Syler Kite

I have not read the book because I have lost a lot of respect for Ehrman and his oversimplified popularization of text critical issues over the past few years, but the "over 30,000 inconsistencies" is very misleading if he really said that. That number includes countless minor spelling and word transposition errors which account for nothing. The major "inconsistencies" are mentioned in footnotes of nearly every modern translation of the Bible. If you read a modern Bible and follow the footnotes, then you'll know what they are.

I was also disappointed to read that it appears that Ehrman is saying that the ending of the book of Mark and the Adultery pericope were late. In fact, no one knows. Many postulate that they are true accounts that were added in later (or that the ending of Mark was lost, etc.). There is no reason to say that those things are later, made-up or legendary additions.

Ehrman has become something of a rogue scholar. It is better to read the works of his esteemed predecessor and mentor, Bruce Metzger, or perhaps Kurt Aland for a more balanced perspective on these issues.

Ray Moscow

You should read the book or at least watch the video. The "30,000 inconsistencies" is a quote from John Mill. Ehrman explains that majority of these are very minor and don't even show up in translation.

However, some are not so minor.

The John adultery pericope does not so up in manuscripts until the 10th century, so the evidence is that it's pretty late indeed.

Metzger is/was a great scholar, but as an evangelical I'm not so sure that he is more "balanced" in his approach.

Ray

Syler Kite

Incorrect. If Ehrman said this, which I doubt, then he was dead wrong. The pericope is found much earlier than that. It is found in Codex Bezae of the 5th century and other earlier minisule manuscripts. There is at least the possibility of a true account that found its way into the text late, or that Bezae was the only text to preserve the correct text for some reason.

It is possible that you are thinking of the "Johannine Comma" in 1 John 5:7. This text is that late, but its removal should not be cause for doubt of the whole. The Bible was without the verse for hundreds of years while Christianity flurished.

As Metzger and others point out, none of the "inconsistencies" are serious threats to Christian theology since theological points are usually made in multiple places.

Magdlyn

Arguing the points made by an author you have not read is pointless.

However, acc to wiki at least, you are correct about the adultery pericope.

But Ehrman's point is not lost. This passage was not original to this gospel narrative (200 yrs too late), which throws doubt on its "Godly inspiration," and the inerrancy of the Bible as a whole.

Ray Moscow

I might be mixing up the pericopes -- based on what I remember from the video and the book (read about 18 months ago).

But doesn't Erhman say this in part 3 or 4 of the video? Or was he talking about 1 John one?

Ray

Diogenes the Cynic

You've got your facts wrong on this. Ehrman's family was Episcopalian but he personally beacme (in his own words) a "hardcore fundamentalist" when he was a teenager. This is from a 2006 Washingington Post article:
He was most definitely a fundie before he started studying with Metzger.

Diogenes the Cynic

Ehrman makes these very points himself. He says right up front that the vast majority of variations in the manuscripts are insignificant (misspelled words, errors in transcription, scribal "typos," etc.), but that a few of them are not insignificant. he makes no attempt to deceive or mislead. You really should actually read the book before you try to critique it.
He doesn't say it's necessarily "late." he says it's not original, which is virtually indisputable and which is absolutely the mainstream consensus, but which is something that lay audiences were largely unaware of before Ehrman 's book.
Who postulates that (besides apologists, I mean)? What is the basis for arguing that the pericope is authentic?
On the contrary, there is EVERY reason to say that. It wasn't part of the original manuscript, ergo, itwas a later edition. QED. One can hypothesize that it came from an authentic oral tradition which was later inserted into John (or sometimes Luke), but that is a hypothesis with no evidentiary basis other than wishful thinking. It is theoretically possible, I suppose, but lots of things are theoretically possible. It still doesn't alter the fact that it was not original to GJohn.
How so? Can you give some examples of how Ehrman has strayed from mianstream scholarship?
Can you give some examples of how Ehrman substantially disagrees with Metzger? Please quote Ehrman directly.

mens_sana

In addition to the early mss. the pericope does NOT appear in, it also does not appear in the majority of lectionaries, Latin versions, and Syriac versions. And it moves around. Normally found after John 7.52, in ms. 225 it is found after 7.36, after 7.44 in others, and after 21.25 in another group of mss. Plus in f13, it is not even found in John, but after Luke 21.38! This is not the way "original" passages work, this is scribes trying to find where the passage best "fits."

Syler Kite

Excuse me? I was addressing the argument that was made in the thread regardless of whom it came from. If it came from Ehrman, then he is wrong.

Yes, I am right, as I have studied these things for years. By the way, wiki is total crap on religious subjects...too many highly biased edits make the material virtually worthless as an authority.

What you have to understand about this oversimplified paragraph (again, one of wiki's downfalls) is that these manuscripts fall into "families". The ones that do not contain it fall into one and the manuscript that does contain it falls into another. From an "evolutionary viewpoint", it is possible that Bezae represents an earlier form of the text though it is later in date.

Ehrman is incorrect if he stated that it is not found until the late middle ages. The date of Bezae is certainly not too late for the pericope to have been part of the original text. Whether it throws "doubt on its godly inspiration" is subjective. I don't see that it throws any doubt at all upon the veracity of the text.

Ray Moscow

If a passage only shows up centuries after other versions of the text, which lacked it, were circulating, just how is it likely to be part of the original?