A
annem
Guest
*
I so agree! If anyone out there hasn’t read his book on Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, I cannot recommend it enough.
- Status
I so agree! If anyone out there hasn’t read his book on Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, I cannot recommend it enough.
N
nafatyuk
Guest
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary is also fantastic.
A
annem
Guest
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary is also fantastic.
Yes yes yes
Yes yes yes
po18guy
Well-known member
Glad to see the thread title was edited. It was clickbait-ish.
Note to online video viewers, FBers and Instagramers: There are a whole lot of posters watching and reading all sorts of erroneous (and ridiculous) stuff on the interwebz and then being outraged, perplexed or confused.
Don’t do it! Avoid the confusion and consternation! Rather than stare at the ditch while you are driving, look far ahead, along the narrow path.
Learn the Catholic faith; defend the Catholic faith and you will instantly recognize the error of those who have left the barque of Peter and set out in dinghies at the leading of their personal preferences. What’s worse is that once they left, they started potshots at Peter’s barque!
As it is in the Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
Note to online video viewers, FBers and Instagramers: There are a whole lot of posters watching and reading all sorts of erroneous (and ridiculous) stuff on the interwebz and then being outraged, perplexed or confused.
Don’t do it! Avoid the confusion and consternation! Rather than stare at the ditch while you are driving, look far ahead, along the narrow path.
Learn the Catholic faith; defend the Catholic faith and you will instantly recognize the error of those who have left the barque of Peter and set out in dinghies at the leading of their personal preferences. What’s worse is that once they left, they started potshots at Peter’s barque!
As it is in the Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
P
Pattylt
Guest
I wish more scholars would publish for general readership. Part of the problem is it’s two different skill sets. Writing for academia is very different than writing for a general audience but there is vast knowledge that they have and it shouldn’t be hidden within the ivy halls! This is true of much scholarship. What good is it if the wider world doesn’t know? JMHO.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Speaking as someone who spent a goodly amount of time hanging around “ivy halls”, much of the scholarship wouldn’t interest a general audience. It’s not so much that they’re depriving the world of knowledge as it is that the average person’s head can only get so deep into a subject before it gets too complicated or too esoteric for them to continue to be interested.
P
Pattylt
Guest
I agree that scholarship often gets “in the weeds” but if a scholar is gifted with being able to express the ideas and general research and results, it’s wonderful. Not all have that gift but some do and we need to hear it.
One of the reasons Bart Ehrman is despised so much is because he does just that. He takes what the historical critical scholars debate amongst themselves and writes it in clear language that we can digest. People condemn him for opinions that are held by almost all historical critical scholars and when it’s his opinion alone or in the minority, he states that, too. Instead of railing against him, I’d like to hear from the serious scholars that disagree with him but they don’t write for us!
One of the reasons Bart Ehrman is despised so much is because he does just that. He takes what the historical critical scholars debate amongst themselves and writes it in clear language that we can digest. People condemn him for opinions that are held by almost all historical critical scholars and when it’s his opinion alone or in the minority, he states that, too. Instead of railing against him, I’d like to hear from the serious scholars that disagree with him but they don’t write for us!
Crusader13
New member
I would definitely suggest anything by Dr. Brant Pitre, Dr. John Bergsma and Dr. Michael Barber. I think the top scholar in the field of Catholic Biblical studies is still Dr. Scott Hahn.
I would also suggest listening to Dr. Taylor Marshall. Some are put off by his personal views regarding current events, however his books and talks that deal with Scripture and Catholic teachings are some of the best around.
B
billsherman
Guest
This is a very, very true statement. It’s really difficult to make meaningful, cutting edge scholarship accessible to non-specialists. I thought it was easy, then I tried it. And I failed, badly. That’s why I have such great admiration for the precious few individuals who can do it.
I think you’re right. The vast majority of his views are right in line with the vast majority of scholars (the Catholic ones too!).
Yeah, are many who write treatises against him, but very few of those have the historical chops to produce much more than polemic attacks. And the reason is because, as I wrote above, the vast majority of scholars generally agree with him.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, there is one scholar who has done so: Brant Pitre. His book almost looks like a refutation of Bart Ehrman: The Case for Jesus, published by Augustine Institute, 2016.
He notes that he is writing for the public, and that if it were for scholarship it would be even larger; it has a multitude of footnotes citing other works by other authors.
The historical critical methodology can be well done, or it can be abused (which may be polite for some of what has been produced using it).
He notes that he is writing for the public, and that if it were for scholarship it would be even larger; it has a multitude of footnotes citing other works by other authors.
The historical critical methodology can be well done, or it can be abused (which may be polite for some of what has been produced using it).
Last edited:
B
billsherman
Guest
Brant Pitre is a perfectly good scholar, but he isn’t a historian, he’s a theologian. I was under the impression that @Pattylt was looking for a historian.
While his work is informed by history, his work remains at its root, theology. Admittedly I haven’t read all of his works, but there wouldn’t be much reason for a theologian to dedicate the time needed to write historical works (and vice versa - although some popular members of both groups from time to time make the mistake of thinking they are both).
Don’t get me wrong, theologians do excellent work, but they approach historical topics from a fundamentally different place than historians. They begin with assumptions that are not important to historians - most significantly, they typically assume that there is a God, or that Jesus was God, or that there is in fact one correct religion. None of those assumptions are problematic if you’re a theologian, but no honest historian can bring them to their work.
C
CTBcin
Guest
Ah… Good ‘ole Bart Erhman. His work formed the basis of much of my scripture study for my Bible classes at my (secular) college.
Agreed! While many Catholics have an understandably negative reaction to the historical-critical method, it does have some strengths and good insights. Though it’s often abused.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Right. And much of the ink being spilled discusses Hebrew or Greek texts, which doesn’t play well for the casual reader.
C
CelticWarlord
Guest
Laughing out loud, literally. Best comment of the day.
A
annem
Guest
*billsherman. Ehrman…vast majority of his views are right in line with the vast majority of scholars (the Catholic ones too!).*
Sorry, but would you please elaborate on this? The majority of biblical scholars are believing Christians, and they most assuredly do not agree with Ehrman on his atheism, his arguments that early Christianity was a an utter hodgepodge of competing beliefs, that Jesus was an angel, that the bible had important dogmas altered, and so on.
So, I believe you may have come across some very incorrect information. Would you please explain further what you mean?
Sorry, but would you please elaborate on this? The majority of biblical scholars are believing Christians, and they most assuredly do not agree with Ehrman on his atheism, his arguments that early Christianity was a an utter hodgepodge of competing beliefs, that Jesus was an angel, that the bible had important dogmas altered, and so on.
So, I believe you may have come across some very incorrect information. Would you please explain further what you mean?
A
annem
Guest
PattyltPeople condemn him for opinions that are held by almost all historical critical scholars and when it’s his opinion alone or in the minority, he states that, too. Instead of railing against him, I’d like to hear from the serious scholars that disagree with him but they don’t write for us!
Sorry, but what opinions held ‘by almost all historical critical scholars’ ? Please explain.
Sorry, but what opinions held ‘by almost all historical critical scholars’ ? Please explain.
B
billsherman
Guest
I would be happy to.
I meant historians. Sorry that I wasn’t clear about that. You are correct that most Biblical scholars are believers of some kind - but large numbers are not Christians. Jewish and Muslim scholars, as well as others, are actively working on Biblical scholarship. When you’re dealing with scholarship, you always have to remember that there are many faith traditions interested in the same material.
My comments about the majority of Biblical scholars (and I meant historians here) agreeing with much of Ehrman’s work are, well, correct. His work, specifically his work on what you call “an utter hodgepodge of competing beliefs” is almost universally accepted by historians. Over the past generation, we have learned so much more about the diversity of beliefs in the first generations of Christians. James Dunn, an Anglican historian, comments that it is fact more accurate to call it “early Christianities” rather than early Christianity. Catholic historians, like John Meier and Raymond Brown accept this idea as well.
I’m not aware of Ehrman believing that Jesus was an angel - wouldn’t that pose a problem for his atheism? I haven’t read all of his, very prolific, writings, so perhaps you can help me out on that one.
In terms of having important dogmas being altered in the Bible, I presume you are referring to his arguments about how dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and others developed over time, and were debated by Christians for centuries in some case? If that’s what you mean, then yes, the vast majority of historians, including Catholic historians, agree with him.
Atheism is not a historical question. Historians can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. So Ehrman’s beliefs on that point are his own. And yes, most historians disagree with him there, but that isn’t a matter of historical inquiry.
I hope that helps. Again, please keep in mind that history is not theology. History can inform theology - like it does for Pitre - but they can neither prove nor disprove one another.
R
redal
Guest
I expect one day he will be named a Doctor of the Church.
A
annem
Guest
billshermanI meant historians. Sorry that I wasn’t clear about that. You are correct that most Biblical scholars are believers of some kind - bu
Thanks for your reply, which did confirm my suspicion that you don’t understand what is meant by biblical scholarship. Biblical scholarship really started, after centuries of various potshots taken at the bible, with the hunt for the historical Jesus in the 19th century with people such as Strauss. It involves books and journal articles about all the important questions regarding Jesus, the bible, and early Christianity. Ehrman, for example, is a biblical scholar. Perhaps a lightweight one, but a biblical scholar. No, he did not get his degree in history.
billshermanlarge numbers are not Christians. Jewish and Muslim scholars,
The general consensus is that about 50-60% of biblical scholars are Christian, 40% anti Christian - but the anti Christian scholars are growing in number, especially in Europe. Jewish scholars tend to have the same sort of divide, with the minimalists arguing against the believers. Much of Jewish scholarship is brilliant, if you want some names.
Archaeologists and even the occasional historian have been hugely important in Jewish debates, whereas among those who debate Christian issues, archaeologists and historians have been mostly useless. An excellent example is James Tabor, a fine archaeologist, but ended up making a fool of himself when he wrote a few books that debated early Christian topics.
About Muslim scholars - lots who work on Muslim issues, sure. But that has nothing to do with biblical scholarship whatsoever. There’s Reza Aslan, but I wouldn’t suggest you bring up his arguments, since they are simply a rehash of the list Muslims have used for centuries, and are easily refuted, since, after a thousand years Christians have managed to cough up the answers to them. Not that the NYTimes didn’t fall down in admiration of Aslan. Why can’t the Times ever do something not utterly predictable?
Thanks for your reply, which did confirm my suspicion that you don’t understand what is meant by biblical scholarship. Biblical scholarship really started, after centuries of various potshots taken at the bible, with the hunt for the historical Jesus in the 19th century with people such as Strauss. It involves books and journal articles about all the important questions regarding Jesus, the bible, and early Christianity. Ehrman, for example, is a biblical scholar. Perhaps a lightweight one, but a biblical scholar. No, he did not get his degree in history.
billshermanlarge numbers are not Christians. Jewish and Muslim scholars,
The general consensus is that about 50-60% of biblical scholars are Christian, 40% anti Christian - but the anti Christian scholars are growing in number, especially in Europe. Jewish scholars tend to have the same sort of divide, with the minimalists arguing against the believers. Much of Jewish scholarship is brilliant, if you want some names.
Archaeologists and even the occasional historian have been hugely important in Jewish debates, whereas among those who debate Christian issues, archaeologists and historians have been mostly useless. An excellent example is James Tabor, a fine archaeologist, but ended up making a fool of himself when he wrote a few books that debated early Christian topics.
About Muslim scholars - lots who work on Muslim issues, sure. But that has nothing to do with biblical scholarship whatsoever. There’s Reza Aslan, but I wouldn’t suggest you bring up his arguments, since they are simply a rehash of the list Muslims have used for centuries, and are easily refuted, since, after a thousand years Christians have managed to cough up the answers to them. Not that the NYTimes didn’t fall down in admiration of Aslan. Why can’t the Times ever do something not utterly predictable?
A
annem
Guest
billshermanMy comments about the majority of Biblical scholars (and I meant historians here) agreeing with much of Ehrman’s work are, well, correct. His work, specifically his work on what you call “an utter hodgepodge of competing beliefs” is almost universally accepted by historians…James Dunn, an Anglican historian, comments that it is fact more accurate to call it “early Christianities” rather than early Christianity. Catholic historians, like John Meier and Raymond Brown accept this idea as well.
I am sorry, but you are not in touch with current scholarship. The people you named were famous, notable scholars…thirty or even forty years ago. Sorry, but you need to read things that are current because many of their arguments are considered solidly refuted, and were refuted decades ago. Please note that even Ehrman is no longer muttering on about multiple Christianities. Hello, now you know why.
Yes, once upon a time these men did agree with Ehrman, who just picked up their arguments, or rather, Pagels’. But that was five thousand books and fifty thousand journal articles ago. Here is one book that disproves the argument: The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church.
I billsherman’m not aware of Ehrman believing that Jesus was an angel - wouldn’t that pose a problem for his atheism?
You misunderstand. Ehrman continues in his disbelief. His book posits a refutation of early Christianity’s claim that Jesus was God of the universe. Instead, he argues that the earliest disciples never imagined Jesus as God, and Christianity is all just a big, fat misunderstand. Alas for Ehrman, his theory is 1) yet another rehash of similar arguments by other atheists and 2) idiotic and wrong.
I am sorry, but you are not in touch with current scholarship. The people you named were famous, notable scholars…thirty or even forty years ago. Sorry, but you need to read things that are current because many of their arguments are considered solidly refuted, and were refuted decades ago. Please note that even Ehrman is no longer muttering on about multiple Christianities. Hello, now you know why.
Yes, once upon a time these men did agree with Ehrman, who just picked up their arguments, or rather, Pagels’. But that was five thousand books and fifty thousand journal articles ago. Here is one book that disproves the argument: The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church.
I billsherman’m not aware of Ehrman believing that Jesus was an angel - wouldn’t that pose a problem for his atheism?
You misunderstand. Ehrman continues in his disbelief. His book posits a refutation of early Christianity’s claim that Jesus was God of the universe. Instead, he argues that the earliest disciples never imagined Jesus as God, and Christianity is all just a big, fat misunderstand. Alas for Ehrman, his theory is 1) yet another rehash of similar arguments by other atheists and 2) idiotic and wrong.
- Status