Dean Anderson

Grumble grumble... bloody Amazon... grumble grumble...

I ordered it back in January and it hasn't been dispatched yet...

Steven Avery

If He did that you would surely be analyzing how John actually used Matthew as the source for the redacted story. Or how awkward was such a dramatic speaking. And why didn't He do something really deep and powerful, like an earthquake and darkness, or spiritually significant, like renting the veil in theTemple.

Steven Carr

You mean when Jesus said 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?', God had not forsaken him at all?

Diogenes the Cynic

Getting back on topic, did anyone watch the show last night. I liked it as far as it went. Ehrman did pretty well with getting some facts out that the lay public is probably unaware of but the format of a show like TDS is not really amenable to a thorough discussion.

I liked that Stewart appeared to have actually read the book and got something out of it. I wonder if he read the book first and then decided to bring Ehrman on the show. Props to him if he did. Either way, it was nice to see some honest NT criticism on mainstream television.

Julian

Just as an FYI, the book Misquoting Jesus is a layperson's version of his more earlier and more scholarly Orthodox Corruption of Scripture which, if you are up to the challenge, is far better because it gives all the technical background for his decisions. It is a tough read unless you know something about textual criticism and Greek.

Julian

Julian

My GF made the same point. It is not that the details were missing or that there was no in-depth discussion. It is the fact that the idea that the bible is not an unchanging book but has in fact changed and we don't know what the autographs said. That idea was presented to a public who probably never knew about it. I suspect that we will see some deconversions after a while because of this show.

It was a good show but far too short.

Julian

Steven Carr

Ben Withertngton has a review of the book at

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...cism-bart.html

It includes the following interesting comments :-

'Finally, regarding 1 John 5:7-8, virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the “Trinitarian formula,” since scholars for centuries have recognized it as added later. Only a few very late manuscripts have the verses. One wonders why this passage is even discussed in Ehrman’s book. The only reason seems to be to fuel doubts. The passage made its way into our Bibles through political pressure, appearing for the first time in 1522, even though scholars then and now knew that it is not authentic. The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 affirmed explicitly the Trinity! How could they do this without the benefit of a text that didn’t get into the Greek NT for another millennium? Chalcedon’s statement was not written in a vacuum: the early church put into a theological formulation what they saw in the NT.'

skinny

Yes I saw it and DVRed it. I was like finally some honest criticism of the bible on mainstream television! :jump: Fortunately Norm Jensen was able to record it and post it online.

Video required Flash:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchiv...hrman_wit.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search=ehrman

skinny

Edit: minor edit

Julian

The interview is now available on the official site here.

Julian

Toto

To clarify, Ben Witherington of the James Ossuary fame is quoting a review by Daniel Wallace here, in which Wallace summarized Ehrman's argument. Wallace goes on to say: Those "healthy patristic debates" in other contexts are usually described as a bunch of fanatics hurling anathemas at each other and excommunicating each other over empty theological doctrine (because all theological doctrine is empty IMHO).