Scholar Bart Ehrman's new book explores how scribes through both omission and intention changed the Bible.
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is the result of years of reading the texts in their original languages.
Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity, he is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The Topic: Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture and Readers Who May Never Know
A talk by Pro. Bart Ehrman
In this lecture, Prof. Ehrman explains how the modern Bible was shaped by mistakes and intentional alterations that were made by early scribes who copied the texts
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJluEnIqTVk
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
Full Version: Misquoting Jesus
One of my co-workers said this was a good book. She was a regular church-goer (Methodist, I think).
So I guess she did not take this book as a threat to her Christian beliefs.
So I guess she did not take this book as a threat to her Christian beliefs.
I've been watching the lecture ( up to half of 3) and I found it interesting that the story in John of the people wanting to stone the woman who committed adultery where jesus has the famous line of he who is among you without sin cast the first stone ' wasn't in any gospel of John text at all until the 10th century and the writing style is different.
or that the last 12 verses of Mark were added sometime later because the original ended at the women running from the tomb and not telling anyone anything. end of story.
so far it's a very interesting lecture. very eye opening.
ps - onto the q and a part. there was no doctrine of Trinity in the NT in the greek manuscripts . It was added later by the Latin . 1 John chapter 5 verse 7 & 8 - The Father , the word and the holy spirit. and the church wrote a greek manuscript to support their agenda about the text.
or that the last 12 verses of Mark were added sometime later because the original ended at the women running from the tomb and not telling anyone anything. end of story.
so far it's a very interesting lecture. very eye opening.
ps - onto the q and a part. there was no doctrine of Trinity in the NT in the greek manuscripts . It was added later by the Latin . 1 John chapter 5 verse 7 & 8 - The Father , the word and the holy spirit. and the church wrote a greek manuscript to support their agenda about the text.
I think I'm in love with Bart......... 
Thanks for posting this video Lt.......
Thanks for posting this video Lt.......
Great post Lt. Ripley, Bart Ehrman's lecture is really intriguing.
It is not as if everyone within academia agrees with Bart Ehrman. There is no issue for those that do agree with him, even those outside of academia, but his view is not consensus. In fact Bart Ehrman makes claims and a claim is not the same as stating fact that everyone will accept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Ehrman
There are other noted scholars that disagree with Ehrman's conclusions and claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Witherington_III
And from Witherington's personal blog he states the following:
Witherington offers some great insight here into both him and Ehrman since they were both students of Bruce Metzger. He also hints at another view accepted by many that through textual criticism others find that 90% of the NT's historicity is not in question.
And no one should believe Witherington is simply oppose to Ehrman for he writes respectfully of him and even agrees on some points:
And Witherington ends his review, which focuses on many other individual points, with general commentary.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/0...icism-bart.html
Daniel Wallace also has vast credentials and disagrees with Ehrman to a degree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_B._Wallace
Here are some more thoughts from Wallace:
Next Wallace states that in the last three chapters of "Misquoting Jesus" that Ehrman displays an agenda and is also engaging in the fallacy of non sequitur.
Further Ehrman asks an engaging question but fails to actually answer it to the satisfaction of a contemporary scholar. In the rest of this article Wallace focuses solely on the material of the book "Misquoting Jesus".
Wallace finally criticized "Misquoting Jesus" as fostering an alarmist mentality and appealing to emotion which is counterproductive to actual scholarship. It should be noted that this is not a criticism of Ehrman himself but rather in his motives for authoring this book and the reaction it would receive by those not well versed in textual criticism. In the end Wallace states that scholarly textual critics would not seriously accept some of the assertions in which Ehrman attempts to steer the reader. In my personal view perhaps the material was packaged in the form it was knowing it would sell better than if being a book that textual critics scholars themselves would be able to accept and praise.
The article is rather lengthy and anyone who is interested in Ehrman's book could read it if they want to develop a more balanced view on the issue.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000
Overall this is not about demonizing Ehrman because these two scholars speak respectfully of him and it is noted that Ehrman himself is respectful of his beliefs and with those whom he discusses them with who might disagree. What no one should lose sight of is that Ehrman's work are only his claims and there is nothing wrong with those who accept them but they should not be viewed as a sole fact of scholarship or even as consensus for when it comes to contemporary scholars some completely disagree with Ehrman.
It is also equally important to know how other scholars view anyone else's work. Do his peers accept his work or not? Overall they have not but let us see how this progresses throughout history and if Ehrman's work will be more readily accepted by other scholars as time goes on.
Also the study of textual criticism is not highly accessible to lay people and those outside of scholarship but the brilliance of Ehrman is that he has packaged his work for the lay audience. That though means that many of the more scholarly aspects of his work are not transferred to this popular audience.
Most importantly if someone is truly interested they would want to have a balanced view of this topic regardless of what they conclude to subscribe to in the end.
QUOTE
Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity. He is 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 attempts to discern the original wording of the gospels, epistles, and other ancient texts. He claims that his research demonstrates that not only was the Biblical text unintentionally altered by scribes, but sometimes was done intentionally for a variety of reasons such as to make them more uniform and bring them into conformity with changing beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Ehrman
There are other noted scholars that disagree with Ehrman's conclusions and claims.
QUOTE
Ben Witherington III is an evangelical Biblical scholar, and lecturer on New Testament Studies.
Witherington is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is a graduate of UNC, Chapel Hill and holds an M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England. He is an elected member of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, a society dedicated to New Testament studies.
Witherington is an author and speaker. He has written over thirty books, and has made many appearances on radio interviews, and on television programs featured on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, and other major networks.
Witherington is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is a graduate of UNC, Chapel Hill and holds an M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England. He is an elected member of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, a society dedicated to New Testament studies.
Witherington is an author and speaker. He has written over thirty books, and has made many appearances on radio interviews, and on television programs featured on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, and other major networks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Witherington_III
And from Witherington's personal blog he states the following:
QUOTE
I am however glad Bart is honest about his pilgrimage. If only he could be equally honest and admit that in his scholarship he is trying now to deconstruct orthodox Christianity which he once embraced, rather than do 'value-neutral' text criticism. In my own view, he has attempted this deconstruction on the basis of very flimsy evidence-- textual variants which do not prove what he wants them to prove.
Witherington offers some great insight here into both him and Ehrman since they were both students of Bruce Metzger. He also hints at another view accepted by many that through textual criticism others find that 90% of the NT's historicity is not in question.
QUOTE
As I remember Bruce Metzger saying once (who trained both Bart and myself in these matters) over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise.
And no one should believe Witherington is simply oppose to Ehrman for he writes respectfully of him and even agrees on some points:
QUOTE
I want to turn around now and say something about one thing Ehrman is right to complain about. Ehrman is right that later pious scribes sometimes over-egged the pudding, to use a British phrase. Sometimes they did revise the text to better highlight Christian doctrine including the notion of the Trinity and other such truths. This is really quite irrelevant because when one stripes away the later accretions one still has a portray of Jesus that involves: 1) the virginal conception; 2) the atoning death of Jesus; 3) the bodily resurrection of Jesus; 4) the raw stuff of Trinitarian thinking, and we could go on. Ehrman's so-called evidence that these are later ideas imposed on the text by scribal corrupters is frankly false-- historically false, text critically false, theologically false.
And Witherington ends his review, which focuses on many other individual points, with general commentary.
QUOTE
I am glad we have a book like 'Misquoting Jesus' to tease our minds into active thought, though ironically very little of the book as anything to do with the actual sayings or teachings of Jesus himself. The title like the book is more of a tease, than really providing substantial evidence for 'the orthodox concotion of the Christian faith'. I would simply say to the reader-- caveat emptor. This author has a strong ax to grind, and the fact that he grinds it well in fluid prose makes it all the more beguiling. As my granny used to say-- Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out!
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/0...icism-bart.html
Daniel Wallace also has vast credentials and disagrees with Ehrman to a degree:
QUOTE
Daniel Baird Wallace is a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary where he has been tenured since 1995.
Wallace was born in California in 1952. He graduated from Biola University in 1975 and later attended Dallas Theological Seminary where he graduated in 1979 with a Master of Theology in New Testament Studies. He taught at Dallas Seminary from 1979-81 and afterward at Grace Theological Seminary from 1981-83. In 1995, he earned his Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary where he continues to teach full time.
Wallace is considered an authority on Koine Greek grammar and New Testament textual criticism [1] among New Testament scholars. He has published largely in these fields and has presented many papers at The Society of Biblical Literature as well as The Evangelical Theological Society conferences.
Wallace published his first edition of Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics in 1996. It has since become a standard work in the field. Two-thirds of schools that teach the subject use the textbook.[3] He also served as senior New Testament editor for the NET Bible and has founded the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. The purpose of the institution is to preserve the Greek text of the New Testament by taking digital photographs of all extant Greek New Testament Manuscripts.[4]
Wallace, along with DTS colleague Darrell L. Bock, has been an outspoken critic of the alleged "popular culture" quest to discredit orthodox, evangelical views of Jesus--including the writings of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman.[2] Wallace critiqued Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why for misrepresenting commonly held views of textual criticism, especially in Ehrman's view of the "orthodox corruption of Scripture."[3] Wallace and Ehrman are scheduled to dialogue at the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum in April, 2008.
Wallace was born in California in 1952. He graduated from Biola University in 1975 and later attended Dallas Theological Seminary where he graduated in 1979 with a Master of Theology in New Testament Studies. He taught at Dallas Seminary from 1979-81 and afterward at Grace Theological Seminary from 1981-83. In 1995, he earned his Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary where he continues to teach full time.
Wallace is considered an authority on Koine Greek grammar and New Testament textual criticism [1] among New Testament scholars. He has published largely in these fields and has presented many papers at The Society of Biblical Literature as well as The Evangelical Theological Society conferences.
Wallace published his first edition of Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics in 1996. It has since become a standard work in the field. Two-thirds of schools that teach the subject use the textbook.[3] He also served as senior New Testament editor for the NET Bible and has founded the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. The purpose of the institution is to preserve the Greek text of the New Testament by taking digital photographs of all extant Greek New Testament Manuscripts.[4]
Wallace, along with DTS colleague Darrell L. Bock, has been an outspoken critic of the alleged "popular culture" quest to discredit orthodox, evangelical views of Jesus--including the writings of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman.[2] Wallace critiqued Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why for misrepresenting commonly held views of textual criticism, especially in Ehrman's view of the "orthodox corruption of Scripture."[3] Wallace and Ehrman are scheduled to dialogue at the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum in April, 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_B._Wallace
Here are some more thoughts from Wallace:
QUOTE
More importantly, this book sells because it appeals to the skeptic who wants reasons not to believe, who considers the Bible a book of myths. It’s one thing to say that the stories in the Bible are legend; it’s quite another to say that many of them were added centuries later. Although Ehrman does not quite say this, he leaves the impression that the original form of the NT was rather different from what the manuscripts now read.
QUOTE
Chapter 2 (“The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings”) deals with scribal changes to the text, both intentional and unintentional. Here Ehrman mixes standard text-critical information with his own interpretation, an interpretation that is by no means shared by all textual critics, nor even most of them. In essence, he paints a very bleak picture of scribal activity6, leaving the unwary reader to assume that we have no chance of recovering the original wording of the NT.
QUOTE
Chapter 3 (“Texts of the New Testament”) and chapter 4 (“The Quest for Origins”) take us from Erasmus and the first published Greek NT to the text of Westcott and Hort. Discussed are the major scholars from the sixteenth through the nineteenth century. This is the most objective material in the book and makes for fascinating reading. But even here, Ehrman injects his own viewpoint by his selection of material. For example, in discussing the role that Bengel played in the history of textual criticism (109-112), Ehrman gives this pious German conservative high praise as a scholar: he was an “extremely careful interpreter of the biblical text” (109); “Bengel studied everything intensely” (111).
...
On the other hand, Ehrman instead mentions J. J. Wettstein, a contemporary of Bengel, who, at the tender age of twenty assumed that these variants “can have no weakening effect on the trustworthiness or integrity of the Scriptures,”9 but that years later, after careful study of the text, Wettstein changed his views after he “began thinking seriously about his own theological convictions.”10 One is tempted to think that Ehrman may see a parallel between himself and Wettstein: like Wettstein, Ehrman started out as an evangelical when in college, but changed his views on the text and theology in his more mature years.11 But the model that Bengel supplies—a sober scholar who arrives at quite different conclusions—is quietly passed over.
...
On the other hand, Ehrman instead mentions J. J. Wettstein, a contemporary of Bengel, who, at the tender age of twenty assumed that these variants “can have no weakening effect on the trustworthiness or integrity of the Scriptures,”9 but that years later, after careful study of the text, Wettstein changed his views after he “began thinking seriously about his own theological convictions.”10 One is tempted to think that Ehrman may see a parallel between himself and Wettstein: like Wettstein, Ehrman started out as an evangelical when in college, but changed his views on the text and theology in his more mature years.11 But the model that Bengel supplies—a sober scholar who arrives at quite different conclusions—is quietly passed over.
QUOTE
Besides the selectivity regarding scholars and their opinions, these four chapters involve two curious omissions. First, there is next to no discussion about the various manuscripts. It’s almost as if external evidence is a nonstarter for Ehrman. Further, as much as he enlightens his lay readers about the discipline, the fact that he doesn’t give them the details about which manuscripts are more trustworthy, older, etc., allows him to control the information flow. Repeatedly, I was frustrated in my perusal of the book because it spoke of various readings without giving much, if any, of the data that supported them. Even in his third chapter—“Texts of the New Testament: Editions, Manuscripts, and Differences”—there is minimal discussion of the manuscripts, and none of individual codices. In the two pages that deal specifically with the manuscripts, Ehrman speaks only about their number, nature, and variants.12
Second, Ehrman overplays the quality of the variants while underscoring their quantity. He says, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”13 Elsewhere he states that the number of variants is as high as 400,000.14 That is true enough, but by itself is misleading. Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation, is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable.15 The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout the book—and repeats in interviews16—is that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording,17 a view that is far more radical than he actually embraces.18
Second, Ehrman overplays the quality of the variants while underscoring their quantity. He says, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”13 Elsewhere he states that the number of variants is as high as 400,000.14 That is true enough, but by itself is misleading. Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation, is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable.15 The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout the book—and repeats in interviews16—is that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording,17 a view that is far more radical than he actually embraces.18
Next Wallace states that in the last three chapters of "Misquoting Jesus" that Ehrman displays an agenda and is also engaging in the fallacy of non sequitur.
QUOTE
But these criticisms are minor quibbles. There is nothing really earth-shaking in the first four chapters of the book. Rather, it is in the introduction that we see Ehrman’s motive, and the last three chapters reveal his agenda. In these places he is especially provocative and given to overstatement and non sequitur. The remainder of our review will focus on this material.
Further Ehrman asks an engaging question but fails to actually answer it to the satisfaction of a contemporary scholar. In the rest of this article Wallace focuses solely on the material of the book "Misquoting Jesus".
QUOTE
He notes that the study of the NT manuscripts increasingly created doubts in his mind: “I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly and sometimes (many times!) incorrectly?”20 This is an excellent question. And it is featured prominently in Misquoting Jesus, being repeated throughout the book. Unfortunately, Ehrman does not really spend much time wrestling with it directly.
Wallace finally criticized "Misquoting Jesus" as fostering an alarmist mentality and appealing to emotion which is counterproductive to actual scholarship. It should be noted that this is not a criticism of Ehrman himself but rather in his motives for authoring this book and the reaction it would receive by those not well versed in textual criticism. In the end Wallace states that scholarly textual critics would not seriously accept some of the assertions in which Ehrman attempts to steer the reader. In my personal view perhaps the material was packaged in the form it was knowing it would sell better than if being a book that textual critics scholars themselves would be able to accept and praise.
QUOTE
And that approach resembles more an alarmist mentality than what a mature, master teacher is able to offer. Regarding the evidence, suffice it to say that significant textual variants that alter core doctrines of the NT have not yet been produced.
...
Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Indeed, even agnostic teachers bear this responsibility. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave Misquoting Jesus with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. The irony is that Misquoting Jesus is supposed to be all about reason and evidence, but it has been creating as much panic and alarm as The Da Vinci Code.
...
Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Indeed, even agnostic teachers bear this responsibility. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave Misquoting Jesus with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. The irony is that Misquoting Jesus is supposed to be all about reason and evidence, but it has been creating as much panic and alarm as The Da Vinci Code.
The article is rather lengthy and anyone who is interested in Ehrman's book could read it if they want to develop a more balanced view on the issue.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000
Overall this is not about demonizing Ehrman because these two scholars speak respectfully of him and it is noted that Ehrman himself is respectful of his beliefs and with those whom he discusses them with who might disagree. What no one should lose sight of is that Ehrman's work are only his claims and there is nothing wrong with those who accept them but they should not be viewed as a sole fact of scholarship or even as consensus for when it comes to contemporary scholars some completely disagree with Ehrman.
It is also equally important to know how other scholars view anyone else's work. Do his peers accept his work or not? Overall they have not but let us see how this progresses throughout history and if Ehrman's work will be more readily accepted by other scholars as time goes on.
Also the study of textual criticism is not highly accessible to lay people and those outside of scholarship but the brilliance of Ehrman is that he has packaged his work for the lay audience. That though means that many of the more scholarly aspects of his work are not transferred to this popular audience.
Most importantly if someone is truly interested they would want to have a balanced view of this topic regardless of what they conclude to subscribe to in the end.
plenty of scholars that agree with him too.
Well it is not about how many are on which side if it was those who agree only with Ehrman would be on the losing end. Clearly more scholars disagree with Ehrman. It is about having a balanced view and even if deciding to go with Ehrman to not be totally condescending about it and claiming only his claims are the sole truth. Ehrman himself is very respectful it seems when it comes to engaging believers but those who are in a sense the lay disciples of Ehrman at times do not share that same attitude. The fact remains within academia Ehrman's conclusions are a minority view.
If what you say is true it should not be hard to find at least two scholars, like I did, with notable backgrounds, who do agree with Ehrman. Are you up to the challenge or simply making claims? You say plenty of scholars agree with him then show us their written agreement that is at least thorough in commentary as I have provided from Witherington and Wallace.
So Ripley since you have claimed plenty of scholars that agree with him please show us the sources because that can be a baseless claim on your part.
If what you say is true it should not be hard to find at least two scholars, like I did, with notable backgrounds, who do agree with Ehrman. Are you up to the challenge or simply making claims? You say plenty of scholars agree with him then show us their written agreement that is at least thorough in commentary as I have provided from Witherington and Wallace.
So Ripley since you have claimed plenty of scholars that agree with him please show us the sources because that can be a baseless claim on your part.
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 8 2008, 12:37 AM) 
I've been watching the lecture ( up to half of 3) and I found it interesting that the story in John of the people wanting to stone the woman who committed adultery where jesus has the famous line of he who is among you without sin cast the first stone ' wasn't in any gospel of John text at all until the 10th century and the writing style is different.
or that the last 12 verses of Mark were added sometime later because the original ended at the women running from the tomb and not telling anyone anything. end of story.
so far it's a very interesting lecture. very eye opening.
ps - onto the q and a part. there was no doctrine of Trinity in the NT in the greek manuscripts . It was added later by the Latin . 1 John chapter 5 verse 7 & 8 - The Father , the word and the holy spirit. and the church wrote a greek manuscript to support their agenda about the text.
Anyone with even the most basic of Bible's should know this already (assuming they have read it). Every version I have read has at the very least a footnote saying these verses do not belong in the original. I say "at the very least" because for John 8 and Mark 16, they are not footnotes, but boldened sections written just before the questionable section starts (and I daresay, 1 John 5 would be the same except that the verse is only a sentence long and thus a footnote is just as easy to read). I also say "at the very least" because I am referring to only the most basic of Bible's. Other Bible's with Study Notes will not ignore this. A Study Bible I was reading once had a full-page article next to the John 8 passage discussing the various implications of this passage and how it changes Christian doctrine, if indeed it does. or that the last 12 verses of Mark were added sometime later because the original ended at the women running from the tomb and not telling anyone anything. end of story.
so far it's a very interesting lecture. very eye opening.
ps - onto the q and a part. there was no doctrine of Trinity in the NT in the greek manuscripts . It was added later by the Latin . 1 John chapter 5 verse 7 & 8 - The Father , the word and the holy spirit. and the church wrote a greek manuscript to support their agenda about the text.
My point is that these are not "dirty little secrets" hidden from all but the most read scholars. These are things you can find when you open up your Bible at home (well, they are things I can find when I open up my Bible). So why this would shake the Faith of people, I don't know. It's common knowledge! Moreover, I see it as a strength, that we have so many copies of the original that we can know with such certainty what the original authors wrote or did not write. Compared to other ancient authors whose surviving copies are most often few and date to sometimes a thousand years or more after the writer, and I see that we can easily spot differences as being such a strength of the Bible (though i can also understand how skeptics would try to use it in a negative way towards the Bible).
All the best,
looks like a good book -
Co-authored with Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Origin, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th edition (under contract with Oxford University Press, scheduled for completion 12/2004)
who's opinion he'd be on the losing end ? yours ? a few scholars ? sour grapes I think and fear.
here ya go -
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Augscrip2y3.html
Co-authored with Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Origin, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th edition (under contract with Oxford University Press, scheduled for completion 12/2004)
who's opinion he'd be on the losing end ? yours ? a few scholars ? sour grapes I think and fear.
here ya go -
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Augscrip2y3.html
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 9 2008, 04:26 PM)
looks like a good book -
Co-authored with Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Origin, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th edition (under contract with Oxford University Press, scheduled for completion 12/2004)
who's opinion he'd be on the losing end ? yours ? a few scholars ? sour grapes I think and fear.
here ya go -
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Augscrip2y3.html
Ahem ... seems you posted an Islam website by mistake. Co-authored with Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Origin, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th edition (under contract with Oxford University Press, scheduled for completion 12/2004)
who's opinion he'd be on the losing end ? yours ? a few scholars ? sour grapes I think and fear.
here ya go -
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Augscrip2y3.html
Karlis
Metzger is actually the scholar most other scholars recognize as the definitive source of textual criticism.
Witherington mentions this what Metzger taught regarding the accuracy of the NT which would seem to disagree with the conclusion Ehrman makes.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/0...icism-bart.html
Wallace who knew him personally has a few glimpses of his personal interactions with Metzger, I will not quote them but they are very insightful so if interested read the article, and Wallace has high praise for him.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4862
Metzger also helped author the RSV and NRSV.
http://www.biblefortoday.org/articles/metzger.htm
Metzger also seemed to believe Jesus was a historical person even if Metzger did not believe the Bible to be divinely inspired. This clearly disagrees with the conclusions that some seem to be concluding based on the works of Ehrman that the NT was changed intentionally by scribes so the finished work is radically different than the original. While the majority of this article is written from the viewpoint of a skeptic it does offer insight into Metzger's belief in this singular example of a 'Q and A' session which was the basis of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ".
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jef...er/strobel.html
He also dismisses the claim that Jesus was a product of rape.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/87
Metzger was also a Christian.
So Ripley if you are able to I ask again to provide two accredited scholars that offer general commentary that agree with Ehrman's conclusions which he specifically expressed in "Misquoting Jesus". In other words book reviews by other scholars commenting on this particular work. If you are not able to it is understandable but it will invalidate your claim that there are "plenty of scholars that agree with him too."
Since you have not already done so and offered a link instead to another book which was just going over textual criticism of the NT itsel I will go ahead and assume that you made that claim without really knowing which other scholars agree with the conclusions of "Misquoting Jesus" and that can only be concluded as being highly disingenuous on your part.
Witherington mentions this what Metzger taught regarding the accuracy of the NT which would seem to disagree with the conclusion Ehrman makes.
QUOTE
As I remember Bruce Metzger saying once (who trained both Bart and myself in these matters) over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/0...icism-bart.html
Wallace who knew him personally has a few glimpses of his personal interactions with Metzger, I will not quote them but they are very insightful so if interested read the article, and Wallace has high praise for him.
QUOTE
He mastered several ancient and modern languages and ended up teaching at Princeton for 46 years. He was one of the editors of the standard Greek New Testament used today, and was the senior editor of the NRSV. His scholarship has proved to be almost impeccable. The author of numerous books and articles, including standard scholarly works in various fields, Metzger was amazingly productive. Yet in spite of his productivity, he was always very careful.
His specialty was New Testament textual criticism, the field whose primary goal is to ascertain the wording of the original text. Many considered him the finest NT textual critic of the 20th century.
The above can be found in almost any tribute. I want to turn my attention now to my own reminiscences of Dr. Metzger. From the many stories and anecdotes I could mention, I will limit myself to just two.
His specialty was New Testament textual criticism, the field whose primary goal is to ascertain the wording of the original text. Many considered him the finest NT textual critic of the 20th century.
The above can be found in almost any tribute. I want to turn my attention now to my own reminiscences of Dr. Metzger. From the many stories and anecdotes I could mention, I will limit myself to just two.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4862
Metzger also helped author the RSV and NRSV.
QUOTE
Let it be known that Metzger was a fervent promoter and leader of the ecumenical movement. The ecumenical New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of 1977–1990 was Metzger’s baby. Without Metzger there would be no NRSV. Metzger saw no better way to promote ecumenism than to produce a Bible that would unite both Protestant and Catholic elements.
http://www.biblefortoday.org/articles/metzger.htm
Metzger also seemed to believe Jesus was a historical person even if Metzger did not believe the Bible to be divinely inspired. This clearly disagrees with the conclusions that some seem to be concluding based on the works of Ehrman that the NT was changed intentionally by scribes so the finished work is radically different than the original. While the majority of this article is written from the viewpoint of a skeptic it does offer insight into Metzger's belief in this singular example of a 'Q and A' session which was the basis of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ".
QUOTE
Strobel also asked Metzger why some books were included in the New Testament and others (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas) were not. As Strobel puts it, "What about allegations that church councils squelched equally legitimate documents because they didn't like the picture of Jesus they portrayed?" (p. 85). Metzger's answer was that "the New Testament contains the best sources for the historicity of Jesus" (p. 87). He stated that the early church adopted three criteria in evaluating documents for inclusion in the New Testament:
(i) Was the book written by an apostle or by a follower of an apostle?
(ii) Did the book conform with what Christians already believed?
(iii) Had the book been continuously accepted and used by the church at large? (p. 86)
(i) Was the book written by an apostle or by a follower of an apostle?
(ii) Did the book conform with what Christians already believed?
(iii) Had the book been continuously accepted and used by the church at large? (p. 86)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jef...er/strobel.html
He also dismisses the claim that Jesus was a product of rape.
QUOTE
Additionally, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud took note of the Lord’s existence. Collected into a final form in the fifth century A.D., it is derived from earlier materials, some of which originated in the first century. Its testimony to Jesus’ existence is all the more valuable, as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation: “The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera” (1965, p. 76).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/87
Metzger was also a Christian.
So Ripley if you are able to I ask again to provide two accredited scholars that offer general commentary that agree with Ehrman's conclusions which he specifically expressed in "Misquoting Jesus". In other words book reviews by other scholars commenting on this particular work. If you are not able to it is understandable but it will invalidate your claim that there are "plenty of scholars that agree with him too."
Since you have not already done so and offered a link instead to another book which was just going over textual criticism of the NT itsel I will go ahead and assume that you made that claim without really knowing which other scholars agree with the conclusions of "Misquoting Jesus" and that can only be concluded as being highly disingenuous on your part.
QUOTE (Paranoid Android @ Jun 9 2008, 01:25 AM)
Anyone with even the most basic of Bible's should know this already (assuming they have read it). Every version I have read has at the very least a footnote saying these verses do not belong in the original. I say "at the very least" because for John 8 and Mark 16, they are not footnotes, but boldened sections written just before the questionable section starts (and I daresay, 1 John 5 would be the same except that the verse is only a sentence long and thus a footnote is just as easy to read). I also say "at the very least" because I am referring to only the most basic of Bible's. Other Bible's with Study Notes will not ignore this. A Study Bible I was reading once had a full-page article next to the John 8 passage discussing the various implications of this passage and how it changes Christian doctrine, if indeed it does.
My point is that these are not "dirty little secrets" hidden from all but the most read scholars. These are things you can find when you open up your Bible at home (well, they are things I can find when I open up my Bible). So why this would shake the Faith of people, I don't know. It's common knowledge! Moreover, I see it as a strength, that we have so many copies of the original that we can know with such certainty what the original authors wrote or did not write. Compared to other ancient authors whose surviving copies are most often few and date to sometimes a thousand years or more after the writer, and I see that we can easily spot differences as being such a strength of the Bible (though i can also understand how skeptics would try to use it in a negative way towards the Bible).
All the best,
My point is that these are not "dirty little secrets" hidden from all but the most read scholars. These are things you can find when you open up your Bible at home (well, they are things I can find when I open up my Bible). So why this would shake the Faith of people, I don't know. It's common knowledge! Moreover, I see it as a strength, that we have so many copies of the original that we can know with such certainty what the original authors wrote or did not write. Compared to other ancient authors whose surviving copies are most often few and date to sometimes a thousand years or more after the writer, and I see that we can easily spot differences as being such a strength of the Bible (though i can also understand how skeptics would try to use it in a negative way towards the Bible).
All the best,
You are quite right PA and that is a very valid point to introduce into this topic. You always seem to bring in the angle that others forget about but that we have always known. The only problem with skeptics is once they take one view and consider it the holy grail and that all other people who disagree with that, even if it is a minority view, are somehow in the dark. That is not the case especially when we can review the same material they are and understand that POV. When the NT scholar that most other NT scholars look up to as being the definitive source on textual criticism believes the NT is 90% accurate and that changes are only contained within 10% of it that really contrasts with what the skeptics are claiming and expect us to believe wholesale.
And also Ripley I am going to add a third source that disagrees with "Misquoting Jesus" and I hope you do not believe I am merely attempting to single you out but you yourself made strong claims and in the interests of honest inquiry there should be no reason why they cannot be challenged by another poster especially when they are providing credible sources. I have challenged you to provide in depth commentary from other scholars to show us what the current consensus is and hopefully to bring even more balance to this post you can show us those sources.
Peter J Williams is the Senior Lecturer in New Testament and Deputy Head of Divinity, History and Philosophy (source) at the University of Aberdeen which is "an ancient university founded in 1495, in Old Aberdeen, Scotland, and a world-renowned centre for teaching and research. It is the fifth oldest university in what is now the United Kingdom, and in the wider English-speaking world." (source)
QUOTE
We will first consider weaknesses in the specific historical model that Ehrman presents.
First weakness: Ehrman’s work builds on a specific model of the history of the early church in which what was later recognised as orthodoxy was just one of many groups which, viewed synchronically, cannot be said to be true representatives of Christianity. This model was particularly promoted by Walter Bauer, but investigation shows that on a number of counts ‘orthodoxy’ was closer to what was believed in the earliest stages of Christianity than the beliefs of other groups.
Second weakness: Ehrman constructs conflicts behind variant readings and then posits this conflict as a historical absolute by which he judges which readings are original. In days when it is held to be hard to know what an author thought it is even harder to know the motivation behind a variant. Ehrman is aware of this, but his response to it is inadequate. It is also possible that many of the variants which he says arose by deliberate act arose accidentally.
Third weakness: Ehrman is inconsistent in his use of criteria by which to judge an earlier reading.
Fourth weakness: for Ehrman’s thesis to be plausible he needs a high proportion of the ensemble of readings that he prefers to be earlier and he needs to have grounds for reasonable certainty that this is so. However, the ensemble of readings that he proposes as earlier has not been recognised by textual critics to be plausible as a whole.
Beyond these weaknesses in the historical model that Ehrman presents, there are weaknesses in his argument in Misquoting Jesus. Misquoting Jesus is a book that attempts to engage with a theological topic, one that has been important to Ehrman since his involvement in a group he describes as ‘fundamentalist’. However, in his attempt to disprove the divine verbal inspiration of Scripture, Ehrman does not engage with any of the most intelligent representatives of this position.
He therefore sometimes ends up attacking straw men. His analysis includes a number of conceptual confusions concerning the use of terms like ‘original’, ‘change’, ‘alter’, ‘Bible’, and ‘scripture’. In particular he alternates between material and immaterial definitions of textual entities without realising that he is doing so.
There is a further aspect of his work which we can analyse: namely, his populist rhetoric. It is of course legitimate for a scholar to use popular forms of speech. However, it is arguable that Ehrman uses rhetoric misleadingly.
First weakness: Ehrman’s work builds on a specific model of the history of the early church in which what was later recognised as orthodoxy was just one of many groups which, viewed synchronically, cannot be said to be true representatives of Christianity. This model was particularly promoted by Walter Bauer, but investigation shows that on a number of counts ‘orthodoxy’ was closer to what was believed in the earliest stages of Christianity than the beliefs of other groups.
Second weakness: Ehrman constructs conflicts behind variant readings and then posits this conflict as a historical absolute by which he judges which readings are original. In days when it is held to be hard to know what an author thought it is even harder to know the motivation behind a variant. Ehrman is aware of this, but his response to it is inadequate. It is also possible that many of the variants which he says arose by deliberate act arose accidentally.
Third weakness: Ehrman is inconsistent in his use of criteria by which to judge an earlier reading.
Fourth weakness: for Ehrman’s thesis to be plausible he needs a high proportion of the ensemble of readings that he prefers to be earlier and he needs to have grounds for reasonable certainty that this is so. However, the ensemble of readings that he proposes as earlier has not been recognised by textual critics to be plausible as a whole.
Beyond these weaknesses in the historical model that Ehrman presents, there are weaknesses in his argument in Misquoting Jesus. Misquoting Jesus is a book that attempts to engage with a theological topic, one that has been important to Ehrman since his involvement in a group he describes as ‘fundamentalist’. However, in his attempt to disprove the divine verbal inspiration of Scripture, Ehrman does not engage with any of the most intelligent representatives of this position.
He therefore sometimes ends up attacking straw men. His analysis includes a number of conceptual confusions concerning the use of terms like ‘original’, ‘change’, ‘alter’, ‘Bible’, and ‘scripture’. In particular he alternates between material and immaterial definitions of textual entities without realising that he is doing so.
There is a further aspect of his work which we can analyse: namely, his populist rhetoric. It is of course legitimate for a scholar to use popular forms of speech. However, it is arguable that Ehrman uses rhetoric misleadingly.
http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=338
It took ages to download, so I just watched the first. But I also found it very interesting how at the beginning he mentioned how many Christians haven't read the Bible. I have been thinking about that for a while - I wonder how many people who identify as Christians have actually read the Bible. I suppose in times past when the populace wasn't as literate it would have been common though.
Good morning Ripley. An excellent post! This is probably my favorite book by Professor BE. I think I read Misquoting Jesus in about 10 minutes! 
It truly is an eye opener, and a terrific read. Almost like reading a detective story. Totally engrossing! Not only that, but it gives terrific insight into exactly how Textual Criticism works -- and just how effective it can be.
Most kindly,
Sean
It truly is an eye opener, and a terrific read. Almost like reading a detective story. Totally engrossing! Not only that, but it gives terrific insight into exactly how Textual Criticism works -- and just how effective it can be.Most kindly,
Sean
Good morning Belle. A really good question. In my 15 years as a Christian, I found that most never read the Bible unless it was during services and/or Bible study. Beyond that, they simply never read it. In fact, I have yet to meet a Christian who could even recite the 10 Commandments! As for reading the Bible in times past ... During the Middle Ages, the church kept the Scriptures to themselves, did not want the common folk-- at least those who were literate -- to read it. By keeping the Bible to themselves, it put them in a unique position of power. Of course, it also filled the pews and the coffers.Unfortunately for the church, along came a wonderful device known as the "printing press" that eventually put an end to this -- at least to a degree -- little power-play of theirs.
Most kindly,
Sean
Most kindly,
Sean
Hi Sean,
Just curious, but how do you know that people outside of church/bible study didn't read the Bible? Did you ask them. I'm sure you are right to an extent in that there are some Christians who do not read their Bible's. I'm not going to go into the specifics of how many - whether it be "most", "some", "a few", or any such thing. I don't think anyone could ever tell how many Christians actually read their Bible's. I find it strange that you would know that most people didn't read it. I mean, even the people at my church who I am closest to I generally don't know how they read the Bible outside of church. I know some, and of those some, I know they do read. Of the rest, I could make a "guess" for some of them, but that's all it would be - a guess.
I'm not going to say you are completely wrong, because I'm sure you are right to some extent. But I think it takes a pretty big leap to suggest that most never read their Bible's outside of Church. Just a thought,
P.S - I could recite most of the 10 commandments, though you are right that I don't know them all off by heart. I just tried and got 9-out-of-10 (I wrote "do not cheat", instead of "do not give false testimony")
Just curious, but how do you know that people outside of church/bible study didn't read the Bible? Did you ask them. I'm sure you are right to an extent in that there are some Christians who do not read their Bible's. I'm not going to go into the specifics of how many - whether it be "most", "some", "a few", or any such thing. I don't think anyone could ever tell how many Christians actually read their Bible's. I find it strange that you would know that most people didn't read it. I mean, even the people at my church who I am closest to I generally don't know how they read the Bible outside of church. I know some, and of those some, I know they do read. Of the rest, I could make a "guess" for some of them, but that's all it would be - a guess.
I'm not going to say you are completely wrong, because I'm sure you are right to some extent. But I think it takes a pretty big leap to suggest that most never read their Bible's outside of Church. Just a thought,
P.S - I could recite most of the 10 commandments, though you are right that I don't know them all off by heart. I just tried and got 9-out-of-10 (I wrote "do not cheat", instead of "do not give false testimony")
Good morning Paranoid. First, during my 4 1/2 years at Ball State, we had Bible study at least twice a week. And during those studies, my Christian brethren had no problem admitting that they had not made time to even read a single chapter. Second, it is simply been my experience over the years, when talking with Christians, that I could mention things in the Bible -- quote passages left and right -- and have them say very frankly "I had no idea that was in there!". This includes my 84-year-old aunt! She has been a devout Christian her entire life. However, whenever we get into discussions concerning the Bible, she hasn't the slightest clue as to what I'm talking about! In fact, when I told her that it was God who created/does evil, she was completely shocked and totally denied it! So, I ran off numerous passages -- and various articles by Christians concerning evil -- proving my point. What did she do?
Threw it away!
Beyond this, many a poll has been taken regarding said issue. Here is one of them from Center for Bible Engagement:
Center for Bible Engagement
The Problem
The lack of biblical literacy in America is at epidemic levels, says Ron Rhodes, President of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. And when he talks about the lack of Bible reading among Americans, he is not talking about the population in general - he is talking about people who call themselves born-again Christians.
In an interview with Assist News Service Rhodes quotes a recent poll, which indicates that 35% of born-again Christians do not read the Bible at all. In addition, Rhodes indicates that among those who say they read the Bible, the vast majority only read it during the one hour they attend church each Sunday morning. Rhodes says such statistics make it more than obvious why many Christians are easy prey for spiritual deception. The level of biblical illiteracy among Christians may be one reason why many believers hesitate to stand for Godly values on the public scene. (Assist News Service / Agape Press, 25/26 December)
Recent studies by The Barna Group and the Gallup Organization conclude that any reasonable understanding of biblical facts and truths is seriously lacking among Americans. Today, basic Christian truths are virtually unknown to a majority in this nation.
“American Christians are biblically illiterate. Although most of them contend that the Bible contains truth and is worth knowing, and most of them argue that they know all of the relevant truths and principles, our research shows otherwise. And the trend line is frightening: the younger a person is, the less they understand about the Christian faith.” —Barna
“Bibles everywhere don’t seem to be making much of a difference. About the same number of people who attend church weekly read the Bible during the week (45%).” —Barna
“Women’s Bibles, men’s Bibles, student Bibles, even software Bibles or the Bible on-line have not increased the numbers of people reading what remains as the bestselling book of all time.” —Barna
According to a recent Gallup poll, about six in ten Americans (59%) say they read the Bible at least on occasion, with the most likely readers being women, non-whites, older people, Republicans, and political conservatives. Readership of the Bible has declined from the 1980s overall, from 73% to 59% today. The percentage of frequent readers, that is, those who read the Bible at least once a week, has decreased slightly over the last decade, from 40% in 1990 to 37% today. About one American in seven reports an involvement that goes beyond reading the Bible. Fourteen percent currently belong to a Bible study group. In terms of frequency of readership, 16% of Americans say that they read the Bible every day, 21% say they read it weekly, 12% say they read the Bible monthly, 10% say less than monthly and 41% say that they rarely or never read the Bible. (Source to follow)
SOURCE
http://www.centerforbibleengagement.org/in...23&Itemid=7
Most kindly,
Sean
Threw it away!
Beyond this, many a poll has been taken regarding said issue. Here is one of them from Center for Bible Engagement:
Center for Bible Engagement
The Problem
The lack of biblical literacy in America is at epidemic levels, says Ron Rhodes, President of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. And when he talks about the lack of Bible reading among Americans, he is not talking about the population in general - he is talking about people who call themselves born-again Christians.
In an interview with Assist News Service Rhodes quotes a recent poll, which indicates that 35% of born-again Christians do not read the Bible at all. In addition, Rhodes indicates that among those who say they read the Bible, the vast majority only read it during the one hour they attend church each Sunday morning. Rhodes says such statistics make it more than obvious why many Christians are easy prey for spiritual deception. The level of biblical illiteracy among Christians may be one reason why many believers hesitate to stand for Godly values on the public scene. (Assist News Service / Agape Press, 25/26 December)
Recent studies by The Barna Group and the Gallup Organization conclude that any reasonable understanding of biblical facts and truths is seriously lacking among Americans. Today, basic Christian truths are virtually unknown to a majority in this nation.
“American Christians are biblically illiterate. Although most of them contend that the Bible contains truth and is worth knowing, and most of them argue that they know all of the relevant truths and principles, our research shows otherwise. And the trend line is frightening: the younger a person is, the less they understand about the Christian faith.” —Barna
“Bibles everywhere don’t seem to be making much of a difference. About the same number of people who attend church weekly read the Bible during the week (45%).” —Barna
“Women’s Bibles, men’s Bibles, student Bibles, even software Bibles or the Bible on-line have not increased the numbers of people reading what remains as the bestselling book of all time.” —Barna
According to a recent Gallup poll, about six in ten Americans (59%) say they read the Bible at least on occasion, with the most likely readers being women, non-whites, older people, Republicans, and political conservatives. Readership of the Bible has declined from the 1980s overall, from 73% to 59% today. The percentage of frequent readers, that is, those who read the Bible at least once a week, has decreased slightly over the last decade, from 40% in 1990 to 37% today. About one American in seven reports an involvement that goes beyond reading the Bible. Fourteen percent currently belong to a Bible study group. In terms of frequency of readership, 16% of Americans say that they read the Bible every day, 21% say they read it weekly, 12% say they read the Bible monthly, 10% say less than monthly and 41% say that they rarely or never read the Bible. (Source to follow)
SOURCE
http://www.centerforbibleengagement.org/in...23&Itemid=7
Most kindly,
Sean
Some denominations emphasize private and group study of the word but others have the pastor, preacher, or priest simply tell their congregation what is in the book and some look no further. I do believe that most Christians as a whole do not read the Bible often enough or pray often enough. How much is enough though eh?
QUOTE (seanph @ Jun 9 2008, 11:43 PM)
Good morning Paranoid. First, during my 4 1/2 years at Ball State, we had Bible study at least twice a week. And during those studies, my Christian brethren had no problem admitting that they had not made time to even read a single chapter. Second, it is simply been my experience over the years, when talking with Christians, that I could mention things in the Bible -- quote passages left and right -- and have them say very frankly "I had no idea that was in there!"....... *snip for brevity*
Beyond this, many a poll has been taken regarding said issue. Here is one of them from Center for Bible Engagement:
[i]Center for Bible Engagement
The Problem
SOURCE
http://www.centerforbibleengagement.org/in...23&Itemid=7
Most kindly,
Sean
Perhaps it's just a difference of American and Australia, or just confined to the area in which I grew up, but that has not been my experience at all. Perhaps since most of the people at my church did not grow up in Christian households (being an Asian church, most of them have Buddhist backgrounds) they don't take what the Bible said as a "given" but read for themselves. But there are quite a lot of knowledgeable people in the Bible studies I have attended over the years. But yes, there have been some who also were not so knowledgeable, so I do partly agree with you. Beyond this, many a poll has been taken regarding said issue. Here is one of them from Center for Bible Engagement:
[i]Center for Bible Engagement
The Problem
SOURCE
http://www.centerforbibleengagement.org/in...23&Itemid=7
Most kindly,
Sean
It's interesting to note that in an area that I don't see has as big a problem with "bible literacy" as your area seems to, we are one of the few areas in the Western World where Chrsitianity is actually on the increase. Perhaps it is the apathy in not reading the Bible that is causing so many people to fall away, whereas in Sydney where this is not the case in many areas, church attendance is slowly rising.
Thanks for your thoughts, anyway
All the best,
QUOTE (Paranoid Android @ Jun 9 2008, 02:25 AM)
Anyone with even the most basic of Bible's should know this already (assuming they have read it). Every version I have read has at the very least a footnote saying these verses do not belong in the original. I say "at the very least" because for John 8 and Mark 16, they are not footnotes, but boldened sections written just before the questionable section starts (and I daresay, 1 John 5 would be the same except that the verse is only a sentence long and thus a footnote is just as easy to read). I also say "at the very least" because I am referring to only the most basic of Bible's. Other Bible's with Study Notes will not ignore this. A Study Bible I was reading once had a full-page article next to the John 8 passage discussing the various implications of this passage and how it changes Christian doctrine, if indeed it does.
My point is that these are not "dirty little secrets" hidden from all but the most read scholars. These are things you can find when you open up your Bible at home (well, they are things I can find when I open up my Bible). So why this would shake the Faith of people, I don't know. It's common knowledge! Moreover, I see it as a strength, that we have so many copies of the original that we can know with such certainty what the original authors wrote or did not write. Compared to other ancient authors whose surviving copies are most often few and date to sometimes a thousand years or more after the writer, and I see that we can easily spot differences as being such a strength of the Bible (though i can also understand how skeptics would try to use it in a negative way towards the Bible).
All the best,
My point is that these are not "dirty little secrets" hidden from all but the most read scholars. These are things you can find when you open up your Bible at home (well, they are things I can find when I open up my Bible). So why this would shake the Faith of people, I don't know. It's common knowledge! Moreover, I see it as a strength, that we have so many copies of the original that we can know with such certainty what the original authors wrote or did not write. Compared to other ancient authors whose surviving copies are most often few and date to sometimes a thousand years or more after the writer, and I see that we can easily spot differences as being such a strength of the Bible (though i can also understand how skeptics would try to use it in a negative way towards the Bible).
All the best,
why would this shake people of faith ? because many christians don't read the bible , but believe what they hear. I threw my bibles out long ago so I can't look up anything save online.
we are talking about misquoting jesus ...... if jesus never said 'he who is without sin cast the first stone ' why is it quoted so often ? no, there are no originals only copies of them which differ from one another.
Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem.
I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian Scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not.
When the individual authors of the NT released their works to the public, each book found a niche in one or another of the burgeoning Christian communities that were scattered, principally in large Greek-speaking urban areas, around the Mediterranean. Anyone within these communities who wanted a copy of these books, whether for private use, as community property, or for general distribution, was compelled to produce a copy by hand, or to acquire the services of someone else to do so.
During the course of their transmission, the original copies of these books came to be lost, worn out, or destroyed; the early Christians evidently saw no need to preserve their original texts for antiquarian or other reasons. Had they been more fully cognizant of what happens to documents that are copied by hand, however, especially by hands that are not professionally trained for the job, they may have exercised greater caution in preserving the originals. As it is, for whatever historical reasons, the originals no longer survive. What do survive are copies of the originals, or, to be more precise, copies made from the copies of the copies of the originals, thousands of these subsequent copies, dating from the 2nd to the 16th centuries, some of them tiny fragments the size of a credit card, uncovered in garbage heaps buried in the sands of Egypt, others of them enormous and elegant tomes preserved in the great libraries and monasteries of Europe. It is difficult to know what the authors of the Greek New Testament wrote, in many instances, because all of these surviving copies differ from one another, sometimes significantly.
The severity of the problem was not recognized throughout the Middle Ages or even, for the most part, during the Renaissance. Indeed, biblical scholars were not forcefully confronted with the uncertainty of their texts until the early eighteenth century. The floodgates opened in 1707, when an Oxford scholar named John Mill published an edition of the Greek New Testament that contained a critical apparatus systematically and graphically detailing the differences among the surviving witnesses of the NT. Mill had devoted some thirty years of his life to examining a hundred or so Greek MSS, the early versions of the NT, and the citations of the NT in the writings of the church fathers. His apparatus did not include all of the differences that he had uncovered in his investigation, but only the ones that he considered significant for the purposes of exegesis or textual reconstruction. These, however, were enough. To the shock and dismay of many of his contemporaries, Mill's apparatus indicated some 30,000 places of variation, 30,000 places where the available witnesses to the NT text differed from one another...................cont
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html
what I do find odd is alot of these scholars that 'disagree' with Ehrman often point out his loss of faith as somehow distracting him from being a scholar. yet in that same line of thinking one can say the fever at which believers will go to keep their beliefs intact as to avoid truths can be just as distracting.
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 9 2008, 12:43 AM)
It is not as if everyone within academia agrees with Bart Ehrman. There is no issue for those that do agree with him, even those outside of academia, but his view is not consensus. In fact Bart Ehrman makes claims and a claim is not the same as stating fact that everyone will accept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Ehrman
There are other noted scholars that disagree with Ehrman's conclusions and claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Witherington_III
Daniel Wallace also has vast credentials and disagrees with Ehrman to a degree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_B._Wallace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Ehrman
There are other noted scholars that disagree with Ehrman's conclusions and claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Witherington_III
Daniel Wallace also has vast credentials and disagrees with Ehrman to a degree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_B._Wallace
Clovis, I noticed that both Ben Witherington III and Daniel B. Wallace are Evangelical Christians... of course they are going to disagree with Ehrman's theory on the historicity of the NT.
So true Church! They are apologists -- particularly Witherington. You can throw Craig Evans in there as well. Now, here are the words of Evans and Witherington III themselves attacking Ehrman et al ... and they clearly show apologists at work and not true Biblical scholars. They are trying to pass-off their faith-based beliefs as history.
"Fabricating Jesus is not simply an attack on bad ideas; it is a positive presentation of the truth of the Christian message."-Craig Evans
AND:
Witherington III:
"... 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).
On apologists such as Evans, Witherington III ...
"... What aspects of the texts and the scholarship do they find objectionable? Are they motivated purely by the desire to present history accurately? or are they concerned more about defending Christianity from what they perceive as a demonic attack on its integrity? Are they honest in their assessments of the material? or are they trying to sway the opinion of their readers by intentional deception? In the end I would hope that readers would place more stock in scholarship that holds itself to a high standard of intellectual honesty rather than apologetics that sacrifices honesty in its rush to rescue Christianity from its critics..."--Dr. Tony Chartrand-Burke, Biblical Studies at the Atkinson School of Arts and Letters, York University in Toronto, Canada
Most kindly,
Sean
"Fabricating Jesus is not simply an attack on bad ideas; it is a positive presentation of the truth of the Christian message."-Craig Evans
AND:
Witherington III:
"... 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).
On apologists such as Evans, Witherington III ...
"... What aspects of the texts and the scholarship do they find objectionable? Are they motivated purely by the desire to present history accurately? or are they concerned more about defending Christianity from what they perceive as a demonic attack on its integrity? Are they honest in their assessments of the material? or are they trying to sway the opinion of their readers by intentional deception? In the end I would hope that readers would place more stock in scholarship that holds itself to a high standard of intellectual honesty rather than apologetics that sacrifices honesty in its rush to rescue Christianity from its critics..."--Dr. Tony Chartrand-Burke, Biblical Studies at the Atkinson School of Arts and Letters, York University in Toronto, Canada
Most kindly,
Sean
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 10 2008, 12:11 AM)
why would this shake people of faith ? because many christians don't read the bible , but believe what they hear. I threw my bibles out long ago so I can't look up anything save online.
we are talking about misquoting jesus ...... if jesus never said 'he who is without sin cast the first stone ' why is it quoted so often ? no, there are no originals only copies of them which differ from one another.
Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem.
I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian Scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not.
When the individual authors of the NT released their works to the public, each book found a niche in one or another of the burgeoning Christian communities that were scattered, principally in large Greek-speaking urban areas, around the Mediterranean. Anyone within these communities who wanted a copy of these books, whether for private use, as community property, or for general distribution, was compelled to produce a copy by hand, or to acquire the services of someone else to do so.
During the course of their transmission, the original copies of these books came to be lost, worn out, or destroyed; the early Christians evidently saw no need to preserve their original texts for antiquarian or other reasons. Had they been more fully cognizant of what happens to documents that are copied by hand, however, especially by hands that are not professionally trained for the job, they may have exercised greater caution in preserving the originals. As it is, for whatever historical reasons, the originals no longer survive. What do survive are copies of the originals, or, to be more precise, copies made from the copies of the copies of the originals, thousands of these subsequent copies, dating from the 2nd to the 16th centuries, some of them tiny fragments the size of a credit card, uncovered in garbage heaps buried in the sands of Egypt, others of them enormous and elegant tomes preserved in the great libraries and monasteries of Europe. It is difficult to know what the authors of the Greek New Testament wrote, in many instances, because all of these surviving copies differ from one another, sometimes significantly.
The severity of the problem was not recognized throughout the Middle Ages or even, for the most part, during the Renaissance. Indeed, biblical scholars were not forcefully confronted with the uncertainty of their texts until the early eighteenth century. The floodgates opened in 1707, when an Oxford scholar named John Mill published an edition of the Greek New Testament that contained a critical apparatus systematically and graphically detailing the differences among the surviving witnesses of the NT. Mill had devoted some thirty years of his life to examining a hundred or so Greek MSS, the early versions of the NT, and the citations of the NT in the writings of the church fathers. His apparatus did not include all of the differences that he had uncovered in his investigation, but only the ones that he considered significant for the purposes of exegesis or textual reconstruction. These, however, were enough. To the shock and dismay of many of his contemporaries, Mill's apparatus indicated some 30,000 places of variation, 30,000 places where the available witnesses to the NT text differed from one another...................cont
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html
what I do find odd is alot of these scholars that 'disagree' with Ehrman often point out his loss of faith as somehow distracting him from being a scholar. yet in that same line of thinking one can say the fever at which believers will go to keep their beliefs intact as to avoid truths can be just as distracting.
Lt R, I think you are over-stating the differences in the texts. Most of them are largely the same, with only minor variations in spelling or grammar in most instances being the difference. I think by stating what you have, you are making a mountain out of a mole-hill, saying "there are teeny differences, but that means no one knows what was really ever written". we are talking about misquoting jesus ...... if jesus never said 'he who is without sin cast the first stone ' why is it quoted so often ? no, there are no originals only copies of them which differ from one another.
Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem.
I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian Scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not.
When the individual authors of the NT released their works to the public, each book found a niche in one or another of the burgeoning Christian communities that were scattered, principally in large Greek-speaking urban areas, around the Mediterranean. Anyone within these communities who wanted a copy of these books, whether for private use, as community property, or for general distribution, was compelled to produce a copy by hand, or to acquire the services of someone else to do so.
During the course of their transmission, the original copies of these books came to be lost, worn out, or destroyed; the early Christians evidently saw no need to preserve their original texts for antiquarian or other reasons. Had they been more fully cognizant of what happens to documents that are copied by hand, however, especially by hands that are not professionally trained for the job, they may have exercised greater caution in preserving the originals. As it is, for whatever historical reasons, the originals no longer survive. What do survive are copies of the originals, or, to be more precise, copies made from the copies of the copies of the originals, thousands of these subsequent copies, dating from the 2nd to the 16th centuries, some of them tiny fragments the size of a credit card, uncovered in garbage heaps buried in the sands of Egypt, others of them enormous and elegant tomes preserved in the great libraries and monasteries of Europe. It is difficult to know what the authors of the Greek New Testament wrote, in many instances, because all of these surviving copies differ from one another, sometimes significantly.
The severity of the problem was not recognized throughout the Middle Ages or even, for the most part, during the Renaissance. Indeed, biblical scholars were not forcefully confronted with the uncertainty of their texts until the early eighteenth century. The floodgates opened in 1707, when an Oxford scholar named John Mill published an edition of the Greek New Testament that contained a critical apparatus systematically and graphically detailing the differences among the surviving witnesses of the NT. Mill had devoted some thirty years of his life to examining a hundred or so Greek MSS, the early versions of the NT, and the citations of the NT in the writings of the church fathers. His apparatus did not include all of the differences that he had uncovered in his investigation, but only the ones that he considered significant for the purposes of exegesis or textual reconstruction. These, however, were enough. To the shock and dismay of many of his contemporaries, Mill's apparatus indicated some 30,000 places of variation, 30,000 places where the available witnesses to the NT text differed from one another...................cont
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html
what I do find odd is alot of these scholars that 'disagree' with Ehrman often point out his loss of faith as somehow distracting him from being a scholar. yet in that same line of thinking one can say the fever at which believers will go to keep their beliefs intact as to avoid truths can be just as distracting.
Let me put it another way, I'll use an analogy I read a while back (I'll paraphrase it). Imagine Aunty Gertrude has invented the best recipe for Chocolate pudding. She writes down the recipe. She gives some pudding to her friends who all want the recipe. She gives it to them and they copy it. Eventually 25 different people have copied the recipe.
Unfortunately, Aunty Gertrude loses her recipe and can't recall what it was, so she brings the 25 people who copied it together to find out what was originally written. Most of them are remarkably similar. 1-out-of-25 said "1tsp of sugar", whereas the other 24 said "1 tbs of sugar". 3-out-of-25 said "beat then mix the eggs", while the other 22 said "mix the eggs together and then beat the mixture". A further 2 shortened the recipe title to "Choc pudding" instead of "chocolate pudding". A further 4 had all the ingredients but placed them in a different order (ie, 1 said "2 eggs, 1 cup of milk" while the rest said "1 cup of milk, 2 eggs"). further, 1 copy included caramel in the recipe as well as chocolate. In all, that means 11 of them were "different". Does that mean we cannot trace what Aunty Gertrude's pudding was supposed to be? By a simple process of elimination it is easy to tell what the original recipe was, because it is easy to see where the similarities between them all are.
Of course, you will say the opposite to me, that I am understating the differences and that they are all major and glaring.
P.S -
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 10 2008, 12:11 AM)
we are talking about misquoting jesus ...... if jesus never said 'he who is without sin cast the first stone ' why is it quoted so often ? no, there are no originals only copies of them which differ from one another.
I don't quote "He who is without sin", I know it's an addition (though I can't speak for other Christians, obviously). Oh, and I never said there were any "originals". I said that with the amount of copies we can know with certainty what the originals meant.QUOTE (seanph @ Jun 9 2008, 09:28 AM)
So true Church! They are apologists -- particularly Witherington. You can throw Craig Evans in there as well. Now, here are the words of Evans and Witherington III themselves attacking Ehrman et al ... and they clearly show apologists at work and not true Biblical scholars. They are trying to pass-off their faith-based beliefs as history.
"Fabricating Jesus is not simply an attack on bad ideas; it is a positive presentation of the truth of the Christian message."-Craig Evans
AND:
Witherington III:
"... 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).
"Fabricating Jesus is not simply an attack on bad ideas; it is a positive presentation of the truth of the Christian message."-Craig Evans
AND:
Witherington III:
"... 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).
No surprises there. While I respect the fact that they believe that their knowledge of the Bible is theologically sound, does their theology get in the way of an honest, thorough and unbiased historical assessment of the New Testament? I would think so...
QUOTE
On apologists such as Evans, Witherington III ...
"... What aspects of the texts and the scholarship do they find objectionable? Are they motivated purely by the desire to present history accurately? or are they concerned more about defending Christianity from what they perceive as a demonic attack on its integrity? Are they honest in their assessments of the material? or are they trying to sway the opinion of their readers by intentional deception? In the end I would hope that readers would place more stock in scholarship that holds itself to a high standard of intellectual honesty rather than apologetics that sacrifices honesty in its rush to rescue Christianity from its critics..."--Dr. Tony Chartrand-Burke, Biblical Studies at the Atkinson School of Arts and Letters, York University in Toronto, Canada
Most kindly,
Sean
"... What aspects of the texts and the scholarship do they find objectionable? Are they motivated purely by the desire to present history accurately? or are they concerned more about defending Christianity from what they perceive as a demonic attack on its integrity? Are they honest in their assessments of the material? or are they trying to sway the opinion of their readers by intentional deception? In the end I would hope that readers would place more stock in scholarship that holds itself to a high standard of intellectual honesty rather than apologetics that sacrifices honesty in its rush to rescue Christianity from its critics..."--Dr. Tony Chartrand-Burke, Biblical Studies at the Atkinson School of Arts and Letters, York University in Toronto, Canada
Most kindly,
Sean
Dr. Chartrand-Burke basically took the words out of my mouth, and the quotes by Evans and Witherington only serve to affirm that. Honestly, while I understand why a Christian may feel that a scholar such as Ehrman has an agenda against Christianity with his message, this subject brings up some interesting philosophical questions:
1. When studying a religious text, what mindset is the best to take? Should you have the mindset of a believer, a believer in an opposing faith? Or something else?
2. With the fact that each individual is biased towards what they believe, can we ever know the truth about such matters as what the Bible actually says and what was actually written?
Cheers
Churchanddestroy
QUOTE (churchanddestroy @ Jun 10 2008, 12:40 AM)
this subject brings up some interesting philosophical questions:
1. When studying a religious text, what mindset is the best to take? Should you have the mindset of a believer, a believer in an opposing faith? Or something else?
2. With the fact that each individual is biased towards what they believe, can we ever know the truth about such matters as what the Bible actually says and what was actually written?
Cheers
Churchanddestroy
Very good questions. that's exactly what I was thinking. the natural rebuff to "they're apologists - they're biased" would be "Ehrman is also biased". So what is the best course to take in matters such as this????? Might be worth a thread to discuss it.....1. When studying a religious text, what mindset is the best to take? Should you have the mindset of a believer, a believer in an opposing faith? Or something else?
2. With the fact that each individual is biased towards what they believe, can we ever know the truth about such matters as what the Bible actually says and what was actually written?
Cheers
Churchanddestroy
QUOTE (Paranoid Android @ Jun 9 2008, 09:42 AM)
Very good questions. that's exactly what I was thinking. the natural rebuff to "they're apologists - they're biased" would be "Ehrman is also biased". So what is the best course to take in matters such as this????? Might be worth a thread to discuss it.....
Great, I'll post it.
QUOTE
Dr. Chartrand-Burke basically took the words out of my mouth, and the quotes by Evans and Witherington only serve to affirm that. Honestly, while I understand why a Christian may feel that a scholar such as Ehrman has an agenda against Christianity with his message, this subject brings up some interesting philosophical questions:
1. When studying a religious text, what mindset is the best to take? Should you have the mindset of a believer, a believer in an opposing faith? Or something else?
2. With the fact that each individual is biased towards what they believe, can we ever know the truth about such matters as what the Bible actually says and what was actually written?
Cheers
Churchanddestroy
1. When studying a religious text, what mindset is the best to take? Should you have the mindset of a believer, a believer in an opposing faith? Or something else?
2. With the fact that each individual is biased towards what they believe, can we ever know the truth about such matters as what the Bible actually says and what was actually written?
Cheers
Churchanddestroy
Great questions Church.
As a Classicist, I can tell you that it is often assumed by Christians, that simply because you are a professor at a university, you are somehow biased and distorting the truth of the Bible. I hear this repeatedly. All Biblical scholars, Classicist, Historians so forth and so on, must follow very stringent guidelines in order to come to as close to the truth as facts allow. Their jobs are on the line if they stray from these guidelines -- a.k.a. Historical Method (the Criticisms). The text book one reads in any university is there only because it has passed a brutal process of peer-review, editing so forth and so on. So, I would say the Biblical exegete -- in this case professor Bart Ehrman et al -- is far from biased. And, yes, Biblical scholars often disagree on certain aspects of Old and New Testament documents -- but that only shows a desire to delve as deeply as possible to get history correct. Can the Christian apologists say this? Absolutely not! As I have mentioned here before, this is one of the main reasons why I left Christianity. As someone mentioned in another thread, apologists twist history to make it fit their preconceived notions of what should be--Evans, Witherington et al. Of course, that should not be! Facts should simply fall into place like the pieces of the giant jigsaw puzzle if that belief system is true. It is the scholar who should be stumped, have to jump through hoops to make the facts fit ... and not the apologists. In fact, there should be no need for apologists at all! That alone is a red flag -- a red flag that I personally could no longer ignore.Historian are not trying to destroy Christianity. They are looking at Christianity from a purely historical perspective--Criticism[s]. And "'Critical' in this usage does not mean "negative" but refers to an analytical and objective approach."--An Introduction to the Bible, Musser, Donald and Reddish, Michell and Fant, Clyde, p. 20-24
The Historical Critical approach to the bible from An Introduction to the Bible...
Approaches to the Bible
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2204349
Again, any time scholars apply the various forms of Historical Critical Method to Jesus and the NT, you get a negative reaction from apologetic circles. This has been going on now since Thomas Jefferson first applied criticism to Jesus and the NT. It led to a revolution in Biblical studies. Applaud! Yea!
Most kindly,
Sean
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 7 2008, 06:57 AM)
Scholar Bart Ehrman's new book explores how scribes through both omission and intention changed the Bible.
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is the result of years of reading the texts in their original languages.
Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity, he is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The Topic: Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture and Readers Who May Never Know
A talk by Pro. Bart Ehrman
In this lecture, Prof. Ehrman explains how the modern Bible was shaped by mistakes and intentional alterations that were made by early scribes who copied the texts
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJluEnIqTVk
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is the result of years of reading the texts in their original languages.
Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity, he is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The Topic: Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture and Readers Who May Never Know
A talk by Pro. Bart Ehrman
In this lecture, Prof. Ehrman explains how the modern Bible was shaped by mistakes and intentional alterations that were made by early scribes who copied the texts
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJluEnIqTVk
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
a amazing man, great thread Lady R..
QUOTE (seanph @ Jun 9 2008, 08:35 AM)
Great questions Church. As a Classicist, I can tell you that it is often assumed by Christians, that simply because you are a professor at a university, you are somehow biased and distorting the truth of the Bible. I hear this repeatedly. All Biblical scholars, Classicist, Historians so forth and so on, must follow very stringent guidelines in order to come to as close to the truth as facts allow. Their jobs are on the line if they stray from these guidelines -- a.k.a. Historical Method (the Criticisms). The text book one reads in any university is there only because it has passed a brutal process of peer-review, editing so forth and so on. So, I would say the Biblical exegete -- in this case professor Bart Ehrman et al -- is far from biased. And, yes, Biblical scholars often disagree on certain aspects of Old and New Testament documents -- but that only shows a desire to delve as deeply as possible to get history correct. Can the Christian apologists say this? Absolutely not! As I have mentioned here before, this is one of the main reasons why I left Christianity. As someone mentioned in another thread, apologists twist history to make it fit their preconceived notions of what should be--Evans, Witherington et al. Of course, that should not be! Facts should simply fall into place like the pieces of the giant jigsaw puzzle if that belief system is true. It is the scholar who should be stumped, have to jump through hoops to make the facts fit ... and not the apologists. In fact, there should be no need for apologists at all! That alone is a red flag -- a red flag that I personally could no longer ignore.
Historian are not trying to destroy Christianity. They are looking at Christianity from a purely historical perspective--Criticism[s]. And "'Critical' in this usage does not mean "negative" but refers to an analytical and objective approach."--An Introduction to the Bible, Musser, Donald and Reddish, Michell and Fant, Clyde, p. 20-24
The Historical Critical approach to the bible from An Introduction to the Bible...
Approaches to the Bible
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2204349
Again, any time scholars apply the various forms of Historical Critical Method to Jesus and the NT, you get a negative reaction from apologetic circles. This has been going on now since Thomas Jefferson first applied criticism to Jesus and the NT. It led to a revolution in Biblical studies. Applaud! Yea!
Most kindly,
Sean
As a Classicist, I can tell you that it is often assumed by Christians, that simply because you are a professor at a university, you are somehow biased and distorting the truth of the Bible. I hear this repeatedly. All Biblical scholars, Classicist, Historians so forth and so on, must follow very stringent guidelines in order to come to as close to the truth as facts allow. Their jobs are on the line if they stray from these guidelines -- a.k.a. Historical Method (the Criticisms). The text book one reads in any university is there only because it has passed a brutal process of peer-review, editing so forth and so on. So, I would say the Biblical exegete -- in this case professor Bart Ehrman et al -- is far from biased. And, yes, Biblical scholars often disagree on certain aspects of Old and New Testament documents -- but that only shows a desire to delve as deeply as possible to get history correct. Can the Christian apologists say this? Absolutely not! As I have mentioned here before, this is one of the main reasons why I left Christianity. As someone mentioned in another thread, apologists twist history to make it fit their preconceived notions of what should be--Evans, Witherington et al. Of course, that should not be! Facts should simply fall into place like the pieces of the giant jigsaw puzzle if that belief system is true. It is the scholar who should be stumped, have to jump through hoops to make the facts fit ... and not the apologists. In fact, there should be no need for apologists at all! That alone is a red flag -- a red flag that I personally could no longer ignore.Historian are not trying to destroy Christianity. They are looking at Christianity from a purely historical perspective--Criticism[s]. And "'Critical' in this usage does not mean "negative" but refers to an analytical and objective approach."--An Introduction to the Bible, Musser, Donald and Reddish, Michell and Fant, Clyde, p. 20-24
The Historical Critical approach to the bible from An Introduction to the Bible...
Approaches to the Bible
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2204349
Again, any time scholars apply the various forms of Historical Critical Method to Jesus and the NT, you get a negative reaction from apologetic circles. This has been going on now since Thomas Jefferson first applied criticism to Jesus and the NT. It led to a revolution in Biblical studies. Applaud! Yea!
Most kindly,
Sean
Seany p that is very true, they have to suspend bias as proffessors..using a methodology that is rigorous and scientific in every sense of the word....
You are correct many just don't know because studying religious history or literature is not a priority for most.....esepcailly studying it seriously...
I applaud with you.....
Amen sister! 
But as three other scholars have pointed out the book "Misquoting Jesus" is sensationalist and written for a lay audience rather than a scientific presentation. As they have said it also highly misses the mark and deals little with Jesus and mostly with the actual process of textual criticism, which they agreed with, but also delved into Ehrman's own bias and agenda regarding the accuracy and reliability of the NT. Ehrman is allowed to write a book that is not accepted by a consensus of other NT scholars because that book was not presented to them but was written for lay people. It is a catch-22 and while sean is correct that it is not true that 'simply because you are a professor at a university, you are somehow biased and distorting the truth of the Bible', that statement does not apply at all to the book "Misquoting Jesus". As three other scholars have pointed out in their reviews of the book "Misquoting Jesus", especially the final chapters, are biased and a distortion of the truth.
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 9 2008, 08:54 AM)
But as three other scholars have pointed out the book "Misquoting Jesus" is sensationalist and written for a lay audience rather than a scientific presentation. As they have said it also highly misses the mark and deals little with Jesus and mostly with the actual process of textual criticism, which they agreed with, but also delved into Ehrman's own bias and agenda regarding the accuracy and reliability of the NT. Ehrman is allowed to write a book that is not accepted by a consensus of other NT scholars because that book was not presented to them but was written for lay people. It is a catch-22 and while sean is correct that it is not true that 'simply because you are a professor at a university, you are somehow biased and distorting the truth of the Bible', that statement does not apply at all to the book "Misquoting Jesus". As three other scholars have pointed out in their reviews of the book "Misquoting Jesus", especially the final chapters, are biased and a distortion of the truth.
clovis who are the other 3 scholars???? Erhman is hard to top in his field.....Lets face it this is not a highly populated field either..
clovis have you read this book or do you know of any of Erhmans other works ?????
Yes, it was written for the lay person so they may have a better understanding of how TC works/is applied to ancient texts. And who stated--beyond Christian apologists--that his work is not accepted as consensus? He has written nothing new here; it well-known amongst TC's.
QUOTE (seanph @ Jun 9 2008, 09:01 AM)
Yes, it was written for the lay person so they may have a better understanding of how TC works/is applied to ancient texts. And who stated--beyond Christian apologists--that his work is not accepted as consensus? He has written nothing new here; it well-known amongst TC's.
thats my question also Seany P....I'd like to have a looksie myself ...
You both might have not read the whole first thirteen posts of this thread. The three scholars were Ben Witherington, Daniel Wallace, and Peter Williams. Their full credentials as well as their comments have all been posted already and they in turn serve to provide balance to this thread. And it is Bruce Metzger who is still considered the top of that field and not Ehrman.
Each of those three scholars have already made strong points that "Misquoting Jesus" is not accepted as consensus. When and if you can find at least two or three other scholars whose credentials match Witherington, Wallace, and Williams then perhaps you might have a case. But as of now insinuating that Ehrman's work is considered as consensus by other NT scholars will be considered a blatant lie. Provide the sources if you can because you cannot expect the readers of this forum to simply take your word for it nor should you expect them to.
Each of those three scholars have already made strong points that "Misquoting Jesus" is not accepted as consensus. When and if you can find at least two or three other scholars whose credentials match Witherington, Wallace, and Williams then perhaps you might have a case. But as of now insinuating that Ehrman's work is considered as consensus by other NT scholars will be considered a blatant lie. Provide the sources if you can because you cannot expect the readers of this forum to simply take your word for it nor should you expect them to.
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 9 2008, 11:17 AM)
You both might have not read the whole first thirteen posts of this thread. The three scholars were Ben Witherington, Daniel Wallace, and Peter Williams. Their full credentials as well as their comments have all been posted already and they in turn serve to provide balance to this thread. And it is Bruce Metzger who is still considered the top of that field and not Ehrman.
Each of those three scholars have already made strong points that "Misquoting Jesus" is not accepted as consensus. When and if you can find at least two or three other scholars whose credentials match Witherington, Wallace, and Williams then perhaps you might have a case. But as of now insinuating that Ehrman's work is considered as consensus by other NT scholars will be considered a blatant lie. Provide the sources if you can because you cannot expect the readers of this forum to simply take your word for it nor should you expect them to.
Each of those three scholars have already made strong points that "Misquoting Jesus" is not accepted as consensus. When and if you can find at least two or three other scholars whose credentials match Witherington, Wallace, and Williams then perhaps you might have a case. But as of now insinuating that Ehrman's work is considered as consensus by other NT scholars will be considered a blatant lie. Provide the sources if you can because you cannot expect the readers of this forum to simply take your word for it nor should you expect them to.
And I have already pointed out the scholars you named are Christian Apologeticists, and Sean gave quotes explaining why they rejected Ehrman's work: that they saw it as a direct attack against Christianity.
QUOTE (seanph @ Jun 10 2008, 01:35 AM)
Great questions Church. As a Classicist, I can tell you that it is often assumed by Christians, that simply because you are a professor at a university, you are somehow biased and distorting the truth of the Bible. I hear this repeatedly. All Biblical scholars, Classicist, Historians so forth and so on, must follow very stringent guidelines in order to come to as close to the truth as facts allow. Their jobs are on the line if they stray from these guidelines.....
I wouldn't say that, since there are Christians who are university professors as well. Dr John Dickson, for example, is head of Ancient History at the University of Melbourne, and in charge of Post-graduate studies in that area. He admits taht he is a scholar first, and a Christian second. So far, from what I have read/watched of him, his research is impeccable (though naturally a little biased - but not overly so, and his bias doesn't get in the way of stating when an historical issue is at stake - I highly recommend him (from what I have read/watched of him, at least. As a Classicist, I can tell you that it is often assumed by Christians, that simply because you are a professor at a university, you are somehow biased and distorting the truth of the Bible. I hear this repeatedly. All Biblical scholars, Classicist, Historians so forth and so on, must follow very stringent guidelines in order to come to as close to the truth as facts allow. Their jobs are on the line if they stray from these guidelines.....But I see what you are trying to say, though
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 9 2008, 12:17 PM)
You both might have not read the whole first thirteen posts of this thread. The three scholars were Ben Witherington, Daniel Wallace, and Peter Williams. Their full credentials as well as their comments have all been posted already and they in turn serve to provide balance to this thread. And it is Bruce Metzger who is still considered the top of that field and not Ehrman.
Each of those three scholars have already made strong points that "Misquoting Jesus" is not accepted as consensus. When and if you can find at least two or three other scholars whose credentials match Witherington, Wallace, and Williams then perhaps you might have a case. But as of now insinuating that Ehrman's work is considered as consensus by other NT scholars will be considered a blatant lie. Provide the sources if you can because you cannot expect the readers of this forum to simply take your word for it nor should you expect them to.
Each of those three scholars have already made strong points that "Misquoting Jesus" is not accepted as consensus. When and if you can find at least two or three other scholars whose credentials match Witherington, Wallace, and Williams then perhaps you might have a case. But as of now insinuating that Ehrman's work is considered as consensus by other NT scholars will be considered a blatant lie. Provide the sources if you can because you cannot expect the readers of this forum to simply take your word for it nor should you expect them to.
yes Bruce Metzger
From the Publisher
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
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.
and an opinion on Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus from none other than Daniel B. Wallace
I'm sure at no point during your early years of work in this did you, in your wildest dreams, imagine that a book on textual criticism would ever hit the bestseller list; ! How exactly did that happen? a question to Wallace.
No kidding! Most New Testament scholars think that textual criticism is an arcane and boring subject, so what hope was there that the public in general would become interested in this topic? It took a scholar who knew how to put the cookies on the lower shelf, so to speak, to do this. Kudos to Bart Ehrman for his book, Misquoting Jesus.
But it wasn’t just clear and witty communication that made Misquoting Jesus a New York bestseller. It was also the angle that Ehrman brought to the book: the New Testament manuscripts have been corrupted and they are not reliable guides to what the New Testament originally said. At least, I think that’s what Ehrman is trying to say in the book. He’s very careful not to commit too much to any one viewpoint, and those whose faith could be easily shaken find the book rather disturbing. But elsewhere he seems to have argued that we can virtually recover the original wording and that no great theological issues hang in the balance. One could be jaded and say that Ehrman is just trying to sell books, and that he knows his audiences well enough to know what to say that will titillate them. Regardless of his motives, Misquoting Jesus is a provocative book that seems to level its attacks at the very foundation of Christian orthodoxy today—namely, that the scribes have corrupted the text of the New Testament in major ways, in ways that get to the core of the faith.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/02/int...ace-part-2.html
sounds pretty good to me
QUOTE (churchanddestroy @ Jun 9 2008, 09:30 AM)
And I have already pointed out the scholars you named are Christian Apologeticists, and Sean gave quotes explaining why they rejected Ehrman's work: that they saw it as a direct attack against Christianity.
seany p's quote:
So true Church! They are apologists -- particularly Witherington. You can throw Craig Evans in there as well. Now, here are the words of Evans and Witherington III themselves attacking Ehrman et al ... and they clearly show apologists at work and not true Biblical scholars. They are trying to pass-off their faith-based beliefs as history.
"Fabricating Jesus is not simply an attack on bad ideas; it is a positive presentation of the truth of the Christian message."-Craig Evans
AND:
Witherington III:
"... 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).
On apologists such as Evans, Witherington III ...
"... What aspects of the texts and the scholarship do they find objectionable? Are they motivated purely by the desire to present history accurately? or are they concerned more about defending Christianity from what they perceive as a demonic attack on its integrity? Are they honest in their assessments of the material? or are they trying to sway the opinion of their readers by intentional deception? In the end I would hope that readers would place more stock in scholarship that holds itself to a high standard of intellectual honesty rather than apologetics that sacrifices honesty in its rush to rescue Christianity from its critics..."--Dr. Tony Chartrand-Burke, Biblical Studies at the Atkinson School of Arts and Letters, York University in Toronto, Canada
when analyisng anything you want your sources to be as free of vested interest as possible....to let the reserchere arrive at their own conclusions....
Whats the vested interest in a historian saying we don't have the evidence to support this posit?????
why is it seen as threat to ones faith???? why would it matter????
Pa what woudl you recommend reading on the source you provided i would be interested in taking a look at this man...it sounds as if he is fair and for me that is important place to start.... regardless of how I conclude...
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 9 2008, 09:50 AM)
yes Bruce Metzger
From the Publisher
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
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.
and an opinion on Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus from none other than Daniel B. Wallace
I'm sure at no point during your early years of work in this did you, in your wildest dreams, imagine that a book on textual criticism would ever hit the bestseller list; ! How exactly did that happen? a question to Wallace.
No kidding! Most New Testament scholars think that textual criticism is an arcane and boring subject, so what hope was there that the public in general would become interested in this topic? It took a scholar who knew how to put the cookies on the lower shelf, so to speak, to do this. Kudos to Bart Ehrman for his book, Misquoting Jesus.
But it wasn't just clear and witty communication that made Misquoting Jesus a New York bestseller. It was also the angle that Ehrman brought to the book: the New Testament manuscripts have been corrupted and they are not reliable guides to what the New Testament originally said. At least, I think that's what Ehrman is trying to say in the book. He's very careful not to commit too much to any one viewpoint, and those whose faith could be easily shaken find the book rather disturbing. But elsewhere he seems to have argued that we can virtually recover the original wording and that no great theological issues hang in the balance. One could be jaded and say that Ehrman is just trying to sell books, and that he knows his audiences well enough to know what to say that will titillate them. Regardless of his motives, Misquoting Jesus is a provocative book that seems to level its attacks at the very foundation of Christian orthodoxy today—namely, that the scribes have corrupted the text of the New Testament in major ways, in ways that get to the core of the faith.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/02/int...ace-part-2.html
sounds pretty good to me
From the Publisher
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
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.
and an opinion on Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus from none other than Daniel B. Wallace
I'm sure at no point during your early years of work in this did you, in your wildest dreams, imagine that a book on textual criticism would ever hit the bestseller list; ! How exactly did that happen? a question to Wallace.
No kidding! Most New Testament scholars think that textual criticism is an arcane and boring subject, so what hope was there that the public in general would become interested in this topic? It took a scholar who knew how to put the cookies on the lower shelf, so to speak, to do this. Kudos to Bart Ehrman for his book, Misquoting Jesus.
But it wasn't just clear and witty communication that made Misquoting Jesus a New York bestseller. It was also the angle that Ehrman brought to the book: the New Testament manuscripts have been corrupted and they are not reliable guides to what the New Testament originally said. At least, I think that's what Ehrman is trying to say in the book. He's very careful not to commit too much to any one viewpoint, and those whose faith could be easily shaken find the book rather disturbing. But elsewhere he seems to have argued that we can virtually recover the original wording and that no great theological issues hang in the balance. One could be jaded and say that Ehrman is just trying to sell books, and that he knows his audiences well enough to know what to say that will titillate them. Regardless of his motives, Misquoting Jesus is a provocative book that seems to level its attacks at the very foundation of Christian orthodoxy today—namely, that the scribes have corrupted the text of the New Testament in major ways, in ways that get to the core of the faith.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/02/int...ace-part-2.html
sounds pretty good to me
Lady R take a bow......
Well it really does not matter if someone is an atheist or a Christian since their work can be viewed for what it is. Since Ehrman is an agnostic the same could be said that he was biased but that is not a charge I am willing to make because that would be a fallacy. They are all in the same field as Ehrman and respect each other. More scholars by their own admission disagree with Ehrman. That is what makes consensus. Has Ehrman stated his view is the consensus view? And I guess no one including you Ripley were up to the challenge of providing at least two other NT scholars with as good credentials as the ones I have provided that agree with Ehrman's conclusion.
So to claim they are just biased for being Christians and that it detracts from their work is simply an ad hominem attack which is the reverse of an appeal to authority and both are fallacies. It will not be accepted by those looking at the posted evidence and who wish to discover the truth between both views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Just because Wallace understands the premise of Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" which is "he New Testament manuscripts have been corrupted and they are not reliable guides to what the New Testament" does not mean that Wallace agrees with it. In fact Wallace and Ehrman have debated the reliability of the NT before.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28013
And in regards to that last statement in the above quotes regarding those differences in manuscripts here is further explanation by Wallace from another article which states those differences are mainly inconsequential and are as nuanced as 'spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like' which do not change the meaning or reliability of the NT.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000
So to claim they are just biased for being Christians and that it detracts from their work is simply an ad hominem attack which is the reverse of an appeal to authority and both are fallacies. It will not be accepted by those looking at the posted evidence and who wish to discover the truth between both views.
QUOTE
An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 9 2008, 11:50 AM)
and an opinion on Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus from none other than Daniel B. Wallace
I'm sure at no point during your early years of work in this did you, in your wildest dreams, imagine that a book on textual criticism would ever hit the bestseller list; ! How exactly did that happen? a question to Wallace.
No kidding! Most New Testament scholars think that textual criticism is an arcane and boring subject, so what hope was there that the public in general would become interested in this topic? It took a scholar who knew how to put the cookies on the lower shelf, so to speak, to do this. Kudos to Bart Ehrman for his book, Misquoting Jesus.
But it wasn’t just clear and witty communication that made Misquoting Jesus a New York bestseller. It was also the angle that Ehrman brought to the book: the New Testament manuscripts have been corrupted and they are not reliable guides to what the New Testament originally said. At least, I think that’s what Ehrman is trying to say in the book. He’s very careful not to commit too much to any one viewpoint, and those whose faith could be easily shaken find the book rather disturbing. But elsewhere he seems to have argued that we can virtually recover the original wording and that no great theological issues hang in the balance. One could be jaded and say that Ehrman is just trying to sell books, and that he knows his audiences well enough to know what to say that will titillate them. Regardless of his motives, Misquoting Jesus is a provocative book that seems to level its attacks at the very foundation of Christian orthodoxy today—namely, that the scribes have corrupted the text of the New Testament in major ways, in ways that get to the core of the faith.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/02/int...ace-part-2.html
sounds pretty good to me
I'm sure at no point during your early years of work in this did you, in your wildest dreams, imagine that a book on textual criticism would ever hit the bestseller list; ! How exactly did that happen? a question to Wallace.
No kidding! Most New Testament scholars think that textual criticism is an arcane and boring subject, so what hope was there that the public in general would become interested in this topic? It took a scholar who knew how to put the cookies on the lower shelf, so to speak, to do this. Kudos to Bart Ehrman for his book, Misquoting Jesus.
But it wasn’t just clear and witty communication that made Misquoting Jesus a New York bestseller. It was also the angle that Ehrman brought to the book: the New Testament manuscripts have been corrupted and they are not reliable guides to what the New Testament originally said. At least, I think that’s what Ehrman is trying to say in the book. He’s very careful not to commit too much to any one viewpoint, and those whose faith could be easily shaken find the book rather disturbing. But elsewhere he seems to have argued that we can virtually recover the original wording and that no great theological issues hang in the balance. One could be jaded and say that Ehrman is just trying to sell books, and that he knows his audiences well enough to know what to say that will titillate them. Regardless of his motives, Misquoting Jesus is a provocative book that seems to level its attacks at the very foundation of Christian orthodoxy today—namely, that the scribes have corrupted the text of the New Testament in major ways, in ways that get to the core of the faith.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/02/int...ace-part-2.html
sounds pretty good to me
Just because Wallace understands the premise of Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" which is "he New Testament manuscripts have been corrupted and they are not reliable guides to what the New Testament" does not mean that Wallace agrees with it. In fact Wallace and Ehrman have debated the reliability of the NT before.
QUOTE
NEW ORLEANS (BP)--Abundant evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is found in thousands of manuscripts, produced between the second and 14th centuries, said Daniel Wallace, one of six speakers at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary's annual Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum.
Wallace, an evangelical Christian and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, engaged in a dialog with New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, a self-described agnostic and professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Wallace and Ehrman, featured scholars at the April 4 forum, responded to presentations by Michael Holmes of Bethel University, Dale Martin of Yale University, David Parker of the University of Birmingham (England) and William Warren of New Orleans Seminary.
All together, the 5,500 ancient Greek manuscripts contain around 1.3 million pages of text, Wallace said, and the evidence that can be gleaned from those pages is further reinforced by thousands of ancient translations.
Early on, the New Testament was translated into Latin, Coptic and Syriac, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic and Armenian. Wallace noted that scholars have discovered more than 10,000 Latin manuscripts and as many as 5,000 manuscripts in other ancient languages. In all, there are about 20,000 handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament in various languages.
Even if the Greek manuscripts and early translations were destroyed, Wallace said other ancient documents are available to attest for the authenticity of the New Testament text. Ancient Christian leaders, "the Church Fathers or Patristics," recorded more than a million quotations of the New Testament in their writings.
"The Patristic quotations would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament," Wallace said. "These numbers are breathtaking."
Wallace said a dozen of the Greek manuscripts date to the second century, 64 date to the third century and 48 date to the fourth century. More than 120 Greek manuscripts exist that were produced within 300 years of the composition of the New Testament.
"Most of these are fragmentary, but collectively the whole New Testament is found in them multiple times," Wallace said. "In terms of extant manuscripts, the New Testament textual critic is confronted with an embarrassment of riches."
Ehrman agreed that copies abound but said the evidence for a reliable text is less convincing.
"Sometimes you will hear someone say the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world, and it's absolutely right," Ehrman said. "But you need to realize these copies we have, by and large, are from later times -- centuries after this process was begun."
Ehrman said more than 90 percent of the New Testament manuscripts date from the eighth century, 700 years after the originals were composed. Ehrman said thousands of differences exist throughout the copies.
"The reality is, we don't know [how many variants exist] because nobody has been able to count them all, even with developments of computer technology," Ehrman said. "It is probably easiest to put it in comparative terms. There are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Well, that's a lot."
Wallace, an evangelical Christian and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, engaged in a dialog with New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, a self-described agnostic and professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Wallace and Ehrman, featured scholars at the April 4 forum, responded to presentations by Michael Holmes of Bethel University, Dale Martin of Yale University, David Parker of the University of Birmingham (England) and William Warren of New Orleans Seminary.
All together, the 5,500 ancient Greek manuscripts contain around 1.3 million pages of text, Wallace said, and the evidence that can be gleaned from those pages is further reinforced by thousands of ancient translations.
Early on, the New Testament was translated into Latin, Coptic and Syriac, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic and Armenian. Wallace noted that scholars have discovered more than 10,000 Latin manuscripts and as many as 5,000 manuscripts in other ancient languages. In all, there are about 20,000 handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament in various languages.
Even if the Greek manuscripts and early translations were destroyed, Wallace said other ancient documents are available to attest for the authenticity of the New Testament text. Ancient Christian leaders, "the Church Fathers or Patristics," recorded more than a million quotations of the New Testament in their writings.
"The Patristic quotations would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament," Wallace said. "These numbers are breathtaking."
Wallace said a dozen of the Greek manuscripts date to the second century, 64 date to the third century and 48 date to the fourth century. More than 120 Greek manuscripts exist that were produced within 300 years of the composition of the New Testament.
"Most of these are fragmentary, but collectively the whole New Testament is found in them multiple times," Wallace said. "In terms of extant manuscripts, the New Testament textual critic is confronted with an embarrassment of riches."
Ehrman agreed that copies abound but said the evidence for a reliable text is less convincing.
"Sometimes you will hear someone say the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world, and it's absolutely right," Ehrman said. "But you need to realize these copies we have, by and large, are from later times -- centuries after this process was begun."
Ehrman said more than 90 percent of the New Testament manuscripts date from the eighth century, 700 years after the originals were composed. Ehrman said thousands of differences exist throughout the copies.
"The reality is, we don't know [how many variants exist] because nobody has been able to count them all, even with developments of computer technology," Ehrman said. "It is probably easiest to put it in comparative terms. There are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Well, that's a lot."
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28013
And in regards to that last statement in the above quotes regarding those differences in manuscripts here is further explanation by Wallace from another article which states those differences are mainly inconsequential and are as nuanced as 'spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like' which do not change the meaning or reliability of the NT.
QUOTE
Ehrman overplays the quality of the variants while underscoring their quantity. He says, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”13 Elsewhere he states that the number of variants is as high as 400,000.14 That is true enough, but by itself is misleading. Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation, is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000
QUOTE
That is what makes consensus
if we go by a consensus then Jesus is not the messiah. Most of the world doesn't believe so. so much for consensus ?
doctors used to believe that ulcers were caused by stress until found in the 80's by one that bacteria was the main contributor. the consensus laughed. and were wrong.
We can go with what we choose but when we place minority views above consensus in whatever respective field we are offering a view on then we risk a foray into denialism which might be hard to return from for some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
So if you are making views regarding, for example, New Testament scholarship, then naturally your views have to be weighed against the consensus of other NT scholars. To simply say most of the world does not believe something is besides the fact because they are not offering opinions on NT scholarship. If you want to delve into the theological question of Jesus then our views are in turn weighed by the consensus held in that area. The same goes when regarding the historicity of Jesus when it comes to history and historians. And while textual criticism at times verges on interdisciplinary studies it is mostly a part of literature. Not history and not theology.
It is one of the mistakes many make when discussing things. For example if one is approaching it from a theological standpoint while another is offering a scientific view such as in the case where people discuss evolution. The futility of such debates are glaringly obvious and the majority of balanced evolutionist and theologists know their fields are not suitable for debating the other field. You cannot argue science with religion or religion with science. Clearly the scientific consensus is not the same as the religious consensus and rightly so and it is not a case of one being more correct than the other but about both being different, separate, and unique fields.
QUOTE
Brothers Mark and Chris Hoofnagle describe the term as "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions."[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
So if you are making views regarding, for example, New Testament scholarship, then naturally your views have to be weighed against the consensus of other NT scholars. To simply say most of the world does not believe something is besides the fact because they are not offering opinions on NT scholarship. If you want to delve into the theological question of Jesus then our views are in turn weighed by the consensus held in that area. The same goes when regarding the historicity of Jesus when it comes to history and historians. And while textual criticism at times verges on interdisciplinary studies it is mostly a part of literature. Not history and not theology.
It is one of the mistakes many make when discussing things. For example if one is approaching it from a theological standpoint while another is offering a scientific view such as in the case where people discuss evolution. The futility of such debates are glaringly obvious and the majority of balanced evolutionist and theologists know their fields are not suitable for debating the other field. You cannot argue science with religion or religion with science. Clearly the scientific consensus is not the same as the religious consensus and rightly so and it is not a case of one being more correct than the other but about both being different, separate, and unique fields.
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Jun 9 2008, 10:43 AM)
if we go by a consensus then Jesus is not the messiah. Most of the world doesn't believe so. so much for consensus ?
doctors used to believe that ulcers were caused by stress until found in the 80's by one that bacteria was the main contributor. the consensus laughed. and were wrong.
doctors used to believe that ulcers were caused by stress until found in the 80's by one that bacteria was the main contributor. the consensus laughed. and were wrong.
as with many things lady R... ciggarettes were thought to not cause cancer, the earth was thought to be flat , watermelon seeds were once thought to sprout in the stomach if swallowed etc etc . what many forget is the minds propensity to reach concluisons via imagination..... As we learn more we often redefine ......We once had a doctor who suggested that washing hands before surgery would prevent the spread of bacteria laughed out of the room, or the bloodletting that was practiced also was considered blashmephy that it was challenged as not good for you....actually turns out dangerous ...........we have to keep some aspect of ourselves open to changing our minds inthe light of new data....this is what t science encourages. IMO .....