBarron

I appreciate your response. I wasn’t really trying to accuse personally of arrogance - I think its more of a Catholic temperament in some cases. I think Flannery O’Connor pointed out that the great sin of Catholics is pride, and I can see that. I think you may be pretty on-point about Ehrman only seeking answers that confirm his assumptions, but I still think we should act on the principle of charity and not assume this is the case.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Often there is a question I never thought to ask, but someone else did, and I greatly benefit from the discussion even if I don’t join in.

…the people who did respond amicably [on another thread] and provided information greatly enlightened me on a subject I didn’t previously know much about, and I am grateful to them, and their willingness to put aside any suspicion and answer informatively.

…

I am really enjoying this thread and have followed up on several links etc. Lots of great information and food for thought. Thank you for starting it and hanging in there!

I’ve found this thread very helpful as well. I had dismissed Ehrman long ago, and while I’m not ready to return to him, I do want to explore the world of textual criticism more as a result of this thread. I’ve decided to brush off my school-boy’s Greek, get an introduction to textual criticism and the latest version of Nestle-Aland’s NT, and see what I can learn.

Just yesterday in the Office of Readings I use, there was a treatise on baptism attributed to St. Basil that began as follows: 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son of the living God, when, after he had been raised from among the dead, received the promise of God the Father, which he had spoken through the mouth of his prophet David ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you; ask, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the ends of the earth…’ (PG 31, 1514-1515)

The above quotation is obviously from the psalms, not from a Lucan variant. I wonder if this is true of at least some of the other patristic evidence? It also occurred to me that maybe the liturgy (I understand that Epiphany is one of the most ancient feasts) references psalm 2 in relation to Christ. But the modern Roman liturgy does not, and I’d imagine the modern liturgy follows the psalms of the ancient liturgy closely.

For my part, I don’t find it disturbing that an overly pious individual scribe could try to fix a Gospel verse. That this could happen on an institutional level would be vastly more disturbing, but I’ll reserve judgment until I’ve learned a little more about textual criticism.

 

[HoistedSheep]

I appreciate your response. I wasn’t really trying to accuse personally of arrogance - I think its more of a Catholic temperament in some cases. I think Flannery O’Connor pointed out that the great sin of Catholics is pride, and I can see that. I think you may be pretty on-point about Ehrman only seeking answers that confirm his assumptions, but I still think we should act on the principle of charity and not assume this is the case.

You are right. Pride is often a barrier. It is frustrating when our faith is attacked by these arguments, only for there to be few responses from Catholic scholars. My faith has been strengthened by the scriptural arguments of Saint Augustine, which I have only read recently. His argument that multiple interpretations of a Bible verse all hold true as long as they correspond to the truth of Christ’s divinity really struck a chord with me, because it reconciled an open reading with faith. But these secular theories continue to be argued, and a contemporary Catholic response is needed. I mentioned Father Robert Barron because I feel he is pushing the Church in this direction. He answers these arguments with scholarly weight and most importantly, humility, a trait I find hard to practice when frustration overcomes me. Those who take on these arguments will not put out the secular fire with more fire. They’ll have to adopt the open and cool temperament of the water our Lord baptized them with. Whether or not we can answer these questions, I agree that it is important to remember this.
God be with you on your search for answers. Thank you for this exchange.

 

[Estevao]

Maybe you guys should subscribe to Catholic Biblical Quarterly? I really am having a chuckle claiming that there’s no Catholic biblical scholars out there simply because there hasn’t been a Catholic biblical scholar who’s specifically responded to the writings of one particular anti-supernaturalist apostate popularizer and Albert Schweitzer clone. Get working on your german and french guys, your going to need it if you really want to enter the world of biblical scholarship.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

He says he is an agnostic, though whether or not that’s a meaningful distinction is debatable.

Anyone who says they are agnostic is really an atheist who doesn’t have the backbone to admit it. There are no extra points after death for not taking a stand. Either you believe in God or you don’t.

In my opinion you are spending too much time on Bart Erhman. He is not that deep or insightful. Read some Aquinas or Augustine, they won’t destroy your faith and have beautiful arguments to defend it.