Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-02-2006, 12:32 PM

Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene : The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Not yet released - due in May

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publishers Weekly

Starred Review. There is a bit of irony in the subtitle of this terrific book. Ehrman, chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC–Chapel Hill and author of several well-received volumes including Lost Scriptures and Lost Christianities, struggles with the very issue of how to separate history from legend, whether it can be done at all and whether it matters. He contends "it is often easier to know how the past was remembered than to decide what actually happened." . . . . As with his other works, Ehrman presents his case clearly and succinctly. So, are the biblical stories more reliable than those outside the canon? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. (May)

This appears to be another book aimed at a general audience.

Ehrman appears to be on a roll. Nothing like appearing on the Daily Show to boost your Amazon ratings.

New York Times Book Section

Quote:

This season's subversive best seller, however, is one that takes direct aim at the Bible: Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (or via: amazon.co.uk)" (HarperSanFrancisco). It rises on the nonfiction list to No. 5. Ehrman, who heads the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, methodically chips away at the underpinnings of some of the Bible's best-known passages.. . . . The author, who is 50 and has written 18 previous books, grew up in a not overly religious Episcopal family, but became a fundamentalist while still a teenager and attended college at the Moody Bible Institute. His probing into the composition of the Bible ultimately led him to lose his faith. "Misquoting Jesus" makes for sober Easter reading. The problem with divining the meanings of the New Testament, he writes, is that we not only don't have the originals, "we don't even have copies of the copies of the originals." Ehrman notes: "It would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of Scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. . . . The fact that we don't have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us. And if he didn't perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words."

dost · 04-02-2006, 11:00 PM

Personally, I am eager to get my hands on the following upcoming book by Ehrman:

The Transformation of Jesus: How a Jewish Prophet Became God (or via: amazon.co.uk)

I am told this book is also aimed at a general audience. Should be out by May I think.

The Bishop · 04-03-2006, 06:55 AM

Quote:

The author, who is 50 and has written 18 previous books, grew up in a not overly religious Episcopal family, but became a fundamentalist while still a teenager and attended college at the Moody Bible Institute. His probing into the composition of the Bible ultimately led him to lose his faith. "Misquoting Jesus" makes for sober Easter reading. The problem with divining the meanings of the New Testament, he writes, is that we not only don't have the originals, "we don't even have copies of the copies of the originals." Ehrman notes: "It would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of Scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. . . . The fact that we don't have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us. And if he didn't perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words."

See, there's absolutely nothing worse than someone who lost his faith harder than average. Losing your faith in God from reasonably devout Catholicism (my case) is one thing, but to convert from Episcopalianism to Fundamentalism and then, well, make the mistake of reading the damn Bible and he crumbles all the way. To the extent that, as you can see, he has made unrealisitic expectations of God! "It would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of Scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. . . . The fact that we don't have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us. " Of course if you believe in God, he can do anything, but it's presumptious to then expect something which God evidently left in the hands of fallible humans to have turned out perfectly.

I used to buy that line about "copies of copies of copies", but not any longer. The Bible manuscript documents display a remarkable unanimity, by any reasonable standards, particularly given their wide dispersal. That doesn't mean they need to be worshipped, or that God indeed preserved "His Word" better than they would otherwise have been, but I do think that the preservation and continued existence of documents as old as they are (even if they don't reach all the way back to 33CE and give us "proof") makes them still worthy of awe and respect.

Steven Carr · 04-03-2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

" Of course if you believe in God, he can do anything, but it's presumptious to then expect something which God evidently left in the hands of fallible humans to have turned out perfectly.

Why did Jesus leave writing his message to the world in the hands of fallible human beings?

Knife · 04-03-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

I used to buy that line about "copies of copies of copies", but not any longer. The Bible manuscript documents display a remarkable unanimity, by any reasonable standards, particularly given their wide dispersal. That doesn't mean they need to be worshipped, or that God indeed preserved "His Word" better than they would otherwise have been, but I do think that the preservation and continued existence of documents as old as they are (even if they don't reach all the way back to 33CE and give us "proof") makes them still worthy of awe and respect.

What do you mean by, "you used to buy that line about 'copies of copies of copies'"? That is exactly what we have. We literally have copies of copies of copies, that do agree in most part (I wouldnt call that remarkable), but do not agree in few parts. And there are a few parts where the disagreement makes a difference in the interpretation of the written words.

If you havent read his book, I definitely recommend it. It is only about 300 pages long. He pretty much states here is what we have (copies of copies of copies) and here are a few places where the differences cause problems.

RUmike · 04-03-2006, 10:36 AM

Bishop, what makes you think the "originals" were inspired at all? The texts themselves make no such claim.

dost · 04-03-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Bishop, what makes you think the "originals" were inspired at all? The texts themselves make no such claim.

There appears to be one exception, the book of Revelation. The author claims to be composing an "inspired" document:

". . . Revelation, is the only work in the New Testament that claims inspiration, a claim deriving principally from the genre to which it belongs, partly perhaps from the late date of its composition."

The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome (or via: amazon.co.uk), Volume 1, p. 53

It is also possible that the author of the fourth gospel may have wanted his book to be viewed and accepted as "inspired", or at least authoritative. This is what I read in one of John Barton's book, in which he compares the opening of Genesis with that of the fourth gospel.

Besides these two writings, I doubt that the other authors viewed their writings as "inspired" documents or constituting "Scripture."

RED DAVE · 04-05-2006, 09:36 PM

I thought that the OP referred to the folk group: http://Peter, Paul and Mary.

RED DAVE

NOGO · 04-06-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

...but I do think that the preservation and continued existence of documents as old as they are (even if they don't reach all the way back to 33CE and give us "proof") makes them still worthy of awe and respect.

My thoughts are exactly opposite to yours.
The fact that this myth has been preserved for so long and by so many people speaks not to its quality nor credibility nor respectabilty, it speaks rather to human nature that is fond of such to the point of emotional dependency.
I am neither in awe nor do I respect that part of our nature.

No Robots · 04-06-2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dost

Personally, I am eager to get my hands on the following upcoming book by Ehrman:

The Transformation of Jesus: How a Jewish Prophet Became God (or via: amazon.co.uk)

I am told this book is also aimed at a general audience. Should be out by May I think.

Wow! I'm stoked for that! Thanks for pointing it out, Dost!:notworthy:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-02-2006, 11:00 PM	#2
dost Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London Posts: 82	Personally, I am eager to get my hands on the following upcoming book by Ehrman: The Transformation of Jesus: How a Jewish Prophet Became God (or via: amazon.co.uk) I am told this book is also aimed at a general audience. Should be out by May I think.

04-03-2006, 10:36 AM	#6
RUmike Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 491	Bishop, what makes you think the "originals" were inspired at all? The texts themselves make no such claim.

04-05-2006, 09:36 PM	#8
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	I thought that the OP referred to the folk group: http://Peter, Paul and Mary. RED DAVE

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.