"Forged" by Bart Ehrman

by Dagney 133 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Franklin Massey

  I'm somewhere between Terry and PSac on my opinion of Bart Ehrman. When I read his work, I see the scholarly craft and attention to detail. As for the title FORGED, he and his publishing company have to sell books. The title grabs attention. It may be enough to cause someone to pick up the book and read the synopsis to see if it's for them.

  When I see him speak I get a different impression. I've watched his lectures on YouTube and I don't like how he comes across. He lacks poise, polish and sophistication. He seems like a nerd that was bullied one too many times but now has the power of a microphone and a PhD. He tries too hard to make his point with "can you believe this stuff?!" gestures and facial expressions instead of letting the points make themselves. When he gets ready to set up and argument, it just feels cheap, even though he is usually right.

  Just my opinion.
• 

  PSacramento

  Paul himself warns that others are teaching false things by spreading untruth. How is the writing of letters in Paul's name not forgery?

  A valid point and not one I disagree with.

  What about the warning at the end of Revelation not to "add to" or "subtract from" the received writings?

  How did all those other "Gospels" come to exist which are Non-canonical if they were not forged?

  Who are all those Super-fine Apostles Paul is fighting against?

  All valid questions Terry and are those the issues that Bart is dealing with in that book?
• 

  PSacramento

  Franklin,

  Having seen Bart debate I knwo what you mean and he tends to appeal to "you gotta be kidding" or "see what I mean" or "can you believe this stuff" as opposed to allowing his facts to speak for himself and the reason is that he doesn't really have facts, just speculation and opinion and even though he may be right at times, there is no "cold hard facts" to back him up.

  As with most cases of debating historical writings and events.

  I think that IF Bart would just curtail himself to the fact that certain things are "suspect" and requite us to NOT take them at face value, I think he would do a better Job and not turn away so many people because of his way of doing things.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  This is a "jumping the shark" book title. Ehrman has moved from scholarship to advocacy.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  I think that IF Bart would just curtail himself to the fact that certain things are "suspect" and requite us to NOT take them at face value, I think he would do a better Job and not turn away so many people because of his way of doing things.

  Exactly. If only the OTHER side would only present the things they can prove with the scientific method and not expect us to take invisible talking people at face value they would do a better job and not sound so crazy.

  That is an argument go in both directions.... :)
• 

  leavingwt

  I would expect that many Christians will hate Bart's books, just like the Governing Body hates Ray Franz's books.

  If you're not a Fundamentalist, however, Bart's books may not reveal anything that you don't already know.

  As an ex-JW and former believer in Biblical inerrancy, I found Bart's book 'Misquoting Jesus' to be fascinating, as I had never learned any of these things at the Kingdom Hall. I had a totally distorted view of how the book we call the Bible came to be. I thought it was Holy Spirit-guided Magic.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  I would expect that many Christians will hate Bart's books, just like the Governing Body hates Ray Franz's books.

  I wouldn't describe it as hate in my own case. I am not a fundamentalist to begin with, and I've read some of his writings.

  Years ago, as a JW, when I first started asking questions, I spent a lot of time online debating Christians. I became convinced that the Catholics had corrupted the Bible, because parts of it refuted what I still regarded as the JW "truth." At that time, I read Ehrman's "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture."

  Here is a link to hours' worth of video of Ehrman teaching. Click on the user name for more.

  http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2418184573573995140&ei=8F-PSej8IZLW-gGkhsD9CQ&q=early+christian+church&hl=en&dur=3

  In class, he teaches pretty standard stuff although he does insinuate a bit.

  That said, Protestant-style inerrantism (of which JWism forms a branch) is a fragile thing, and an easy road to atheism I think.

  Ehrman actually introduces nothing new in his books. All his arguments have been made before (and responded to).

  "And he who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom"

  
• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ
• 

  PSacramento

  Ehrman actually introduces nothing new in his books. All his arguments have been made before (and responded to).

  Correct.

  If you're not a Fundamentalist, however, Bart's books may not reveal anything that you don't already know.

  Correct also.

  I think those that have been "sheltered" will get a rude awlening from Bart but those that have always had a critical eye and been open to the fact that bible teachings are based on bible interpreations and as such can be and typiclaly are bias, and have put in the time to actually READ about the bibel and Christ and the history and controversies behind them, none of it is new per say.

  Just better packaged perhaps?

  Here is an example, quote from William Lane Craig:

  "..You also express misgivings about “the eager human proclivity to make claims of divine inspiration, especially in Biblical times.” I’m not sure that such a proclivity existed in biblical times. Take the New Testament books, for example. Where will you find in the Gospels or Acts any claim to be writing by divine inspiration? There is none. Instead, we find claims to have looked into eyewitnesses testimony about the events of Jesus’ life (Luke 1.1-4; John 21.24) There just is no appeal to divine inspiration on the part of Jesus’ biographers.

  So why don’t you do what most New Testament scholars do: set aside the theological conviction that the Gospels are inspired and look at them as ordinary historical documents about the life of this remarkable man Jesus of Nazareth?..."
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  He may not introduce anything new, per se, but he defintely makes it more accessible to the common and casual ready. He does a decent job of explaining history, using examples, explaining textual criticism and calls out where there are scholarly disagreements.

  Having said that, these books are NOT scholarly work, at all. they reference and rely on scholarly works, his and others, but these are not in and of themselves scholarly works and they shouldn't be confused to be such.