Styrofoamdeity

Not to hijack the thread, but right now I am reading Ehrman's Lost Christianities. Incredibly interesting, yet I am flumoxed by his constant use of the word "forgery" to describe many of the gospels that were not used in the Bible. I understand the technical difference between "forgery" and a work that is mistakenly attributed (to a certain writer, such as John the Apostle). Certainly he means forgery in its narrow sense of a work written under an intentionally falsely assumed identity. Yet I have the niggling feeling that he is pandering to potential Christian readers by using this loaded term for non-Biblical gospels, such as The Gospel of Peter, while not using it for the four canonical gospels.

Why the constant use of this loaded term for non-canonical gospels when, in the popular sense of the word, The Gospel of John is certainly as much a forgery as The Gospel of Peter? Yes, the person who wrote the Gospel of John never said "I am the Apostle John", but he did certainly pretend to see or hear things that he did not. In popular understanding, "forged" = "fake", so using the term to describe The Gospel of Peter implies it is fake. Yet for the canonical gospels he does nothing more than point out they are perhaps falsely attributed to the apostles, which of course does not imply they are fake in the same was that saying a gospel is a forgery does.

Perhaps I shouldn't take this to be pandering to a potential Christian audience, but I do not see the decisiveness to call a spade a spade that I read in Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus...

RUmike

I've read most of Lost Christianities (never got around to finishing it), and I never got the feeling he was pandering to a Christian audience at all. If anything, it felt the other way around. But realistically, the gospels do not claim to be written by a particular person, and so really don't fit the category of "forgery" in my opinion, and apparently Ehrman's also.

Steven Avery

If you follow the Textcrit forum, you would be suprised at the rather elementary distortions and blunderama omissions and rather dubious reasoning that is his retinue. We discussed one distortion from his tape set here a while back on the Johannine Comma, another simple example in the book that was (I recall) recently discussed on textcrit was the Pericope Adultera.

A person can be high up in a field, and reasonably bright, yet prone to dishonest argumentation, omitting salient facts on purpose, grinding the ax, deceiving the uninitiated. And that is the case with Bart Ehrman.

Interestingly, Bart is the darling of the skeptic and unbelieving fan base of textcrit, (modern textcrit is built on foundations of errancy of the text), simply because he has brought the incipient agnosticism out of the textcrit closet and given that view a public hearing. This appeals to the itching ears of the unbelieving textcrit fan. Meanwhile, the professional textcrits are in an awkward position since so many of their ideas are so confused, backward and illogical to begin with.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Styrofoamdeity

OK, let's look at it allegorically. You got two men, one who is popularly known as an upstanding citizen (Mr. White) and one who is known as a forger (Mr. Black). Yet you find out that Mr. White has actually been calling insurance companies claiming that he saw his brother hit by a car, and his brother now has whiplash. He is a false witness. You are the only person who knows this however. If you are asked to give a speech about Mr. White and Mr. Black, and in your speech you mention several dozen times that Mr. Black is a forger, but you never mention that Mr. White is a false witness, you would seem to be going out of your way to use a loaded description of Mr. Black that you are avoiding using in the case of Mr. White.

I found it quite strange, given that in the later book (Misquoting Jesus) Ehrman is upfront that he does not believe the gospels to be historical. Why was he not similarly up-front in Lost Christianities?

Don't get me wrong- I believe both books have a necessary place on a skeptic's bookshelf. I just can't help feeling that the earlier book might have displayed a certain failure of will.

Julian

I do follow the TC list, I see no comments on the PA in the emails I have which go back to October. As for the rest your comment, let's see, prax versus Ehrman, hmmmm, tough one. If you one day post a viewpoint that is even remotely reasonable and defensible, I will be shocked.
Right, that's why Metzger trusts him. Oh wait, you think Metzger is equally dishonest.
Bad argument, since most people read Ehrman before his views known, even to himself. When I first started to read his stuiff, I knew nothing about him, nor did he comment on it. Too bad, prax. And your repeated insistence of the inerrancy can only be categorized as pathetic. We all know what you think by now, don't worry. You honestly think that anyone with any sense takes your posts on these issues seriously?

Julian

No Robots

Here is what Ehrman writes about the pericope of the adulteress:

Most scholars think that it was probably a well-known story circulating in the oral tradition about Jesus, which at some point was added in the margin of a manuscript.

Misquoting Jesus, p. 65.

So far so good. But then he jumps to this:

In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John. That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most textual critics, the answer is no.

Ibid. p. 65

What critics is he talking about? What is the basis for such a decision? Why doesn't he mention the evidence from Papias, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome? And why doesn't he mention that he himself argues for the retention of the pericope in his scholarly work?

The best disposition to make of the pericope as a whole is doubtless to print it at the close of the Fourth Gospel, with a footnote advising the reader that the text of the pericope has no fixed place in the ancient witnesses.

The text of the New Testament, p. 224

This strikes me as a case where an author is willing to trample all over scholarship and to misinform common people in order to generate book sales.

Buster Daily

These are notes from some common English translations. I think there is a bit of consensus here:

American Standard Version (1901). Marginal note: "Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53--viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other."

Revised Standard Version (1946). 7:53-8:11 given in the margin, with the note, "Most of the ancient authorities either omit 7.53-8.11, or insert it, with variations of the text, here or at the end of this gospel or after Luke 21.38." Since 1971 the section is printed as ordinary text, with the note, "The most ancient authorities omit 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text."

New American Standard Version (1963). "John 7:53-8:11 is not found in most of the old mss."

New International Version (1973). "The most reliable early manuscripts omit John 7:53-8:11." Later editions of the NIV have, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."

New King James Version (1980). "NU [that is, the United Bible Societies' Greek text] brackets 7:53 through 8:11 as not in the original text. They are present in over 900 mss. of John."

No Robots

And what exactly would that be? The quotations that you provide simply bear out what Ehrman says in his scholarly work: the pericope floats in the mss, and a notation to that effect should accompany it.

Buster Daily

I think you are mischaracterizing Ehrman in MJ a bit. His thesis seems to be that there is no received text. The NT is made up of very human stories that have not been static throughout history. I'm pretty sure he would agree that the history of the text over time and the reasons that manuscripts changed is just as fascinating as discovering the original text. Inerrantists are the only ones that get so hung up on what to do with a disputed passage. It's very troubling for some for the inerrant word of God to require notes in the margin. I would doubt that most scholars would be too upset what is left in or out as long as the marginal notes are accurate.

The fact that it's not obvious what to do with the Pericope Adulterae is Ehrman's point.

Buster Daily

My point isn't what to do with the Pericope Adulterae...or what Ehrman thinks should be done with the Pericope Adulterae (at least in Misquoting Jesus. I can't speak for his opinions in his earlier works). I think, as I just posted, that his point is that it's not obvious...but there is no received text and once one gets beyond that, it's all about the dynamic history of the text. Sorry to seem like I have a specific opinion on the pericope.