"Forged" by Bart Ehrman (page 6)

leavingwt

Did we win? did we beat it ??

Indeed we did. He tuckered out and fell into the ditch.

PSacramento

Romans was NOT written by Pauls hand by the way:

22 I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord.k

EntirelyPossible

Funny how no one mentiones THAT when mentioning the "1000's of errors".

Except the guy you are complaining about?

Not knowing if we have the exact words also means we don't knoe if we DON'T have the exact words and unless soemthing can be shown to be incorrect, why assume that it IS incorrect?

Tsk tsk tsk, PSac. If I have 100 different recipies all claiming to be my grandmothers secret coconut cake recipe, do i just pick some at random and I don't know they're wrong so I will presume they are hers and go around telling people that?

The burden of proof falls on those claiming they are correct, not the ones pointing out that we don't know.

PSacramento

Except the guy you are complaining about?

I recall the first time he mentioned it ( many years ago) he did NOT say that, it was his teacher that "cleared" that up when the issues was raised. I could be mistaken however, I am going on memory from what I read.

Tsk tsk tsk, PSac. If I have 100 different recipies all claiming to be my grandmothers secret coconut cake recipe, do i just pick some at random and I don't know they're wrong so I will presume they are hers and go around telling people that?

What?

The burden of proof falls on those claiming they are correct, not the ones pointing out that we don't know.

In terms of historical criticism, the NT documents are as good if not more reliable than any other docuemtn we have from that time.

If you haven't read it my I suugest:

The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? by F. F. Bruce

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg

And by Metzger:

The New Testament: Its Background Growth and Content 3rd Edition

The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance

The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition)

Leolaia

I don't read Ehrman's popular books or popularizing works in general; I prefer meatier stuff. This morning I read an article Ehrman wrote for VC on Origen's use of Heracleon and the evidence that the latter was familiar with the Western Text (while Origen was a witness of the Alexandrian Text), which contained variances in the text of John that influenced the theological disputes the two had. That kind of stuff I find really interesting.

I got to meet him a few years ago when he gave a talk for Misquoting Jesus. In the Q&A, I asked him if the citations of 1 Corinthians in the epistle of 1 Clement comprise an informative witness to the early text of that letter (he didn't seem to think it was). Then when I came up to him afterwards with a question about the use of Psalm 69 in the gospels, he said to me in a funny voice: "Who are you?" lol

PSacramento

I think Bart is at his best when he is showing the variance and differences that existed and why they might have been, without "pontificating" on them and allowing people to came to their own conclusions.

Of course that doesn't sell as much books and I understand that.

EntirelyPossible

you are taking Jesus quote out of context, as I am sure you know and Bart knows too.

True, I didn't mention how he blatantly said he had no problem being a wedge and driving apart families. thanks for the reminder ;)

Paul's much publizied issues with women are blown WAY out of proportion, he openly names some of them by Name in his letter to the Romans and make sit clear they are in high standing in the community there.

Uh, in one letter it says women can prophesy, in one is says they cannot speak. I think the point is that not so much that Paul has issues with women, but that those views are so diametrically opposed it seems like one might not be Paul's ideas. A forgery, perhaps, or later addition to something he may have written.

Romans was NOT written by Pauls hand by the way:

I don't think the use of a scribe at as issue, although you certainly would have to trust a scribe to be saying exactly what you mean or double checking every letter. I mean, eternal salvation is at stake, here right? Might want to make sure every single letter is spot on...

PSacramento

Uh, in one letter it says women can prophesy, in one is says they cannot speak. I think the point is that not so much that Paul has issues with women, but that those views are so diametrically opposed it seems like one might not be Paul's ideas. A forgery, perhaps, or later addition to something he may have written.

I would agree with this view point, though some have suggest that Paul was directing this specififc view to a specific group causing trouble in a specififc church, since it seems out of character for him, perhaps.

I don't think the use of a scribe at as issue, although you certainly would have to trust a scribe to be saying exactly what you mean or double checking every letter. I mean, eternal salvation is at stake, here right? Might want to make sure every single letter is spot on...

I mentioned it as an example of the honesty in Paul's letters.

There was no reason for Tertius to mention that he was the writer, especialy since Paul is "speaking" during the whole of the letter, but obviosuly Tertius ( and Paul) felt it necessary to state that fact for the recepients of the letter.

How many other ancient works do we have that are so open?

EntirelyPossible

I recall the first time he mentioned it ( many years ago) he did NOT say that, it was his teacher that "cleared" that up when the issues was raised. I could be mistaken however, I am going on memory from what I read.

I haven't read any of Metzgers work, only Erhman, it was in Erhman's book that I read how many errors there were along with how insignificant most of them are.

In terms of historical criticism, the NT documents are as good if not more reliable than any other docuemtn we have from that time.

Reliable in terms of what? Being more or less theologically consistent with each other (which they should be since the NT was compiled to support a specific declaration of faith)? In that case they are. In terms of knowing which ones are what Jesus really said? No way to know. In terms knowing which copies are the closest to the original? No way to know. In terms of knowing which NT docs are more or less historically reliable that other books rejected for the NT? Can kind of sort of tell sometimes, but this is the world of miracles and insivible people in the sky that said they would be right back and disappeared for the past 2000 years. Define "reliable" and then we can talk.

If you haven't read it my I suugest:

I will not read material by people with an agenda to prove. You keep linking to books by people interesting in proving the bible true, not in determining whether or not it is true. Why not send me a Watchtower link?

EntirelyPossible

I mentioned it as an example of the honesty in Paul's letters.

How do we know it was at all honest?

but obviosuly evidently Tertius ( and Paul) felt it necessary to state that fact for the recepients of the letter.

I know I changed what you wrote, but to highlight a point. Using the word obviously there is the same as the WT using evidently. Maybe there was a reason they specifically mentioned it, maybe there wasn't. Maybe Tertius put that in there on his own without Paul telling him to, maybe it wasn't a fact at all but someone put it in there anyway.

Point is, do I suspect it is false? No, but I also can't claim it's truly authentic. I could just as easily reason that, were it to be faked, it makes sense that it would sound like it wasn't. There is a presumption of innocence, sure, but no one saw any of this go down or can ask this. It's ALL presumption when we decide to trust what they are writing.

"Forged" by Bart Ehrman

Share this