DrZoidberg

I didn't find any thread specifically on this book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels

So I just finished it. This is the first book I've ever read on other Christian faiths so I have nothing to compare it to. It makes quite extraordinary claims. Any chapter and any page lists a number of things which each independently puts a nail in the coffin of literal interpretation of the Bible. And he lists convincing, to me, sources for all of it.

It also puts a nail in the coffin for basically, any specific Christian faith. The only thing all Christian Bibles have in common is that they think Jesus is a spiffing guy. But none of them can agree on what he did or meant, about anything. They can't agree on number of Gods, and their various degrees of omnipotence.

Just an example is that he mentions that from the 72 early pre-parchment Bibles found, written on papyrus or scrolls, there are well over 100 000 discrepancies between them.

He mentions changes over time, like early Christian texts have "God why do you mock me" when Jesus is on the cross. In later Bibles found in Gnostic areas, this was changed to, "God why have you forsaken me" which is more in line with their faith. But this change made it into the Vulgate Bible, in spite of being a clearly anti-Catholic edit.

And the "he without sin can cast the first stone" didn't appear until the 12'th century.

These are such extreme claims that I just have to ask; how reliable is this book? Is he just a random loon of the streets or does what he says have merit? He seems to have his shit together. But then again, I'm no expert.

Deus Ex

I loved that book. You should also read one of his other books, called 'Misquoting Jesus'.

Agenda07

I've never read the book but I can tell you that Ehrman isn't just a 'random loon off the streets'. :Cheeky:

He's a professor of religious studies at a respected American university and is the author of one of the leading university textbooks on the New Testament, as well as numerous other books about NT texts and early Christianity.

mens_sana

Chapter 5 "At Polar Ends of the Spectrum: Early Christian Ebionites and Marcionites" is worth reading twice — and is particularly relevant to much of this forum's debate. :devil3:

andrewcriddle

In at least some of these cases I doubt whether this is really what Professor Ehrman means.

Could you provide the page numbers for where Ehrman appears to make these claims ?

Andrew Criddle

thedistillers

Ehrman never makes extraordinary claims. He is always very careful to make nuanced claims.

Like JP Holding pointed out when he commented on Ehrman, it is an obvious fact that Christians disagree about everything. I don't see why Ehrman books in particular would "put a nail in the coffin for basically, any specific Christian faith".

DrZoidberg

If Christianity becomes whatever you want it to be, how does God come into the picture? Even if we think that the Bible is the word of God and the result of divine revelation, the "original", (if there's such a thing) message is still gone. I thought it was obvious that Christianity was a man-made construct before reading that book, and this just strengthens it.

To put it more succinctly. Christians today don't know what they believe or why. Just because they firmly have faith in that the books are correct doesn't mean jack shit. They can't get guidance from the books, since the books are... to put it mildly ... corrupted beyond the point where they are meaningful.

What Christians need to do today is to figure out what God is by themselves. So, why bother calling themselves Christian? Everybody who doesn't belong to any specific religion, is in the exact same boat.

thedistillers

Christians will say the original message is not gone. Like for the rest... It's just a matter of faith. :huh:

(Just for the record, Ehrman doesn't think the Bible is corrupted to a point we can't know the original message. Or if he thinks that, he doesn't say so in his books. He is clear in "Misquoting Jesus" that most discrepancies between the early writings are insignificant.)

-Jay-

Additionally, Dr. Ehrman studied for several years under the late Bruce Metzger. Metzger was something of a big name himself.

Dr. Ehrman definitely has his shit together. He's actually a relatively moderate scholar by some standards. He gets a fair degree of scorn from more conservative Christian groups because he's a former Evangelical who turned agnostic during the course of his studies. (Not that this invalidates his work, but to some eyes it makes him a traitor.) There are also those who disagree with Dr. Ehrman's analysis of textual transmission, and want to discount his work on the basis of that.

Be aware that some of his popular titles are reworkings of materials found in his textbooks, so before you go on a buying rampage, do a little investigation so that you don't end up with duplicate material.

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

Actually, he's of the opinion that because we don't have the original texts, we can't know with certainty what they said. (You could argue, I suppose, that the broad original message could be intact without having the exact original text, and I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, when the claim of "inerrant in the original autographs" comes up, as it often does, that implies more than just accurate transmission of the broad themes.)

regards,

NinJay