I'll have to put together my own research, but in the mean time, I found something interesting regarding the textual integrity of the New Testament:

I found this chart on Wikipedia that shows us the NT Book, number of verses, variant free verse total, and the number of variants per page:
Matthew: 1071 Verses. 642 Variant free verses. 59.9% of the verses are variant free. 6.8 Variants per page
Mark: 678 Verses. 306 Variant free verses. 45.1% of the verses are variant free. 10.3 Variants per page
Luke: 1151 Verses. 658 Variant free verses. 57.2% of the verses are variant free. 6.9 Variants per page
John: 869 Verses. 450 Variant free verses. 51.8% of the verses are variant free. 8.5 Variants per page

Link

While this is only the gospels (the other books are listed in the links), it is both interesting to note that 1. the NT has a historical consistency of 62.9% of its verses being variant free, while on the other hand 2. it is also interesting to note that the Bible is, in fact, not error free.

I have watched the documentary version of his book "The Christ Files". I haven't read the book, but if it's anything like the doco, it should be good reading. Here's an excerpt of an article on the documentary I read:



"The Christ Files" Tv documantery an DVD were conceived to "set the record straight" about Jesus, says the historian behind the project. "Public perception is so wide of the mark taht we need to set the record straight about the sources and metnods that historians use", says Dr John Dickson.

Best known in church circles as a popular Christian author, Dr John Dickson says he is "far more of a historian than theologian". He remains firmly involved in academic life, assisting in the supervision of postgraduate students at Macquarie Universities Department of Ancient History, where he is an honorary associate.

This documentary aims to address the sensationalism that hits against the person of Jesus. Christians may nonetheless be surprised and perhaps even a little shocked by some of the evidence John Dickson considers in The Christ Files, for example, his address on the gospel of Phillip - the source for the claim that Jesus married Mary Magdalene.

John hopes that Christian audiences will appreciate that the documentary is "not Christian apologetics". Dickson says, "I am allowing mainstream historians to have a voice, whether they are Christian or secular - we also interview two Jewish scholars".

John says his aim was to "steer a path between the skeptical nonsense" and "Christian apologetics that tries to over-prove the case"

In fact, John is very uncomfortable with what he calls "evidential apologetics", which he says "abuses history". Asked for an example, John cites one common apologetic claim that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar, just because there are many ancient copies of the New Testament. "You can't just ad up the number of copies of a manuscript... once you take into account the archaeology, all the coins, the statues... this claim just is not true", says Dickson.

*Adapted from an article in the "Southern Cross" magazine, March 2008, pp. 13, 23 (a publication from the Anglican diocese of Sydney)*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was impressed with the level of information he provided in the documentary, including looking at the gnostic texts, and acknowledging the forgery of Josephus. He's definitely not the typical "apologist", as he is very much against Christian apologetics, which he says "abuses history". If you can get the book in the U.S, that might be a good place to start.

All the best, Sheri.

Just to throw a proverbial spanner in the equally proverbial works - if there are 2000 copies of a text, and 1999 of them say the same thing and one says something different, then we have what we call a "variant". That doesn't mean that there is no way to tell what the original said, because we have 1999 other copies which show concensus. In this wiki link, they used seven different copies of the New Testament as we have it today. You take all seven of the New Testament texts they use, then look at the first verse - if six of them are the same, and one is different, then it is pretty obvious which one is more accurate, but it still would go into this list as a "variant".

I don't think the wiki article you provided gives enough information to tell whether the passages are really that questionable - in order to do that, we'd need to see each verse side-by-side, see exactly how many of the seven have variants, how drastic these variants were, and most importantly does it impact what Christians believe. *this also does not take into consideration the thousands of other pieces of New Testament text (either books, collections of books, or fragments of books) that can be used to reach a concensus.

Just something to consider,

As Ripley has pointed out ... these two are friends. Metzger brought BE in to co-author -- I believe it was the fourth edition -- one of the most highly praised texts in biblical scholarship. That says all!



As stated above, these people you call scholars, are nothing more than apologists. The very fact that Witherington stated that such scholars as BE etc. are being deceived by Satan, says everything you need to know! That is not the words of a scholar[s]! And I would respectfully suggest you actually do a little research on Professor BE and his credentials! They are impeccable!

Professor Bart Ehrman

Summary of Curriculum Vitae

Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985
M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981
B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978
Principal Areas of Research Interest: New Testament Interpretation; History of Ancient Christianity (first three centuries), especially Orthodoxy and Heresy, Formation of the Canon, NT Manuscript Tradition, Historical Jesus, and Apostolic Fathers;

Secondary Areas of Interest: Jewish-Christian Relations in Antiquity; Greco-Roman Religions; Christianization of the Roman World.

Bart Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University.

Prof. Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. Since then he has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited nineteen books, numerous articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his most recent books are a college-level textbook on the New Testament, two anthologies of early Christian writings, a study of the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (Oxford Univesity Press), and a Greek-English Edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press).

Prof. Ehrman has served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field.

Winner of numerous university awards and grants, Prof. Ehrman is the recipient of the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.



Don't you EVER call me a liar, Clovis!!! I ALWAYS do my damnedest to make sure information I provid has been thoroughly researched to the best of my abilities! When I have made mistakes in the past--and I've screwed up many a time--I immediately apologized for the mistake and corrected it! I think my fellow UMF brethren on these boards will readily attest to that fact.



First, and as I have mentioned here many times, biblical scholars do not agree on everything. However, as stated above ... MUCH of what BE speaks about in his book is nothing new to TCs. Hell, BE even states this himself ...

Much of Ehrman's research isn't groundbreaking. "This material has been known to scholars," he told me in a telephone interview, "but there hasn't been a book for the lay audience."--New York Times, By DWIGHT GARNER, Published: April 2, 2006

AS DOES CONSERVATIVE BLOMBERG:

... Thus a substantial majority of this book provides information already well-known and well-accessible in other sources, such as Bruce Metzger's works on the text and transmission of the New Testament (including one that Ehrman himself recently helped to revise), but in slightly more popular form that is likely to reach a wider audience...--Review, MQJ, Series: Volume 9 - February 1, 2006, Craig L. Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

And when I speak of MUCH ... I speak of -- the ending of Mark, the adulterous woman, the doctrine of the Trinity (Johannine Comma, which is not found in the earliest most reliable Greek manuscripts) so forth and so on. Bloomberg mentions some others ...

... One of the most valuable and least duplicated parts of the book comes in the chapters that discuss theologically and sociologically motivated changes. Ehrman's revision to Metzger's standard textbook introduces several of these as well, though more briefly, but most primers on the discipline largely ignore them. It is very helpful to understand how Mark's probable reference to Jesus' anger in Mark 1:41 (rather than compassion) fits his overall presentation of Jesus, just as Luke's original "omission" of Jesus sweating great drops of blood in the garden in Luke 24:43-44 reflects his picture of a more "imperturbable" Christ. Ehrman's suggestion that Hebrews 2:9 originally read that Christ tasted death "apart from God" rather than "by the grace of God" seemingly founders on the sheer paucity of external evidence for the reading. But if Origen was right that the reading stood in the majority of manuscripts of his day, then perhaps it was original. No unorthodox theology results (recall the cry of dereliction in the Gospels), but one can see why the vast majority of scribess would have adopted the reading that is far better known today...--ibid

Beyond that ... Gregory Riley discusses this, and more, in his book The River of God -- a overview of the origin and evolution of both Judaism in Christianity. And rather conservative Professor James M. Robinson--who's book The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of the Original Good News is one of the best books I've ever read--has high praise for BE as well. In fact, he endorses the book on the back cover!!!

Now, are there portions of MQJ other scholars don't agree with and/or are on the fence about? You bet! As I have mentioned numerous times ... scholars never agree 100% on anything--be they conservative, moderate or liberal!!! Nature of the game.

Sean

robbie thankyou, i will get this book and read it...i think i have heard of.it....

indeed Clovis, the issue with sceince is in the fundementalist posit....I think that religion and science can co habitate. and do.....

No worries. Don't expect secular textual criticism of the type you may be looking for, since Dickson did write this book to dispel many of the sensationalist hype surrounding Jesus, so it will be fairly conservative, and probably take the view that Christ was a real figure. However, as I said, the normal apologetics rhetoric that you may have come to expect from people such as this will be refreshingly light-on, if the documentary is any indication.

All the best, Sheri.

How do you see that as possible, Sheri?

Science deals with, say, "measurable, quantifiable" aspects. Religion does not seem to fit these categories.

Or, did I miss some ideas?
Karlis

^Hi Karlis, I think it is the view (that I hold, at least) that Religion deals with why we are here and who is behind it. Science deals with the tangible - what is the earth, and how did it come to be. Two sides to a coin. Both complementary, neither superior to the other.

IMO, of course

robbie i couldn't of said it better myself..

I will paraphrase BM she once said "that if science/evolution is here then god must of created it....."

Karlis, even though you odn't say alot , you question alot and you are fair and it comes across.........

i will read it as i read anything with a openess and willingness to step back and take it on its own merits ...you know when I started relgious studioes and I got to the jesus part i actaully told myself i may be changing my mind ....thanks for your help i am gonna go to the library today as a matter of fact...

Unless I am not seeing something (???) I think that you are saying *exactly* what I was writing, PA. You write:
* Science deals with the tangible - what is the earth, and how did it come to be.
* Religion deals with why we are here and who is behind it.

I wrote that:
* Science deals with, say, "measurable, quantifiable" aspects.
* Religion does not seem to fit these categories.

The two sides of the coin seem to be non-compatible.

PA, if you can show ~~~
* how science can demonstrate why we are here,
* and who is behind it,
~~~ then you will have proved your contention.

Regards,
Karlis

Witherington was Metzger's student and Wallace was his friend too. "Misquoting Jesus" and "The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration" are not the same books, not written for the same audiences, so I do not really see how "That says it all!"



Ad hominem attacks to discredit Witherington does not take away from the fact that he remains a scholar within his field. Your attempt is telling and it is a tactic easily seen through. Perhaps you just dislike his opinions so attempt to discredit the man instead of focusing on his critique. His own words on the first post of this page have Witherington offering respectful praise towards Ehrman as well.

It should also be noted no one has made ad hominem attacks on Ehrman or to attempt to discredit his work. This tactic of ad hom has only been used by certain posters yourself included. Some of us are simply not interested in such attacks regardless of who is attacking who. No one also has yet to question Ehrman's credentials either so you mentioning to do a little research on them and his credentials is a bit redundant.



Well until you can provide two or three other NT scholars with credentials equal to Witherington, Wallace, or Peter J Williams, who have critiqued "Misquoting Jesus" (make a note they are not critiquing all of Ehrman's work or Ehrman himself just the one book) and have found issue with it, and in light of your comment...



..where you implied Ehrman's work is consensus, I will consider it a blatant lie on your part, up until the moment you find other NT scholars who do agree with Ehrman's work in "Misquoting Jesus". I am not saying it was you lying intentionally, perhaps you actually believe the conclusion in the book regarding the reliability of the NT was a fact, but you have yet to provide any proof of that, and if you know about such proof to back up your claim, it would be easy enough to provide it.

You can claim the three I have provided as apologist but they remain NT scholars in their field. And remember this is not about Ehrman himself, or his other works, it is mainly about "Misquoting Jesus" and the conclusion he makes regarding the reliability of the NT when Metzger himself, according to Witherington, stated that 90% of the NT is "rather well established". The view of Ehrman in the book in question that disagrees with that is not consensus and until you show otherwise you cannot expect others to simply take 'your' word for it. Show us the sources.



The first chapters of the book that explain textual criticism to the general public is nothing new to NT scholars it is only some other parts that are. The links already provided by Witherington, Wallace, and Williams show that other parts of that book are disputed by scholars.

Dwight Garner is a journalist for the NY Times and other publications. Again though this is not about Ehrman this is about if other NT scholars have offered through critique something that states the unreliability of the NT as presented in "Misquoting Jesus" is the current consensus.



http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/0...icism-bart.html



http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000



http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=338

Three NT scholars who find issue with "Misquoting Jesus" all who had more to say and can be found on the front page. You have yet to offer any sources who have written as much as them to offer us another view regarding "Misquoting Jesus". Until then you cannot expect people to take your word especially over three scholars in the field.

And all you do is offer up apologists and apologetic websites. Says everything to me. I'll stick to proper scholarship--not "scholars" who claim other academics are being deceived by Satan. Believe as you wish.

Sean

side note pa i went to 2 library's and two bookstores to no avail....I guess amazon here I come lol...

Sorry Clovis, but I'm going to have to go with Sean on this one too. Doubtless a Christian would have an excellent understanding of the Theological perspectives offered in the Bible (or so we hope they would), but the men you have been offering up in opposition to Ehrman are appologeticists. They seem more concerned about their faith than about what is actually there to study, as has been shown by their quotes. I mean it really doesn't get any more unscholarly than when someone claims that their scholarly peer's research is for naught because they have been seduced by the "forces of darkness".

seany p as usual you bring a overlooked point .. the question of value....(or.axiology) and what is worthy of our value... not just because we need or want something to be but is it worth our value and effort and time in the first place......sad to say this question doesnt get asked enough...... ..

agian for excellence in posting....

I find it odd Christians , catholics will agree with Ehrman when he says something they want to hear --

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/reviews/r0000271.shtml

but they can't and won't when the truth isn't in their favor. hypocrites.

Anyone can see that the claim that they are not scholars, when they have credentials, two of them knew Metzger, well that claim can easily be applied to Ehrman stating he is simply not a believer. The fact is no one is going to make that claim except a few posters because it is an invalid claim and has little to do with their scholarly opinion Ehrman included.

If Ehrman's conclusion about the unreliability of the NT were consensus then it would not be a difficult task to provide other NT scholars claiming so. The inability of being able to produce the proof is telling.

what is telling is you always have to have the last word = control issue.

. with Ehrman. with the link I provided he studied ( was asked to by the way) the Gosple of Judas --

when his opinion is what christians want to hear they love him. when it isn't their berating him. Did you read the debate between Evans and Ehrman ?? and all the BS the 'scholar' Evans was putting forth to 'try' to establish his case ??

here's a commentary concerning Evans biased reasoning - ( as well as others who think just because on looses or denys faith somehow can't do the what Ehrman does. One is supposed to be neutral when doing it !! obviously the scholars who disagree with Ehrman can not be. not very professional.)

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/%E2...on-bart-ehrman/

No need to get offended Ripley when I state 'the inability of being able to produce the proof is telling' in regards to you and sean being unable to produce any NT scholars who agree exactly with the conclusion of "Misquoting Jesus" that the NT is unreliable. It is telling that your claim is not true. You have yet to prove that that view is consensus among others in his field. Have you just not searched for such proof because I have and the only NT scholars who have thoroughly critiqued that book do not consider that claim of unreliability as consensus.

To then go off that main point of contention and introduce yet again a charge that I must have the last word is not telling of anything except your inability to stay on topic or at best even offer criticism towards the merit of my post. Instead you attempt to assassinate my character and and my character has nothing to do with the question of the reliability of the NT and what other NT scholars have to say about it.

You can also dispel notions about Christians accepting what they like and disregarding what they do not. That is not the issue at all. The issue remains what the current consensus is among NT scholars regarding the reliability of the NT. That and that alone is what you stated was true but have yet to offer any evidence to prove your claim.

Sidestepping the issue with character assassination on Evans, who I have yet to mention, or Witherington, does not offer any proof to your claim. It is very telling...that the claim is not true then.

In regards to Witherington and Ehrman they are both peers and should be viewed as such. Witherington's first university was UNC-Chapel Hill where Ehrman now teaches. They are both members of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas aka Society for New Testament Studies.

I will address the charge made against Witherington regarding his quote. It was in a book entitled "The Gospel Code" which was in response to the fictional book "The Da Vinci Code". "The Gospel Code" was not a scholarly work and since when is a scholar not allowed to write other works of literature including apologetics especially when they are not attempting to pass of such work as works of science or scholastics?

In fact the specific quote...



...was in regards not to Ehrman or "Misquoting Jesus" but towards the "Harvard-Claremont axis of religious influence" and the Jesus Seminar in their leanings towards gnosticism. (source) This is also not to say that scholars critical of the Jesus Seminar are not able to do so on a pure scholastic level, Witherginton included, and here are some of the criticism based on pure scholastics against the Jesus Seminar: (link). Some of Erhman's own conclusions do not agree with the Jesus Seminar either which are both compared in this blog entry (link). In that regard Ehrman, who does believe Jesus was a real person but not divine, considers Jesus an apocalyptic prophet, while the Jesus Seminar have more gnostic attributions they ascribe to Jesus. In the end both believe in the historicity of Jesus. Now I only mention all this for clarification on Witherington's quote in a book that has nothing to do with Ehrman or "Misquoting Jesus".

Here is a link for anyone wanting to explore different views of Jesus as a historical person and they are varied from Jesus the revolutionary, Jesus the wisdom sage, Jesus the prophet of social change, and Jesus the apocalyptic prophet (link). Those in the Jesus Seminar fall under the 'Jesus the Wisdom Sage" category.

In the end we have three popular views among others of Jesus and the NT. One is of Jesus on the Christian sense and that the NT is reliable, the other is Jesus the gnostic and according to the Jesus seminar only 18% of Jesus' sayings in what they consider the 'five gospels' are accurate (source) which is more specific than considerations of if the whole NT is reliable, and the other is Jesus who has been hijacked by Christendom and the NT has been changed too much to consider it reliable.

When regarding these views those we have to differentiate between the scholastic consensus, the popular consensus, and the views of other groups such as fundamentalist. None of those views are the same and to confuse one for the other muddles the truth. In regards to the Jesus Seminar the difference is clear but it should be noted because someone is a conservative scholar or even an Evangelical scholar does not mean that their opinion is somehow invalid especially when they are recognized within their field and just because they happen to be the majority of that field is one facet of how consensus is formed but it does not invalidate general consensus among NT scholars in favor of a 'minority' view.



Now generally speaking the view from Christian organizations do not represent all of Christianity but they definitely do not represent scholarship.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar...or_authenticity

The reliability of the New Testament has been questioned almost from the beginning.

"It is certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with... Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since--as already it has been often proved--these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."--St. Faustus, Fifth-Century French Bishop

&:

John Collins (internationally know biblical scholar from Notre Dame) states "Most of what we know of Jesus come from the four gospels. Yet scholars agree that these are hardly dependable as historical sources. For one thing, they did not take shape until late in the first century, a generation or two after Jesus died; until then the stories and teachings of Jesus were spread orally, and it is probably that neither his exact words nor the stories details survived the retellings. Scholars also agree that the gospels were not written by any of the 12 apostles (probably not by anyone named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, probably not by anyone who was even alive when Jesus was.2 Most importantly, the four gospels were compiled not as historical documents but as testimonies of faith by communities of believers.3 One of the intended effects, was to make the New Testament accounts fit Old Testament prophecies. The stories were generated, say Collins, by authors trying to infer facts from biblical prophecies. And for that reason many scholars would regard these as fictions to make theological points."--Biblical scholars and theologians are sketching a new portrait of the man called Jesus, Temple, Kerry, Issue No.27, February 2007, Notre Dame Magazine

&:

"... Of the 27 books of the New Testament only the authentic Pauline epistles are, strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul...was not a witness of the historical Jesus. Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing...there is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus..."--A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, Fuller, Reginald, H. (Professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary, New York), p.197.

I could go on, but it's simply beating a dead horse ...

Anybody who wants to understand Witherington and his idea of scholarship, can read Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels by his loyal counterpart Craig Evans who shares much the same opinion. I find this review quite applicable to this discussion.

Review: Craig Evans’ Fabricating Jesuss: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels

February 7th, 2007 by Dr. Tony Chartrand-Burke, Biblical Studies at the Atkinson School of Arts and Letters, York University in Toronto, Canada

In the course of research for an essay on the past 20 years of scholarship on the CA (Christian Apocrypha) I was led to reading several recent books which critique both the primary texts and the scholars who work on them. Such books include Darrell Bock’s The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities, Ben Witherington’s The Gospel Code: Novel claims About Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci, and Philip Jenkins’ Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way. These books are best described as Christian apologetic. Their aim is to redress the harm they perceive is being done to Christianity as a result of such evils as The DaVinci Code, the Jesus Seminar, Bart Ehrman and other “pseudo-scholarship.” Certainly some material from these books can be useful (particularly Jenkins’ treatment of 19th century apocrypha discoveries, forgeries and the sensationalism that attended them), but the majority of the time the authors’ apologetic interests interfere with their arguments, leading them to make misleading, even erroneous, comments about the texts and CA scholars. Witherington goes so far as to demonize his adversaries in stating, “these scholars, though bright and sincere, are not merely wrong; they are misled. They are oblivious to the fact that they are being led down this path by the powers of darkness” (The Gospel Code, p. 174).

It is in the context of exploring this anti-CA apologetic that I read Craig Evans’ Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. I was treated to a preview of Evans’ perspective at the Ottawa Workshop in September 2006. His paper “The Apocryphal Jesus: Assessing the Possibilities and Problems” touched on several topics found in the book, including critiques of scholarship on Secret Mark, the Gospel of Peter, and the Gospel of Thomas. At the time I thought some of his comments were problematic; now that his views are widely accessible, I can address them more thoughtfully. There is much that Evans covers in the book; I will limit my comments to what he has to say about apocryphal texts.

The book begins with a number of testimonials, many of which were composed by the apologetic authors listed above (including Darrell Bock, Ben Witherington III, and, surprisingly, Lee Strobel, author of The Case for Christ). Strange bedfellows indeed. In his introduction Evans describes himself as a “committed Christian” (p. 9) and is clear about the intent of his book: “to defend the original witnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus” (p. 17). He is careful, however, to state that he is not an inerrantist—indeed he has valid scholarly credentials—nevertheless, his training does not prevent his faith from interfering with his assessment of the evidence. His views on the CA must be assessed with this in mind.



The book by Witherington, entitled The Gospel Code: Novel claims About Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci, similar is to Evans where he goes on the attack regarding numerous topics--particularly scholars who dare look at the writings of Gnostics and their influence on Jesus and the New Testament. He believes it to be "profoundly sad". Evidently, he thinks Gnosticism is nothing less than BS. In fact, Witherington compares such scholars to the "deluded" protagonist in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code! Here is what he says in The Gospel Code, page 172+:

I'm afraid that this is precisely what has happened to some of the scholars who are attempting to revive ancient Gnosticism. They have been frustrated by the sins of traditional Christianity, including the air against an obscurantism of some Christian scholars. Looking elsewhere, they have fallen in love with the study of Gnosticism and have made the terrible mistake of selling their birthright (the canonical Gospels) for a mess of pottage (the Gnostic Gospels). This is profoundly sad.

I don't impugn the motives of the good intentions of the scholars whose work I have critiqued in this book. They work hard, and it's not a bad thing for them to be enthusiastic about their studies. Unfortunately, some of these fellows are so open-minded about the Gnostic sources that they ironically have lost their capacity to be fully critical of them ...

... Scholars from these schools led us down various dead-end streets in the search for the truth called Jesus. Whether it was Burton Mack's suggesting that the Gospel of Mark was a novel or even pure fiction, or James M. Robinson's argument that there was a Q Gospel that didn't focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus, or Helmut Koester's touting of all sorts of other documents that he called Gospels, these scholars and others like them have trained most of those who are trumpeting new age Gnosticism as if it were a good thing. These scholars say or imply that the cannon misfired. They pride themselves on their open-mindedness, but ironically they often seem to be tolerant of anything except orthodox Christianity.

... If there is no ultimate authority when it comes to truth, then people are free to make their own truth. This is, in the end, what the old Gnostics did long ago, and history is repeating itself. It seems clear to me that this is what has happened to some of these scholars. Because they relativize the Bible's authority, they have no problem with putting their own ideas in its place. We are witnessing the oldest kind of intellectual sin being re-committed in the newest kind of ways.

These scholars, though bright and sincere, are not merely wrong; they are misled. They are oblivious to the fact that they are being led down this path by the powers of darkness. The new Gnostics are too sophisticated to believe in supernatural evil, and it allows them to be misled in various unfruitful directions. C.S. Lewis once said that the Devils most successful smokescreen is to convince intelligent people that he no longer exists -- they're just too smart to believe in such a being. The old Gnostics at least believed in the reality of the power of spiritual darkness and were trying to get away from them. I wish the new Gnostics were a bit more like the old Gnostics in this respect. Then they might be more wary of the spiritual swamp into which they are waiting.

Seeking the truth is good, but finding it is better. Being found by the Truth is best of all. In fact, in the person of Jesus Truth has broken into space and time, and we find truth nowhere else. The truth is that God has indeed provided a record of the divine mind and plan for humankind -- it's called the Bible. The Word made flesh and in the written Word break through the impasse of sin and arrogance.

John 3:16 says it all -- "God so loved the world that he gave his onlySon, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life." Notice this text doesn't say that God merely loves the intelligent, nor does it suggest that God puts a limit on who can be saved. Eternal life is open to all who place their trust in the way, the truth and the life -- his Son. This is a message -- the truth once given -- worth shouting from the mountain tops. Gnosticism or any other form of self-help religion can't hold a candle to this mighty Light.

SOURCE
http://books.google.com/books?id=_1zuyIiml...qPCC0#PPA172,M1

Now, if that doesn't say it all about Witherington and his ilk--CLOSE-MINED APOLOGISTS--I don't know what does! And as for ACTUAL scholars who have varying views of Jesus et al ... That's called HISTORICAL METHOD--CRITICISM! Pouring over a mountain of documents--internal and external--to try and fit the pieces of the puzzle together! Witherington and his ilk ... they already know the "Truth" ... and it is admittedly called the Bible! And scholars who don't see that Witherington believes are deluded by evil, arrogant, sad, comitting intellectual sin, oblivious to the "Truth" ...

Scholars? Forum members can draw their own conclusions.

Sean

It's odd again how all those scholars are applauding Ehrmans work on the Gosple of Judas yet whine about how he determined in the same manner errors and edits in the NT.

here's a good example of why so many 'scholars' disagree with Ehrman .......... fear.

"Then there are ‘contrarians’ like Dr. Ehrman who really would rather throw ‘monkey wrenches’ in the whole works, criticize other scholars, cast doubts and aspersions upon early Christians, and the reliability of the NT itself; and in the process, the very origins of Christianity in its entirety.

The real problem that I have with Ehrman, is his unsubstantiated conjectures about how the NT must have been transcribed and passed down during the first and early second century. One cannot but marvel in his understanding and knowledge of languages and early Ms. readings, even if one disagrees with some of his conclusions. Nevertheless, his overall scholarship is quite remarkable–that’s what makes him such a dangerous foe to the Faith."

http://answersforthefaith.com/bookreviews/...esus-by-ehrman/


and as soon as I have time I'll dig up scholars who agree. even though you toss the one you at first championed after realizing he co wrote with Ehrman on corruption in the NT

Ripley ...

And thanks Church and SS!!!!

Mk,

Sean

No problem. I try to call a spade a spade when I see it, no matter whose hand its in, and in this case the spade was apologetic rather than historically sound work. ::shrugs:: it happens to both sides of the debates.

the gospels speak for themselves..these are clearly books dreamed up by human minds, therefore open to human critisism..



chrisitianity is a buisness first and foremost form mandating how one comes to god and how one worships god and if one even chooses to believe in a god ( its nnot for everyone) there is little spiritual freedom in this construct..

Clovis have you read this book ???

again here I find it funny/odd

Description
This thoroughly revised edition of Bruce M. Metzger's classic work is the most up-to-date manual available for the textual criticism of the New Testament. The Text of the New Testament, Fourth Edition, has been invigorated by the addition of Bart D. Ehrman--author of numerous best-selling books on the New Testament--as a coauthor. This revision brings the discussion of such important matters as the early Greek manuscripts and methods of textual criticism up to date, integrating recent research findings and approaches into the body of the text (as opposed to previous revisions, which compiled new material and notes into appendices). The authors also examine new areas of interest, including the use of computers in the collection and evaluation of manuscript evidence and the effects that social and ideological influences had upon the work of scribes. The standard text for courses in biblical studies and the history of Christianity since its first publication in 1964, The Text of the New Testament is poised to become a definitive resource for a whole new generation of students.
Reviews

Praise for the previous edition: "Professor Bruce M. Metzger. . . remains the dean of New Testament textual criticism. For more than thirty years his encyclopedic knowledge and prolific pen have kept New Testament scholars current in manuscript studies. . . . Other manuals in textual criticism are now available, but none is more serviceable than Metzger's."--Southwestern Journal of Theology

"The fourth edition may be declared an unqualified success. The authors have evidently gone over every line of text with great care, [and] those paragraphs that have been rewritten seem to be genuine improvements. The appearance of this revised edition is a delight, and it assures that The Text of the New Testament will continue to serve students and scholars for a long time to come."--Westminster Theological Journal

"Well-researched and expressed, with that rare elegance of style that graces the English language. It is a model for scholarly endeavor, as well as the definitive text in English on the subject."--Louis I. Hodges, Columbia Bible College and Seminary

"The best in its field. Indispensable!"--Jarl Fossum, University of Michigan

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subj...i=9780195161229

Historical Jesus
(24 lectures, 30 minutes/lecture)
Course No. 643
Taught by Bart D. Ehrman
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
M.Div., Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary

Course Lecture Titles
1. The Many Faces of Jesus
2. One Remarkable Life
3. Scholars Look at the Gospels
4. Fact and Fiction in the Gospels
5. The Birth of the Gospels
6. Some of the Other Gospels
7. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas
8. Other Sources
9. Historical Criteria—Getting Back to Jesus
10. More Historical Criteria
11. The Early Life of Jesus
12. Jesus in His Context
13. Jesus and Roman Rule
14. Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
15. The Apocalyptic Teachings of Jesus
16. Other Teachings of Jesus in their Apocalyptic Context
17. The Deeds of Jesus in their Apocalyptic Context
18. Still Other Words and Deeds of Jesus
19. The Controversies of Jesus
20. The Last Days of Jesus
21. The Last Hours of Jesus
22. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus
23. The Afterlife of Jesus
24. The Prophet of the New Millennium


now would they keep him on if he didn't know what he was doing ? why didn't the scholarly gods that be ask for another scholar other than Ehrlman to study the Gospel of Judas to authenticate it ?

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summa...86-16929245_ITM


why would scholars love him when he came down on the Da Vinci code ?

Ehrman pointed to numerous mistakes throughout the novel. He added that he does not consider the claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married a mistake because there is no way to prove or disprove it. “But it is a highly problematic claim and probably false,” he said. Jesus could have been married, and to someone other than Mary Magdalene. “The question is: Is there any evidence? No. There’s no evidence.”

Ehrman is the author of more than 20 books including Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. He helped authenticate a nearly 2,000-year-old manuscript of the Gospel of Judas unveiled recently by the National Geographic Society.

The talk was sponsored by Duke Divinity School, Duke Chapel, Duke Socratic Club, Graduate Christian Fellowship, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Navigators, Westminster Presbyterian/UCC Fellowship and the Congregation at Duke Chapel.

http://www.divinity.duke.edu/publications/...ts/bookmark.htm





















****************

Heres just something I think we should consider on the topic of "Misquoting Jesus".

Theres an old epic poem called The Dream of the Rood, which basically was what old Christian missionaries would read to the Gaelic pagans to try to convert them. The missionaries knew that the written story of Jesus would probably not be very attractive to the Gaelic pagans, so they distorted it a little. For instance, in the Gospels, Jesus basically accepts his fate passively and dies the miserable death of an ordinary criminal. The missionaries realized (probably through trial and error ) that the pagans weren't very receptive to the idea of a God who passively accepts himself as a sacrifice, so they switched up the details of the story a bit. In the Dream of the Rood, Christ is described as a great warlord and his apostles and disciples are his warriors. Instead of being nailed to the cross, Christ nails himself to it (don't as me how thats possible), and instead of an ordinary piece of wood, the Cross is gilded with gold leaf and encrusted with jewels, among other details from the story. So the question is, if missionaries distorted the story for the Gauls, why is it inconceivable that other aspects of the NT haven't been distorted as well? I mean, it would appear, judging from the Dream of the Rood that the early Christians were not above changing the story around a little bit if it served their purposes. So, what do you say?

Oh, and here are some links to the Dream of the Rood:
Wikipedia article
Full Text Version

"It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment."

Eusebius

Exactly. So what I'm wondering is that since we know that early Christian missionaries intentionally distorted the story of Christ to match the values of the people they were trying to convert, why is it inconceivable that the story has been distorted before that? Why is it so difficult to believe, especially given the evidence i.e. the Dream of the Rood, that the story may have been distorted? I mean we have Bart Ehrman saying that it indeed has, and then (for all you critics) we have the actual document, the Dream of the Rood, that is so wildly different from the other story of Christ, as actual evidence that story had been changed at least on one level. If they can distort it for one group of people, why would you think that it wasn't distorted before or after?

This is a quote similar to one from Robert Taylor's "Diagesis" which can be found (here). I have noticed sean you seldom offer source links for your materials and perhaps because you are afraid to have them being seen as from atheists or agnostics because you might be conscious that it is a charge you frequently make as those who disagree with "Misquoting Jesus" as being apologist. Knowing such that those you offer are from the other side of that coin it might explain such but do not worry sources are sources.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_%28Radical%29


I looked further and the same quote, with minor differences in spelling, can be found in Augustine's XXXII book entitled "Contra Faustum" (source). Faustus or Faust was a Manichean Bishop and Augustine, who was previously a Manichean, wrote a series of conversations he had with Faustus regarding their thoughts. Here is a bit about Manichaeism.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#History

As we can see the Manicheans had a vested interest in being unable to accept the New Testament since they adhered to their own form of religion, highly gnostic, which attempted to incorporate and syncretize other forms of belief into one, so that entails selecting what you like and discarding what you do not like.

This also is not a contemporary NT scholar who supports the conclusions made in "Misquoting Jesus" and sidesteps the question perhaps even obfuscating it.



This quote comes directly from Jerome Kahn's tripod website (source) on a page with the title of 'SKEPTICISM ON HISTORICAL CHRIST by Catholic theologian' and if one looks at the listed names of other articles, links are all at top, we can see other choice titles such as 'Mark Describes Jesus' Gay Affair' and 'NASTY JESUS & STUPID ADVISE'.

Kerry Temple who wrote this article is not a NT scholar but a professor of writing courses and a journalist (source).

John Collins is an Old Testament scholar and not a New Testament scholar (source) and has never has never received a degree in nor taught New Testament scholastics (source).

Also it was not John Collins stating most of what you quoted but Kerry Temple. You are literally either doing bad research or simply engaging in dishonesty sean. If you actually are able to understand the truth and are passing it off to make a point it is nothing but intellectual dishonesty but if not it is ignorance on your part. How can you simply attempt to fool the forum readers by claiming all you quoted above was actually John Collins' words when you deliberately changed a few elements of what was originally posted on Jerome Kahn's tripod site? And there is no question that is where you lifted your quote and in violation of forum rules this time you did not add your source. Here is a post you made in 2005 in these forums where you did add in a link to the source (link).

If you scroll down to the footnotes you can see even Jerome Kahn understands these are mostly Temple's words. I underlined the '2' above in your quote and this is what Jerome Kahn has to say about it.



(source)

And below is all the actual words that can be attributed to Collins in what you posted.



(source)

Now below is Collins' further words from Kerry Temple's full length article. In it it become clear Collins is speaking about the differences of if the gospels were meant to be taken as 'historical documents', he claims they are not 'factual accounts', and were simply were 'meant to get the point across'.



http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022007/temple.htm

Now the casual reader might become confused and not understand there is a difference between 'historical criticism' which is Collins' field and 'textual criticism' which is Ehrman's field. They are not the same by far. In the words of Collins' 'in the context of biblical studies, historical criticism, or the dominant mode of biblical criticism for the last two centuries...' (source) so we can easily see that they are completely different fields. While one has two centuries of dominance it is textual criticism which has few players today. The rest of that last posted source link provided more information for anyone wanting further inquiry into what historical criticism entails. Or if you would rather read a book review of Collins' "The Bible After Babel" it also briefly explains historical criticism and postmodern biblical criticism this link will open a pdf document (link).

So this is neither a contemporary NT scholar and it is neither commentary on "Misquoting Jesus" so you have yet to prove your claim where you insinuated that that book's conclusions regarding the unreliability of the NT, which is based on textual criticism, are consensus. They are not and if they were someone would have produced the evidence of other NT scholars stating such about "Misquoting Jesus".



The above is also from jeromekahn123.tripod.com but the page is not opening at the moment. Maybe he ran out of tripod bandwith? Googling the first few words though of the quote above it offers this link (link). Fuller was a biblical scholar and noted for his work in New Testament Christology (source), which is 'a field of study within Christian theology which is concerned with the nature of Jesus the Christ, particularly with how the divine and human are related in his person. Christology is generally less concerned with the details of Jesus' life than with how the human and divine co-exist in one person' (source).

Again though he is not commenting on "Misquoting Jesus" nor does the above quote you provided have anything whatsoever to do with textual criticism or the conclusions Ehrman makes in the book in question regarding the unreliability of the New Testament. You have provided three sources and none offer anything in the way of stating Ehrman's conclusion in "Misquoting Jesus" are consensus.




...



Speaking of strange bedfellows Metzger was a also a Christian and worked with Lee Strobel in his book "The Case for Christ". infidels.org calls Metzger an apologist (source) but the fact remains Metzger is the scholar of scholars when it comes to textual criticism and Worthington as well as Ehrman were his students.



Yes, they certainly can unless they already have their minds made up. You need to provide better sources next time from where you gathered your material too. And that quote you had wanted us to believe was attributed to Collins when most of it were Kerry's words speaks volumes at the length you will go to prove your point.

Most likely they disagree because Ehrman's claims, that the NT is highly unreliable based on textual criticism, are themselves not the consensus among his peers. It makes no sense to believe that just because they agree with one book that they have to agree ever after especially when they can differentiate the claims made in each book and find parts of "Misquoting Jesus" as being disagreeable. It is not hard to understand. We are not discussing Ehrman or his other works, no one has yet to make ad hominem attacks in an attempt to discredit Ehrman, because all that is important is his work, and some portions of "Misquoting Jesus" are dubious according to his peers regardless is they accept his other works.

And you have yet to provide any scholars in the same field as Ehrman who have claimed his view of the unreliability of the NT as presented in "Misquoting Jesus" is consensus. Which scholar is the one you claim I tossed out? It was certainly not Metzger, who is a Chrisitan, and who collaborated to help make "The Case for Christ" with Strobel.

You don't seem to want to address the fact that the Dream of the Rood is (IMO) sufficient proof that people have altered the story of Christ to serve their purposes.

Oh I was trying to ignore your post, like I will others, that do not add nothing to the actual topic of "Misquoting Jesus" but since you insist...I read it in April when you suggested it and my opinion before I read it is the same after I read it. You can find it in the second paragraph of this post (link). That though is not sufficient proof that textual criticism proves the NT is unreliable. The Dream of the Rood has nothing to do with any biblical text whatsoever.

I am still hoping someone provides other NT scholars who offer a critique on the conclusion within portions of "Misquoting Jesus" that the unreliability of the NT based on textual criticism is consensus view. No one has yet to do that specifically even though two people claimed it was true.

So far they have attacked other peers of Ehrman's in hopes of destroying that actual consensus, pointed to other books that Ehrman authored which his peers do not take issue with those (does not mean they have to accept everything thereafter and they did not in the case of some portions of "Misquoting Jesus"), there is the attempt at an appeal to authority in mentioning Metzger...

...but Metzger who believes Jesus was a real person mainly has this to offer: 'that the early church which assembled the New Testament did not consider divine inspiration to be a sufficient criterion for a book to be canonized. Metzger says that for the early church, it was very important that a work describing Jesus' life be written by a follower of or an eyewitness to Jesus' (source) so no nothing about the unreliability of the NT in fact he seems to have believed that the early church aimed for accuracy but in a different manner...

...then there is sean's post where he introduced a Manichean, a quote mostly written by a journalist which he attempts to fraudulently pass it off as the words of an Old Testament historical critic and not a New Testament textual critic but still nothing about confirming the point in contention, another biblical scholar who specializes in NT Christology and again offers nothing in the way of actual evidence towards the earlier claim he insinuated, and finally he offered more attempts to discredit at least one of Erhman's recognized peers.

They cry foul that Witherington is able to address both scholastic issues and theological issues in different books and are unable to differentiate between them. While at the same time they do not mention anything about Ehrman who is able to do the same, Metzger's 4th edition book which Erhman co-authored is scholastic, "Misquoting Jesus" is more along the lines of a popular book, and "God's Problem:How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer" by Erhman sounds like a work of skepticism that has nothing whatsoever to do with scholastics and seems to be more of his personal journey.



http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061...blem/index.aspx

Go listen to the audio except where Ehrman clearly states:



...but oh its OK for Ehrman to write skeptic books but not OK for Witherington to make forays away from academia as an author as well???

I was using it to bring up a point, Clovis. If people did it once, why wouldn't they do it again? And why do you seem to give more credit to those who have been very forthright about their agenda to defend their faith from those who have been "manipulated by the forces of darkness" as opposed to what Bart Ehrman is proposing? Honestly, do you not think that the fact that they are Christian appologeticists gets in the way of actual research? Or is it just Bart Ehrman, who is an agnostic, who has the agenda?

no it's


The Text of the New Testament
Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
Fourth Edition
Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman


this is what Ehrman brings to misquoting Jesus.


As Metzger explains in his autobiography, his professional collaboration with Ehrman began back in 1993, the year that Ehrman published his monograph on The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Cf. Reminiscences of an Octogenarian (Hendricksen 1997), 150.
At that time, Metzger did, in fact, review Ehrman’s 1993 title. As Metzger summarized the thesis, “the volume traces how the early struggles between ‘heresy’ and ‘orthodoxy’ occasionally affected the wording of certain passages in the scriptures,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin, 15/2 (1994), 211.

Ehrman took it even further. And he's right . No one has the originals. so we don't know what was actually written in that first original inspired work by God. They are gone . no one needed them if they had a copy. Why don't you watch the video ? I've a feeling you hadn't. or the debate between him and Craig who had his azz handed to him on a plate. the rest are not inspired but transcribed and not well. Just because what we have might be 'similar ' in instances does not mean they come even close to the original. they just come close to some copies of copies of copies. all the while edits and such happening. that is what he is saying.


and here's the rub -

you get many scholars saying this -

According to Dr. Craig Blomberg the, “substantial majority of this book provides information already well-known and well-accessible in other sources.”

then what is the problem ??

Just finished mentioning that book and have done so a few times before.



I mentioned "The Case For Christ" which is a book Metzger was interviewed by Lee Strobel. In it Metzger makes the case that the NT is quite reliable.



(source)




Wallace explains quite well: