badger3k

I'm in..chapter 4, I think (I've got the Kindle edition, and don't want to go back and see where I am right now), and so far it's all old hat for me. For people who are unaware of higher criticism, this seems like another intro text.

I was saddened by what he (so far) considers evidence for a historical Jesus, though. Taking Pliny as literal truth (as opposed to viewing it as what he had been told by Christians), coupled with his comment (on The Infidel Guy a while back) that there was as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Julius Caesar...well, I expected more. So far, all I've read is the same ol', same ol'.

Still interesting, but I am not sure if it is great, especially if you've already read his other books, or are familiar with the actual history of the development of the bible and the canon.

I do have hope for more, but so far it hasn't happened.

militant agnostic

Reminds me of Nibbler's comment after wiping Fry's memory clean; "now that tings are back to normal... or at least as normal as things get on a planet ruled by pyschotic apes."

JoeWallack

JW:

Blechtonics!

JW:
Emphasis mine. Who would have thought that JP Holding would anoint me as a Prophet for correctly predicting that the Fundamentalists would see Jesus, Interrupted as going over the line and demonizing Ehrman. This gives me a total of one correct prophecy prediction which is one more than John the Baptist had who Jesus described as the greatest prophet of all time.



Joseph

"a response is warranted which publicly shames him for his despicable absues of that trust" - JP Holding

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Jayrok

Holding saying someone has a lack of intellectual honesty is like OJ Simpson saying he was upset because Robert Blake was acquitted.

JoeWallack

JW:
It has nothing to do with political correctness. "accuracy" is not the right term for textual criticism. The NRSV translations (for the important stuff) are better supported by the evidence.

JW:
I'm not suggesting, I'm telling you. I've demonstrated Ehrman's superiority over Metzger here many times on controversial issues. RTFA. Tischendorf's fame is as a discoverer. He's kind of dated. If you want to champion a champion give some examples such as Ehrman does in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Ehrman was Metzger's protege and where Metzger stopped at the Difficult Reading Principle Ehrman moved beyond.

JW:
Who else is publicly claiming the Bible is errant and implying that it should not be a guide for important decisions besides Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens?

jon-eli, this Forum is intended for serious scholarship. If you want to make unsupported assertions go to TWEEB where there is virtually no scholarship and attitude is a substitute for research. Roger Pearse, GakuseiDon and Judge can tell you how to get there.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

andrewcriddle

The issue about the NRSV and political correctness is that the NRSV combines a rather literal (maybe over-literal) translation policy in general with a specific preoccupation with 'inclusive' language.

The results are IMO sometimes problematic.

(The issue here is not whether the NRSV is basically a good translation and substantially more accurate than the AV. Both claims are clearly true. The issue is whether or not the NRSV is an improvement on the RSV.)

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Andrew,

Literalism in a translation can be good for academic and scholarly investigation, and also has a certain appeal to those who feel that theology needs to be based on what sacred literature actually says and not so much what we want it to say. This can be important for both personal-faith conservatives and social-religion liberals.

On the other hand, inclusive language (gender neutrality) can only be defended as an aid to devotional use, if you ask me. It is an example of what we want the text to say, not what it actually says.

Perhaps the editors expected the NRSV to be used principally by "mainline" churches on the "liberal" social-religion side of the spectrum where women are making inroads into the clergy and more prominent positions in church administration and theology, and the decision to be gender neutral was made to promote its use by the intended audience.

Similarly, while the NIV is generally more literal than the AV(KJV) and based on the N/A GNT rather than the Byzantine or Majority Text, the translation also clearly panders to its intended audience (more conservative mainline churches which have resisted woman clergy and theologians etc, and accept a more "evangelical" approach to faith).

Sometimes I wonder whether we shouldn't be afraid to have different translations for scholarly vs devotional use.

DCH

Jayrok

I finished this book this past week. I don't think it is anything new for some but could be an eye opener for many others who may not be aware of early Christian history or the differences in John and the synoptics.

There was nothing new in his coverage of contradictions and I actually thought he included a few that were too trivial to mention. I would have included different ones, but it wasn't a big deal. I'm glad he didn't spend a lot of time just talking about contradictions.

Bart gives his view of how later Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity concept, came into being after much debate from different Christian groups. I did like that Bart often states that his conclusions are not all "just his", rather they are things that scholars have known for decades and sometimes centuries.

If you are familiar with Ehrman's other works much if this book is not new. He often reiterates things he has stated in his other books. But I enjoyed the read and would recommend this book to others.

It is certainly targeted for the layman and Bart states as much right up front. His idea is that scholars have long known the issues when taking the historical-critical approach to Bible study vice the devotional study we see with most Christians, but there are many people that have never been exposed to the info that is taught in many seminary schools and pastoral training courses.

I enjoyed the read.

JoeWallack

JW:
Now that you mention it, his earlier book, The New Testament (2000), has the most typos I've ever seen in any book. Ironic that the foremost Textual Critic of all time, who is able to go way beyond the written word (different words, partial letters, missing letters, etc.), struggles so much with straight-forward words in his native language. This fault apparently has improved though since he went Apostate.

The Fundamentalist complaint against Ehrman has two parts:

1) He has nothing new to say.

2) His assertions of error are in error.

So far the Fundies have had difficulty articulating any real criticism of Ehrman here. Ehrman qualifies the authority of what he has to say as:

So, if someone wants to seriously criticize the Master, they need to deal with this claim. Pick an error/difficulty that Ehrman is publicizing and determine the position of the majority of serious critical scholars.

A typical response/reaction so far is from someone named Darrell Bock, of, excuse me, a flock of owls just flew in the window, "who, who". Shew you stupid owls:

http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/456

Hmmm, "two decades"? Ehrman said two centuries. Maybe What'shisface was up late watching The Daily Show. Okay, he's off to a bad start. Not a good position to be in when trying to Textually Criticize the foremost Textual Critic. Let's jump to Block's Demonstratio:

JW:
This is all a fascinating argument as to why Darrell Book doesn't think that "Mark's" Jesus dying in despair and "Luke's" Jesus dying in control is a contradiction. But it doesn't deal with Ehrman's basic related assertion that a majority of serious critical scholars would see it as a contradiction/difficulty.

I don't think Boch could articulate an egg on toast. There would appear to be good reason why Boot is at Dallas Theological Seminary and Ehrman is at The Colbert Report.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

rlogan

Hi Jayrok


I wondered if you could for me try to answer something the title of the book apparently pledges: "Why you don't know about them".


Why does he say we don't know about the contradictions?


I gather that there's nothing new in the "contradictions" part of the book. Moreover, that he acknowledges same.

So the contribution, if any, is his view on why the contradictions, so long known, have been out of public view.

*********************************

We had a bit of a derail on the solstice and Christmas. I apologize for that, but went back and read it.

My original anger over my preachers being so coy about "this is the time we celebrate Jesus' birth" is twofold.

First, solstice has been pre-empted by this asinine story of a superhero godman. I don't care so much about whether we can find sufficient historical record to demonstrate the extent of solstice celebrations before it was proclaimed by the official state religion as essentially a matter of law.

Knowledge of solstice is the most basic celestial information for mankind and his world - the pattern of the sun, and how it influences so much of everything important to our survival.

Knowledge over pinpointing this event was the subject of intense effort on the part of civilizations all over the world. That is unquestionable, which is why I referred to stonehenge. But there are similar constructs all over the world, all of them preceding this declaration that Jesus was born on December 25. The solstice was December 25 before it was Jesus' birthate, period. There can be no argument about that.

Now it is a birth date, not solstice. That is, it was not understood that "Jesus was born on Solstice". Instead it was "Jesus born December 25". And thus, the date was kept when the calendar changed such that the 25th no longer fell on solstice. Otherwise they would have changed the birthdate of Jesus to December 21 if the general public was being instructed that "Jesus was born on solstice".

So yes - I do believe, and strongly so, that we are talking pre-emption, not that golly gee whiz it's really harmless to put the birth of Jesus on exactly, on precisely the day of solstice. Supplanting useful knowledge about the solstice with superstitious crap for the purpose of controlling the population.

Nobody has actually explained why the exact day of solstice was selected as the birth of Jesus. Duh. Because it is solstice, not because it is some coincidental accident. Religions thrive on ignorance, and Christianity successfully supplanted knowledge abou solstice with a birthday myth.

The second element that angers me is the lie by omission. My preachers all knew Jesus was not born on the 25th, and that is why they were so coy about the way they put it. Maybe some of you claim that was not the case of your preachers. But I really doubt anyone's preacher was standing up on Christmas mass saying "This is not Jesus' birthday..."

Why? Because it all comes down to the offering plate, the source of income to my preachers.

So I am wondering if Ehrmann is willing to state what seems obvious to me: the contradictions are not mentioned by the religious leaders simply because the motivations of money and power go against revealing them.