Doug Shaver

We're almost former neighbors. I grew up in Merced.

Littlejohn

"..The Jesus story was most likely INVENTED in the 2nd century.."

YES, the catholic-christian cult was INVENTED in the 2nd century. (exactly between 140-150). But Jesus was a REAL historical character... (Jesus was a gnostic teacher, as John the Baptist, his teacher)


Littlejohn

.

manwithdream

I wonder if Dr. Ehrman would be bothered to be called "Bart Ehrman, the Bible Error Man"?

It sounds like that guy who calls himself "the Bible Answerman". If I was in his field, I think I would like that title.

avi

I would be cautious about claiming as valid the authority of Tacitus and Suetonius.
A single manuscript survived to the tenth century, is not reassuring that the sole copy once in our possession (but no longer extant...) was authentic, accurate, or absent interpolation.

The reason why the Christians so often cite these two famous Roman authors, in support of the argument for a first century origin to Christianity, is that Jerome cites excerpts from Suetonius. So, then, we need to ask, for this SECONDARY source, where is the oldest extant manuscript of Jerome, is it free of interpolation and so on.....

I possess zero confidence that the Vatican would faithfully protect the original writing of Jerome, or anyone else, if it contradicted any tenets of the Roman church.

avi

lpetrich

Except that Bart Ehrman is working in a relevant specialty, and someone who does experiments on frogs is not.

That goes both ways, doesn't it?

Boxer

I think you are muddled as one would hardly do experiments on frogs or anything else without having some expertise. Ehrman is a Biblical scholar and can speak with authority on ancient texts and their value but so can a lot of other people whether Christian or not but I cannot see that give them the right to say that someone else's faith is worthless or baseless. Indeed one can list dozens of other Biblical scholars who take an entirely different view to Ehrman.

zombieCat

Just watched the video on inerrancy. Four minutes, twenty five seconds of a dude talking a lot without saying a damn thing.

Littlejohn

«..but I cannot see that give them the right to say that someone else's faith is worthless or baseless..»

It seems that this right those who contest Ehrman, on this point, in the past they have taken it 'sic et simpliciter', without asking anyone's permission ... To my knowledge, Mr. Ehrman has ever sent someone to the stake simply because he did not share his views, something that in the past the 'saint' clerics done it daily, because they one felt 'invested' by a superior power ... So, to exhume a saying of the Gospel, "who is without sin cast the first stone "....


Littlejohn

.

JoeWallack

JW:
I think Daniel Wallace is the top Christian Bible scholar now (if you define "Christian" as believing in the supposed resurrection than who would be better?) and I find it illustrative that even he feels a need to have a general reaction to Ehrman:

Bart Ehrman: Without Peer… Review

In his breakthrough Jesus Interrupted the Prophet Ehrman subtly reveals an agenda beyond scholarship. The Bible is considered the most authoritative book in the West. It has significant error on a quantitative and qualitative basis. On a macro level the Gospels discredit rather than credit each other. This level of error needs to be communicated to the Public so they can properly decide what level of authority to give to the Bible.

Wallace rightly recognizes that Ehrman does indeed have an agenda but in the process and in an irony that I think the author of "Mark" would really appreciate, Wallace unwittingly confesses his own agenda that goes beyond scholarship = as a Christian professional he feels that he and his fellow professionals have a responsibility to defend/promote Christianity.

The further hypocrisy here (besides begrudging Ehrman an agenda even though he has one) is that the relationship of combatants here reminds me of Star Wars, where one unfaithful [Sic] Master is considered an equal threat to countless Jewdie Masters.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spin

A site calling itself "The Ehrman Project" is mildly dishonest, when it has no connection with Ehrman, nor a constructive stance on the efforts of Ehrman, as one would expect with such a name. The site is in effect a honeypot aimed at trapping people who don't know enough about Ehrman to develop an independent view. They come to the site vaguely expecting one thing and get proselytized at or propagandized at. As I said, mildly dishonest. A PhD candidate should know very well just how reprehensible he is being. If he were not of the ilk that doesn't care what tricks one pulls if it leads to saving a soul, he would act in a more scholarly manner and give the site a more reasonable name.