Misquoting Jesus

[johnwl]

daddygirl: (although I’ve met him and must say he’s one of the kindest, most humble and charitable person I’ve ever met…and for those who label those qualities “Christian”, then he’s more Christian than most people)…

How nice to learn that in person Ehrman is humble. Because in his books he reveals himself as arrogant, angry, and seething with hatred for Christianity. And, considering that he has spent his entire adult life trying to stamp out Christianity, and since he constantly sneers at Christians and Christianity in book after book after book, I am puzzled that you haven’t noticed this, what with all that reading.

God’s blessings upon you, Johnwl

 

[Tarquin]

After reading Ehrman, which I suggest people do read to get that perspective,
read:
Timothy Paul Jones
“Misquoting Truth”
to put things right.
He turns Ehrman’s book on its head.
(That’s a pun, as you’ll see when you compare the covers of the two books. )

 

[johnwl]

daddygirl:
Those topics you mention, about parts of the bible being forged, mistranslated and copied incorrectly…are you saying this is not the case, even though most biblical scholars who have studied these texts have seen it with their own eyes?

Dear daddygirl, sorry, but you are so very wrong! Great heavens, haven’t you ever read anybody but Ehrman? Because, sorry again, but nobody with any background in biblical scholarship would agree with you. Really. He is simply wrong.

Look Ehrman has been accused many times by other scholars of skating about thisclose to outright lying. He does it time and again when writing about diverse early Christianity by ignoring the dates of the Gnostic writings. He did it in "Misquoting’ by not even being able to cough up any more than two well known, known for centuries, all dismissed, discrepancies, plus hot air.

I am staggered that you so innocently believed every biased, poorly reasoned statement made by a Ehrman. He’s famous for writing middle brow books aimed at people who have never picked up a book of biblical scholarship in their lives. And he’s rich because of it.

God’s blessing upon you, Johnwl

 

[PJM]

=johnwl;11736320]Hi. Well, where to begin? As far an intellectual anything, I would point out the Catholic church invented the university system, the scientific method, and has been a leader in intellectual inquiry for 2,000 years.

I would never call Ehrman a ‘top biblical scholar’. And his thesis (which he derived from Pagels, who in turn derived it from Bauer) is wrong. Here are some decent scholars and books that refute the thesis:

Memory and Manuscript with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity by Mr. Birger Gerhardsson

The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church . by Thomas A. Robinson

Judaism and Hellenism by Martin Hengel

These are difficult book by actual scholars. For a popular presentation:

Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels by Craig A. Evans

God’s blessings upon you, Johnwl

VERY nicely done:thumbsup:

Welcome to the FORUM and thanks

 

[sharpag]

Most scholars have “an agenda” or methodological framework that will cause them to be praised by some communities and disdained by others. Bart Ehrman is right that the manuscripts of the Bible we have are not the original texts and there are certain manuscript “families” that suggest slight variation over time. Even Augustine recognized that scribes weren’t perfect when he was defending the accuracy of Scripture (which he extended only to the original, and lost, texts which ironically he may never have possessed).

I’m not denying that Ehrman’s work for lay persons may be skewed to one extreme, and he may take “liberties” which he would never put into his scholarly work. However, there is no doubt that he is right about certain aspects of the manuscript tradition, namely that it is a fluid tradition (I have never read or studied under someone who taught otherwise). He is also correct that there are certain aspects of the Bible when taken literally are in contradiction. This should not surprise anyone who has taken even 15 minutes to begin reading Genesis.

As to Ehrman’s “respectability” in the field, it is a tough question. Some (forgive my straw man which I assure you might exist) scholars have the opinion that he tends towards sensationalism to sell his books to the masses and hold this against him. However, his scholarly work, even if not agreed with, is generally taken seriously.

I’m not a shrink so I’m not going to suggest Ehrman has some hatred of Christianity. Though one can imagine growing up and believing the Bible is inerrant and then discovering it’s not (my opinion) would probably be a rather traumatic experience. But I have no doubt he enjoys the royalties from his books.

 

[Magdalena59]

No, I don’t agree at all.
His beliefs have nothing to do pride. In fact, quite the opposite: He was vulnerable and humble enough to allow himself to reach outside his comfort zone and study.

The reason he no longer considers himself a Christian (although I’ve met him and must say he’s one of the kindest, most humble and charitable person I’ve ever met…and for those who label those qualities “Christian”, then he’s more Christian than most people)…has nothing to do with most of the stuff he writes about–bible errors and discrepancies and how Christianity evolved, etc.
There is just one issue that convinced him to changes his beliefs (which I will not mention here so we do not go off topic).

Why can’t a person have both faith and intellectual curiosity?
A person can have faith and still read the findings of one of the top biblical scholars of this country. (A lot of what he learned, by the way, was in the seminary)
Is faith so shaky that one historical book by a revered professor would change a person’s entire life’s belief system?
If so, that would say a lot about the person’s faith.

I would imagine a real intellect who is also a Christian would want to know as much as possible about the New Testament from those who have spent a lifetime studying it…and not shut themselves off just because a new or different detail or fact might “scare” them somehow.

Those topics you mention, about parts of the bible being forged, mistranslated and copied incorrectly…are you saying this is not the case, even though most biblical scholars who have studied these texts have seen it with their own eyes?

And do you think if the above is true, it’s reason to lose one’s faith?

I don’t think so at all…and neither does this Ehrman dude.

.

It is one thing to have doubts and want to study more and draw closer to the truth. The problem I see with him and the pride issue is that he by his books is making money and leading others astray. If he was being humble about it he would not go out speaking and debating and writing books. There is a lot of money in what he is doing.

 

[PJM]

=sharpag;11736535]Most scholars have “an agenda” or methodological framework that will cause them to be praised by some communities and disdained by others. Bart Ehrman is right that the manuscripts of the Bible we have are not the original texts and there are certain manuscript “families” that suggest slight variation over time. Even Augustine recognized that scribes weren’t perfect when he was defending the accuracy of Scripture (which he extended only to the original, and lost, texts which ironically he may never have possessed).

I’m not denying that Ehrman’s work for lay persons may be skewed to one extreme, and he may take “liberties” which he would never put into his scholarly work. However, there is no doubt that he is right about certain aspects of the manuscript tradition, namely that it is a fluid tradition (I have never read or studied under someone who taught otherwise). He is also correct that there are certain aspects of the Bible when taken literally are in contradiction. This should not surprise anyone who has taken even 15 minutes to begin reading Genesis

Welcome to CAF!

The issue to my OWN way of thinking is largely exaggerated. .It seems to ME that when God made the promise of 2 Tim 3:16-17 HE MEANS the MORAL -Teaching; the message; not so much every word.

As to Ehrman’s “respectability” in the field, it is a tough question. Some (forgive my straw man which I assure you might exist) scholars have the opinion that he tends towards sensationalism to sell his books to the masses and hold this against him. However, his scholarly work, even if not agreed with, is generally taken seriously.

I’m not a shrink so I’m not going to suggest Ehrman has some hatred of Christianity. Though one can imagine growing up and believing the Bible is inerrant and then discovering it’s not (my opinion) would probably be a rather traumatic experience. But I have no doubt he enjoys the royalties from his books.

 

[Estevao]

It’s funny, I read this book as an atheist and it made me reconsider Christianity. I had thought the Bible was all full of fairy tales, but too see the amount of historical fact that even a committed apostate like Ehrman cannot deny was amazing. Having read that book, one reason I think he apostasized (at least from what he’s telling us) is that he made an idol out of the bible like many evangelical protestants, and wasn’t able to allow for any error/mistake in any manner whatsoever.

I’d recommend watching this video by William Lane Craig, who is extremely knowledgeable in new testament scholarship (He also trounced Ehrman in a debate, but that’s usually what he does anyway). He demonstrates the difference in Ehrman’s technical scholarly writings and how he distorts things up in his popular writings, which of course is what ensures that he makes the best seller lists.

youtube.com/watch?v=0fs2enV3Tg4

Also numerous scholars have refuted the claims of Ehrman in these videos here. Watch of few of the short ones to see the game that he plays (though you have to admire his ability to see what will sell as a book these days and write accordingly…I’m sure he’s made himself a lot of money):

youtube.com/channel/UCWWeT-LcpA85I2edobmf41w

The debate with Wallace was good.

 

[Amandil]

The other thing that Ehrman ignores is the voluminous works if the ECFs which are extant predate the earliest biblical manuscripts.

The ECFs in fact quoted Scripture to such a degree in their works that theologians and scholars have used those works to validate the Bible as it stands today.

There’s also the fact of Jerome’s scholarship regarding the vulgate which not only included the study of the ECF documents but his scholarship regarding the Septuagint and it’s Hebrew sources.

These “differences” that he speaks of are hardly even significant.

In any case, just going over his cursory points his argument is rather weak.

When it comes to the science of interpreting anything proper interpretation is dependent upon the lenses by which the reader uses to interpret it.

Does he read it according to the lenses of the writer in order to interpret the mind of the author? Or does he read it through the lense of his own ideas and preconceptions?

More often than not people claim to do the former while actually practicing the latter. Its no different with Ehrman. Only now he reads it though his agnostic lense instead of the protestant one.

 

[57Bill]

Ehrman’s hypothesis is basically a modern retelling/reinforcement of the Bauer approach to historical-critical readings of the Bible, and is just as bankrupt as Bauer’s was back in the 1930s. The fact that Ehrman puts it in terms that are ‘sexy’ (from a marketing perspective) doesn’t make it any less wrong.

For more on this, see Kostenberger and Kruger’s excellent 2010 book The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (available on Amazon here). While the authors themselves are not Orthodox Christians (just a clarification, in light of the title), their approach to this topic is compelling, and really shows Ehrman and Co’s “revolution” in thinking about early Christianity to be quite worn and devoid of anything much new, interesting, or (above all) trustworthy to say about the subjects in which they are considered to be ‘experts’.

You beat me to recommending this book as well.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Jesus, Interrupted, Revealing the Hidden Contradictions of the Bible

I am currently reading this because it was free on Nook and atheist are always throwing this material at me.

Yes there are discrepencies and contradictions. That is not news. Reading the Gospels (name removed by moderator)arallel shows that. I think Luke Timothy Johnson offers a different approach in response to the historical-critical black hole. His The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels is next on my reading list.

 

[PNEUMA]

I have read some of Bart Ehrman books, he knows better than that, he’s just playing with he’s uneducated audience, i order to sell books, make some money.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I say the worst thing about Bart Ehrman is that he is a college professor, so he is spreading his unbelief to young, impressionable minds. He also has a bunch of courses on** The Teaching Company’s Great Courses**. I’ve read a few of his books and I watched him turn from a doubtful Christian to a full-blown agnostic. His ideas are really quite simplistic, and not a all profound.

Here is a link to an excellent review of his book “God’s Problem, How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer” It shows how juvenile his ideas are.

hds.harvard.edu/news-events/harvard-divinity-bulletin/articles/a-hollow-agnosticism

 

[ngill09]

I am currently reading this because it was free on Nook and atheist are always throwing this material at me.

Yes there are discrepencies and contradictions. That is not news. Reading the Gospels (name removed by moderator)arallel shows that. I think Luke Timothy Johnson offers a different approach in response to the historical-critical black hole. His The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels is next on my reading list.

Believe it or not, it is news to a lot of people. The points raised in his books, that there are variations in the manuscripts we have (Misquoting Jesus), that there are contradictions in the gospel accounts (Jesus, Interrupted), and that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by their traditionally ascribed authors (Forged), are not at all controversial in the scholarly community. In fact they have been known and accepted for decades. However, huge portions of the general population don’t know any of this stuff. So he writes books explaining to a general audience what has been known by historians and Biblical scholars for ages.

But by the reaction of many people in this thread, you’d think he was doing some great evil. Why is that?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Believe it or not, it is news to a lot of people. The points raised in his books, that there are variations in the manuscripts we have (Misquoting Jesus), that there are contradictions in the gospel accounts (Jesus, Interrupted), and that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by their traditionally ascribed authors (Forged), are not at all controversial in the scholarly community. In fact they have been known and accepted for decades. However, huge portions of the general population don’t know any of this stuff. So he writes books explaining to a general audience what has been known by historians and Biblical scholars for ages.

But by the reaction of many people in this thread, you’d think he was doing some great evil. Why is that?

I am not sure yet, only half done with (Jesus, Interrupted), but I think he just leaves it all up in the air as if we cannot trust or know anything or anyone.

 

[ngill09]

I am not sure yet, only half done with (Jesus, Interrupted), but I think he just leaves it all up in the air as if we cannot trust or know anything or anyone.

I’ve heard him on the record stating that we can know with a great deal of certainty that Jesus did exist and was crucified, and that Paul wrote many of the Epistles attributed to him. He’s also said that we can know and learn a lot about Jesus and early Christianity from a historical perspective, which is the whole reason he’s in that profession.

The thing is that he does undercut what a lot of people thought they knew was certain historically about Christ and Christianity. But the Church isn’t built on history, it’s built on faith, right?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I’ve heard him on the record stating that we can know with a great deal of certainty that Jesus did exist and was crucified, and that Paul wrote many of the Epistles attributed to him. He’s also said that we can know and learn a lot about Jesus and early Christianity from a historical perspective, which is the whole reason he’s in that profession.

The thing is that he does undercut what a lot of people thought they knew was certain historically about Christ and Christianity. But the Church isn’t built on history, it’s built on faith, right?

That is a good summary of what I have read so far.