Vorkosigan

Peter's argument has to be looked at in the context of Lewis'. Lewis is utterly unaware that there is any controversy over this pericope and simply declares it, on the basis of his "expertise," to be historical. It is the strength of Lewis' claim, in combination with his vapid ignorance, that support's Kirby's observation that Lewis is a crackpot.

And the idea that Metzger is "liberal" scholarship is a bit much. After all, he does agree that the Pericope Adultera was orally transmitted and is historical. Metzger is quite conservative. He is a "liberal" only by comparison to the apologetics-driven claims of others to the right of him. If you doubt this, just turn to p288 of Canon of the NT, the last page in the book, and read the last paragraph. Had any atheist or mythicist scholar written pap similar to that in support of atheism in an NT text, people would be all over them for their biases. But as long as you sing with the choir, you get a free pass.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

BTW, there's a good discussion of the issue with our own Andrew Criddle, Stephen Carlson, Wieland Wilker, and others, here:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/t...sm/2004-2.html

Prax gives the same list in that discussion, attributing it to "Dean John Burgon."

The discussion also covers the claims of Augustine, gives some links to good essays, and arguments. Well worth reading, which I am doing, instead of working.

Vorkosigan

Haran

I have no idea whether Lewis was unaware of it. Just because the pericope moved around does not mean that it could not have been an historical account.

I don't really care quite as much about this observation, though I don't agree with it. However, I believe that to say the pericope "is clearly a late and fanciful addition to the gospel texts" is to overstate the case.

Metzger was not my aim, and I really should have left the "liberal" scholarship comment out. It was out of place and was really directed more at the idea that the pericope is necessarily late and ahistorical.

gregor2

Prax

Best of luck trying to square your presupp beliefs, inerrancy requirements, and YEC allegiance with your desire to ". . . apply a dollup of common sense, along with methodical research, careful analysis, and with a willingness to try to understand and express the paradigmic underpinnings of theories." Seems like a tough task.

I welcome any publication of yours on the common sense of a 6,000 year-old earth.

Realize that some find it difficult to stomache attacks of uber-fundamentalistic apologists with no academic skins against those who devote their careers to a field (be it the NT or geology, physics, cosmology, etc.). It's not unlike some former prison librarian who holds himself out as the savior of the right and their paradigmic underpinnings.

Spanish_Inquisitor

It's possible I incorrectly paraphrased what I read from the excerpt. Unfortunately, it's at work and I'm at home right now. I'll check it tomorrow and quote him directly.

In the meantime, thanks for all your responses. It's all so interesting.

SI

Spanish_Inquisitor

With a Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, I would have expected a theistic background. In listening to his few lectures, I didn't sense any bias either way. His approach was straight forward "here are the facts as we know them".

Is it odd for an atheist or agnostic to obtain such degrees?

SI

Toto

Ehrman started off as a believer, and had his faith "shaken" by his studies, but AFAIK has never revealed where he ended up. Like many academics, he is strictly neutral in his professional statements.

Haran

I believe Ehrman may have had a theistic background, however, I believe that, as someone else said, he is now somewhere between atheist and agnostic. If I remember right, he admitted as much in an NPR interview a year? ago. Toto seems to be able to find just about anything on the web, perhaps he can find the NPR transcript of the show or maybe the recording of it. It was a very interesting one. He was either talking with Glenn Mitchell or Terry Gross.

Not at all if they find it interesting.

Vorkosigan

Carlson blogged it a couple of years ago. Here's the NPR link:

Ehrman on NPR

Toto

Th NPR interview with Terri Gross is here. I don't have time to listen to it now.

ETA; cross posted with Vork.

Carlson's blog discusses the program here and notes only that the program contained "a bit on Ehrman's own faith journey in which he seemed a bit uncomfortable and perhaps a little surprised on where the discussion led. "