tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5390111.post3545077253322309768..comments2023-11-29T06:11:58.408-06:00Comments on Meatloaf and a Rosary: The Origins of Christianity and the Early Church: Books by Bart EhrmanLori Arnoldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05600443590399882818noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5390111.post-87966682445842969172014-09-23T00:56:42.963-05:002014-09-23T00:56:42.963-05:00The authors of the gospels:
https://www.youtube.co...The authors of the gospels:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g5cnpO3p8YUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07799594510058597970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5390111.post-45014683545932201392014-09-23T00:47:59.611-05:002014-09-23T00:47:59.611-05:00Differences in the manuscripts do not necessarily ...Differences in the manuscripts do not necessarily mean contradictions.<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3VBNFhC52AUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07799594510058597970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5390111.post-52679779809192692132014-09-23T00:33:41.582-05:002014-09-23T00:33:41.582-05:002. Ehrman's claim that we can't know what ...2. Ehrman's claim that we can't know what the original manuscripts said:<br />Attempting to demonstrate that textual critics face an insurmountable hurdle when attempting to reconstruct the original text, Ehrman cites Celsus again who, “argued that Christians changed the text at will, as if drunk from a drinking bout.”24 He also points out that discrepancies in the Bible were acknowledged in the early Church. “Pope Damascus was so concerned about varieties of Latin manuscripts that he commissioned Jerome to produce a standardized translation.”25<br /><br />What seems to evade Ehrman is that there appears to have been a standard against which to compare these variants. Otherwise, how could one know that there were variants or the text was changed? Ehrman dubiously cites a chief critic of Christianity as if what Celsus says is uncritically true. Ehrman criticizes the manuscripts that were available to Jerome as, “manuscripts that cannot be trusted.”26<br /><br />While criticizing the process of transmission, Ehrman ignores the massive variety of New Testament manuscripts and commentaries on the New Testament available to textual critics. Craig Blomberg points out there are more than 5000 manuscripts available in Greek to help identify textual variants and move close to the original text. Unlike Ehrman who give the impression that all textual scholars seem to think that the original text is unrecoverable due to the questionable transmission process, “Scholars of almost every theological stripe attest to the profound care with which the NT books were copied in the Greek language, and later transmitted and preserved in Syriac, Coptic, Latin and a variety of other ancient European and Middle Eastern languages.”27<br /><br />Moreover, critics have other sources of ancient information to reconstruct much of what is contained in the New Testament. As Professor Kenneth Samples points out, “Even without these thousands of manuscripts, virtually the entire New Testament text could be reproduced from specific scriptural citations within written (and preserved) sermons, commentaries, and various other works of the early church fathers.”28 Ehrman’s apologetic intentions become clear as he seeks to mislead the reader into believing that the New Testament was compiled by a group of illiterate, lazy scribes who cannot be trusted.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07799594510058597970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5390111.post-64963715209621808682014-08-22T17:20:26.030-05:002014-08-22T17:20:26.030-05:00But that's just it--Ehrman is NOT well-respect...But that's just it--Ehrman is NOT well-respected by those who know what they're talking about. Did you visit either of the links I gave? I am interested to hear your feedback once you do.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07799594510058597970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5390111.post-26289656444611078202014-08-13T17:23:16.563-05:002014-08-13T17:23:16.563-05:00Hi there. There's a lot here to respond to, b...Hi there. There's a lot here to respond to, but basically I'll say this. Ehrman DOES agree with the reliability of the New Testament for general historicity, particularly on early Christians and Jesus' life. While he doesn't necessarily believe the stories themselves (miracles, etc) actually happened (but formed from oral tradition over time), he does agree - as do nearly ALL scholars on the subject - that the documents are reliable for historical purposes. This is actually what annoys atheists who want to claim the New Testament is totally fabricated. He argues that no one who is genuinely scholarly thinks this. So maybe I didn't explain that well enough. In "Did Jesus Exist?" he goes into great detail to debunk the "scholars" who claim that it was all forged, made up, that Jesus never lived, etc. He definitely argues that Jesus was a real man who died by crucifixion under Pilate.<br /><br />However, saying all of that, the fact that these stories (the Gospels at least, Paul's early letters are a somewhat different story), were written decades later in another land in another country by another class of people IS significant. Stories that travel that distance over that length of time (even if the time is relatively short when looked at in another way) are bound to grow arms and legs. The fact that the gospels all tell different stories, and the ones that are the same often have very different details, questions the inerrancy of Scripture, which evangelicals hold to dearly. To say Scripture is inerrant just makes no sense - too many stories say too many different things, so even if it was just a slip of the pen, those stories were changed enough to not be inerrant. Also, the "slip of the pen" is true for a lot of discrepancies but not all. Many copies of manuscripts have entirely different passages that are not found in all copies, which appear to be clear additions by later scribes, some trying to interpret a word they don't quite understand and some trying to clarify a theological point. In other words, scribes added things and subtracted things, along with the slip of pens.<br /><br />Obviously I can't guarantee that Ehrman is not just a fraud, but he is well respected in the arena of textual criticism, and he provides ample detail and proofs in his books to back his claims up. <br /><br />As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are mostly copies of manuscripts from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) so not really pertinent to the question of Jesus and Christianity per se.<br /><br />Thanks so much for your interesting comments! I hope I don't sound like I'm arguing with you. I'm trying to respond while cooking dinner, so I'm surely missing some points that deserve comment and possibly rambling a bit.<br /><br />Thanks!Lori Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600443590399882818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5390111.post-6370421581395499472014-08-13T14:06:17.976-05:002014-08-13T14:06:17.976-05:00Hi Lori. This was interesting to read because I...Hi Lori. This was interesting to read because I've asked these same questions before. I'm surprised to read that you tried to get answers to your questions about how the Bible was formed for many years and couldn't...I, too, have been interested in this topic but found the information with little effort. I am curious about one thing--what has given you confidence that what Ehrman writes is valid? I ask sincerely because in my own research, I have found that you can find "scholars" who say anything across the spectrum about Christianity and Jesus (some believe he was a homosexual magician). <br /><br />Interestingly, it's not just Christians who uphold the Bible as reliable. There are plenty of reputable scholars who say that the manuscript support for the Bible is far and above that of other documents we trust. They believe in the historicity of the documents even if they don't believe Christianity is the only way to God.<br /><br />It's not possible to address every single thing you mentioned, but one thing I have learned that I want to share is that the Gospels and epistles being written 20-70 years after Christ's crucifixion is not problematic. That is actually a close time period compared with other historical documents that are regarded as reliable, so it's definitely not strange or suspect. Also, that time period is not removed enough for the eyewitnesses and people mentioned in the writings to have already died. Anyone reading the Gospels could have gone to verify the info with those who were mentioned. This is why Luke goes out of his way to say that he interviewed people and checked on the facts himself. <br /><br />About the manuscripts being copies: There are so many copies of the manuscripts (far far more than comparable historical documents considered valid) that coincide with each other to 95+% accuracy that it doesn't matter what the originals said, believe it or not--because the copies are all saying the same thing and not contradicting each other. You can read about what the differences in the manuscripts are; they are slips of the pen and negligible. Nothing that changes content. This argument is nothing new and has been made for centuries. <br /><br />Also, any time arguments like this come up, it is only fair to mention the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls were manuscripts of scriptures older than the manuscripts that had been discovered up to that point, and, again, said the same things as the latest manuscripts we had.<br /><br />Aside from all this, there are actually lots of scholars who think Ehrman's work is flawed and biased. You can check out their criticisms of his work here:<br /><br />http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/new_testament_corruption.html<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/user/ehrmanproject<br /><br /><br />I think it's great that you are hungry to get answers. We should all be willing to consider the evidence. I would be curious to hear your take on what other scholars have to say about Ehrman.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07799594510058597970noreply@blogger.com