Syler Kite

I'm not critiquing his book, I'm critiquing what has been said about his book. That is fair game, is it not? It is not I who am in error then, it is those who are relating the details of his book in mixed up fashion.

What I want to point out is that it appeared to be claimed by someone in the thread that these 30,000 "inconsistencies" caused Ehrman to "doubt". Of course, if Ehrman is able to logically explain these 30,000 "inconsistencies" away, then why would they cause him "doubt"? It seems to be that his doubt was already in place and he was looking for an excuse. Otherwise, why even bring up 30,000 "inconsistencies"? Makes no sense. It seems he just wanted to add some shock value to his popular book (which contains information that is going to be misinterpreted and mishandled by laypeople, just as in this thread).

How could they be unaware of this? It is a footnote in most modern Bibles, as is the ending of Mark. It is common knowledge in seminary. I also don't know how he can confidentally say that "it's not original". There is no possible way he could know this, and it doesn't take all reasonable argumentation into account.

Why would an apologist have to argue for the pericope's authenticity? Anyone could argue for authenticity. I suspect that your definition of "apologist" would not match mine. I'm afraid I can't bring names to mind at the moment. You can probably search the archives of the TC e-list for excellent references.

I explained this in a previous post, which you have not seen yet. It comes down to the different textual families.

If you do a web search, you will find many criticisms. Perhaps try a search for Daniel Wallace and Ehrman, if you are genuinely concerned. Somehow I suspect your questions are merely for rhetorical value.

Again, you can find this information on the web if you are sincerely questioning. A main area of contention is the degree to which the early Biblical text was subjected to alteration as a result of heresies.

Syler Kite

This is why Erhman's book for laymen is too simple. The textual families are mainly based on areas of development/circulation. The texts which lacked the pericope were all from one family (one area of circulation) and Bezae from another family. Therefore, the possibility exists that the account dropped from one family but was retained in the other.

Ray Moscow

Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary? Say no more!

I gave up on the fundies a long time ago.

Syler Kite

Please. Wallace is one of the most respected names in textual criticism today. His Greek Grammar is one of the best selling Greek Grammars available and his organization CSNTM is making images of the ancient manuscripts available to scholars.

If you dismiss him and his ideas, then you will probably only stand with Ehrman because you will have dismissed most mainstream opinion.

mens_sana

[QUOTE=Ray Moscow;4893398]Which doesn't mean that they can't pass you some ammo — check his website for "Why the KJV is Not the Best Translation," then save the addy!

John Kesler

From page 11 of Misquoting Jesus:

Magdlyn

Syler, you're being a bit disingenuous. So far, all you've got is this "different families" of mss idea, which leads you to speculate the adultery tale was "dropped" from one family.

Robt Price (have you read him perhaps?) asserts that the simpler story is always earlier and embellishments later.

You disparage wikipedia, yet rec we "look up on the web" criticisms of Ehrman as a good place to learn about him, as opposed to actually reading his books, which you call too simple, apparently going by the opinions of others, without having read them yourself to see if this is true.

You're all over the place, man.

I don't think Ehrman is necessarily the be-all end-all of popular religious criticism (he is one of the pack I respect), but I formulated that opinion myself.

Diogenes the Cynic

You were not critiquing what was said about the book, you were citing other people's critiques about the book in an effort to discredit it. The fact that your sources are factually erroneous (if not intentionally dishonest) is exactly why you need to read the book yourself before you make any pronouncements about it.
He was able to explain MOST of them, not ALL of them, but what he has stated bothered him was his inability to find any definitive text. He was disconcerted to discover that there was no bullet proof repository of the perfect word of God. There was, and is, no way to know exactly what each autograph originally said or to piece together an unimpeachable, "perfect" Biblical template from the manuscripts which were available.
Now you're just demonstrating ignorance about Ehrman and basically calling him a liar because you don't find his explanation for his loss of faith personally palatable to you.

It should not be surprising that the lack of consistency in Biblical manuscripts was disturbing to ehrman since one of the core characteristics of Christian fundamentalism is that it fixates on a perceived belief in the perfection of the Bible. Finding out that the exct text of the Bible can't really even be pinned down shakes the whole foundation of that belief. Christians who are NOT fundamentalist are much less bothered by it.
Most lay pople don't actually read the Bible very much, and even when they do, they don't read the footnotes.
Most lay Christians don't attend seminaries.
There is no reasonable argumentation that its original. It's not in any of the earliest manuscripts. It's not even consistently found in the same place in later manuscripts. Game over. It's obviously not original to GJohn. And it's not like Ehrman is making some kind of radical assertion with this. He's just expressing the uncontroversial, mainstream consensus.
Because they want to assert something which is not supported by the prima facie evidence.
I know what "apologist" means and my definition would be different from yours only if yours is wrong. Although the word sometimes gets used comtemptuously it really only means "defender," and my use of the word above was specifically in reference to those who begin with a conclusion that the AP must be original and then try to defend it against the evidence rather than starting objectively and following the evidence to where it really points.
No, it really doesn't. t's not in any of the earliest manuscripts. Period.
I'm not interested in looking at "web criticisms" of Ehrman. I've seen them. They're mostly hand-waving, straw-clutching baloney and very little of it comes from othe textual scholars. You stated that Ehrman has become a "rogue scholar." That is patent nonsense. Ehrman is solidly in the mainstream and Misquoting Jesus expressed nothing particularly new or radical. What was significant about the book was that it brought some things that were long known within NT scholarship to a popular audience which was largely ignorant of the stuff. Most people just don't ever read any NT criticism and a too often what they do read is boilerplate apologia or doctrinaire exegesis posing as genuine scholarship (it comes up a lot in those web searches). People generally are not that informed about this stuff. They think the stuff they hear in their mega churches and read in books from hacks like Strobel and McDowell is actual scholarship. Ehrman's book, as uncontroversial as it is within NT academia, was still kind of a shock to a lot of the rabble.

mens_sana

I own and have read the Ehrman books and lectures below. I would be happy to look up something for those who are particularly interested.

From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity (24 Lectures on DVD). Ehrman, Bart D. The Teaching Company, Chantilly, Va., 2004.

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Ehrman, Bart D. Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford, 1999. 0-19-512474-x.

Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (24 Lectures on 12 CDs) Ehrman, Bart D. The Teaching Company, Chantilly, Va., 2002.

Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Ehrman, Bart D. Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York, 2003. 0-19-514183-0

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Ehrman, Bart D. HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. 0-06-073817-0

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Ehrman, Bart D. Oxford University Press, New York, 2000. 0-19-512639-4

New Testament: 24 Lectures on 12 CDs. Ehrman, Bart D. The Teaching Co., Chantilly, VA. 2000.

Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Ehrman, Bart D. Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York, 1993. 0-19-510279-7.

Oops, I almost forgot. I also have his two volumes of The Apostolic Fathers, in the Loeb Library series, although I have not been able to plow through them yet. And I have the 4th edition of The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger and Bard Ehrman (Oxford University Press, 2005). I have heard it suggested that Ehrman will assume Metzger's mantle of NT text doyen — and I look forward to it. Certainly Metzger was happy enough with Ehrman's text studies to share book credit with him.

Raymond

MerryAtheist

Wow! mens sana must be the president of the Bart Ehrman Fan Club.