No Robots

Look, man, did you watch him on Stewart? The "bogus pericope" was the hook that started the conversation. Pure sensationalism.

Buster Daily

Also, Ehrman is somwhat dismissive of the mss. He asserts that, while Erasmus had access to many manuscripts, he relied heavily on only a few late medievel ones. I'm not prepared to defend or dispute that position. He also asserts back-translated vulgate Latin including the infamous comma.

Buster Daily

If I'm not mistaken (and I might be), Stewart brought that up first. The fact that a topic is interesting to a lay-audience isn't proof that it should not be discussed. I'm not interested in hearing about sinister plots to get rich telling the masses things they are both interested in and ignorant of.

If you read the epilogue of Misquoting, he goes to great lengths to "forgive" the scribes. Ehrman's not ripping on anyone. If he makes money selling his book, so be it. If you have a specific problem with the contents rather than the motive, please discuss.

No Robots

As far as the authenticity of the pericope is concerned, if that is what you are getting at, I think you have to look at the early attestation of the fathers that I mentioned: Papias (via Eusebius), Didymus the Blind, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine. You even find in Ambrose and Augustine a reason why it is not found in many manuscripts. For two good posts on the topic, go here and here.

No Robots

You are right. But it was, in my admittedly suspicious mind, a feed from the research staff as to the best hook. No problem with that. But Ehrman just played into, basically saying, yeah, it's bogus. I know that tv is shallow, but to just trash one of the best-known passages in the Bible for the sake of a sound bite makes me mad.

How nice. However, I believe with Ambrose and Augustine that the passage in question was surpressed out of moralistic fervor, and should be condemned.

Ehrman is suggesting that the pericope of the adulteress is inauthentic. In doing so, he contradicts his previous position on this matter, and he distorts the scholarship on the question. I can only speculate as to his reasons.

I think it important that a scholar of Ehrman's stature not leave the impression that a much-beloved and well-attested passage of the Bible is inauthentic.

Buster Daily

Thanks for the links. The fact that the pericope is located in different locations in some manuscripts...sometimes not even in the same gospel...is a bit of a difficulty. That would imply removal followed by re-addition if not simply addition.

mens_sana

Thank you for the correction.

Buster Daily

I suspected the same.

I think he is just suggesting it is widely contested. I don't have the book in front of me here at the moment to quote mine. If he has reversed his position in a laymen's book from a previous and more scholarly work and using that new position as his "big guns", I will admit that I share your suspicion.

No Robots

I like to think that the persistence of this story is one of the triumph of true Christian spirit against moralizing hate. I'm certainly not going to let it slip away during my watch.

Javaman

I wouldn't necessarily blame Amazon. When Ehrman was interviewed on Fresh Air (I think) a few months ago, my parents tried to get a copy from the local Barnes & Nobles in Cincinnati and found that it was sold out at every store in the greater Cincinnati area. That particular store had, at one point, something like 300 copies and they were all gone. It was kind of shocking for such a conservative town but they did eventually get a copy out to me. I haven't read it yet as my wife nicked it and has loved it so far.

This newest T.V. interview is likely going to make it harder to find. At least your order is already in.