by Dagney 133 Replies latest jw friends
Ehrman actually introduces nothing new in his books. All his arguments have been made before (and responded to).
Bart is convinced that the preachers in most churches are fully aware of these things. He wants the people sitting in the pews to learn something new.
His books for the general public are NOT scholary, that is correct.
He does have scholary ones of course, the one section he did with is Mentor Bruce Metzger in the book " New testament texts - transmission, corruption and restoration" is an example of one.
I find that even those tend to try to pass opinion off as fact, but that is something that we ALL are guilty of, so we can get on Bart for that.
Bart is convinced that the preachers in most churches are fully aware of these things. He wants the people sitting in the pews to learn something new.
From what I have seen the problem, which has nothing to do with Bart but I think he counts on, is that people tend to NOT verify arguments.
How many people that have read Bart's books have read the counter-arguments to those issues?
PSacramento: You're talking about his opinions/conclusions. I was blown away by the FACTS that he presents -- details that are not disputed in theological seminaries around the world. I was grossly ignorant of any of those facts, because I was a JW, and before that, a Southern Baptist.
Your own view of the Bible is light years beyond Ehrman's intended audience. You've already accepted that men wrote the book. The people here in Mississippi believe that God Almighty penned every word, and that the King James Bible is without error.
Well, I am sure that those people were told that and were willing to take that at face value.
One must ask WHY? if one truly wants to understand.
Fact is that the bible was written by Man, inspired or not, it was Man that wrote it, man that copied it and man that edited and correct and recopied it.
And it was ancient man on top of that, writing for ancient man in a way ancient man could understand and perhaps more importantly, relate.
Part of me things that what Bart is doing is quite Nobel, even if at times I am cancerned about his intent.
But I think a far better starting point for anyone is this book right here:
God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship by Kenton L. Sparks
I mentioned this before in an earlier Ehrman post and someone posted it in this thread. Ehrman uses dramatic words to increase sales. An example I know is the naming of the NT gospels and the nonPauline epistles attributed to Paul. Every scholar I've read said that it is only forgery when viewed through contemporary standards. It was common practice to declare your allegiance to a certain school in the first century by using an ancestor's name. No one would believe that Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John wrote the gospels. Followers did.
Ehrman acknowledges the same body of scholarship. When I wanted an overall, recent view of the Gnostics, Gnostics for Dummies appealed to me. Ehrman is not telling lies. Analysis of the Historical Jesus in the Synoptic Tradition from 0-45 CE is not going to sell much.
It seems that, going by what we read in the Gospels that only Luke should be assumed to have been writen by luke ( and acts too of course).
Paul is tricky because Paul wrote by his own hand (and admits as much at times) and dicted to others (and admits as much at times).
The issue is HOW much was ALL PAUL and how much was what the person writing thought Paul meant or how much the person writing to finish a letter that Paul never finished, added.
That is why it is crucial to take the WHOLE of Paul and to judge the authenticity of the controversial PARTS of disputed letters with th ose recognized as being directly from Paul.
That is why the NT is NOT ONE stand alone document but a collection of works of various writers with different personalities and views and teaching methods and it shows us that we shoudl focus NOT on the differences but on the similarities.
And as such, we should always take what Christ was recorded as saying over that opinion of any apostles IF there APPEARS to be a contridiction.
I would just note that many times said appeareances is based on how WE interpret certain passages with out 21st century eyes.
It seems that, going by what we read in the Gospels that only Luke should be assumed to have been writen by luke ( and acts too of course).
This is a fantastic example.
This is the type of statement that is considered heresy by many denominations.
This is why Bart writes his books. Should people be kept in the dark? Will they make worse decisions if they have more knowledge?
This is the type of statement that is considered heresy by many denominations.
Bring them on, my kung fu is strong !!
LOL !
This is why Bart writes his books. Should people be kept in the dark? Will they make worse decisions if they have more knowledge?
I agree that is why Bart SHOULD write his book, base don what I hear in his debates and read, that doesn't seem to be the reason WHY he writes them.
From the debates I have seen he tends to appeal NOT the the believer that knows where he ( Bart) is right, but to the non-believer that wants to show believers they are wrong.
