Toto

http://ehrmanproject.com/

That should be "Biblical scholars" a/k/a Christian apologists.

It's done by video, for Christians who aren't big on reading.

Delerium

I'll be interested to see their criticisms and hopefully Ehrman's responses.

Based on the Ehrman videos I've watched, his scholarship and arguments seem solid.

One point he's made that I think is pretty irrefutable, is that a historian can't look at an ancient text and conclude that any supernatural claims it makes are true as that is always less likely than a natural explanation, hoax, myth, etc.

Toto

I think the point of this "project" is to give Christian students an excuse to ignore Ehrman's criticisms of their religious beliefs.

Roger Pearse

I would have thought that, whatever Ehrman's (or anyone else's) field of academic speciality, it wouldn't qualify him to criticise the religious beliefs of others; while any such criticism would be personal, not professional. Scholars who try to pretend that the study of vivisecting frogs (or whatever) makes them a religious authority should be met with an uplifted finger from all of us.

No prostituting scholarship in the service of religious polemic, please.

Minimalist

Precisely. As long as someone tells them their fairy tales are okay the xtians are happy.


Deluded, but happy.

Delerium

That may be the case.

I can see it now "Bart Ehrman claims XYZ, but what do you think Mr Mike Murdoch? and what do you think Pastor Benny Hinn? ... and there you have it, biblical authorities reject Mr Ehrman's conclusions."

avi

Hi Toto, thank you very much for showing me this site.

I learned something by watching the videos, so it was helpful to me.

I listened to Dr. Wallace, and I was fascinated by his argument regarding Mark 13:32 and this passage, familiar I am sure, to everyone else, if not to me.....


Matthew 24:36 Codex Sinaiticus:
περι δε τηϲ ημε ραϲ εκεινηϲ και ωραϲ ουδειϲ οιδε ουδε οι αγγελοι τω
ουρανων ουδε > ο υιοϲ ει μη ο πα τηρ μονοϲ {colored part is MISSING from the text}

Wallace claims that it is not an important theological point. My question then, is why is it omitted from Codex Sinaiticus?

In other words, if JC is omniscient, i.e. a God, how can he not know everything?

avi

Joan of Bark

How is it possible, in this case, to separate the two? Negatively criticizing the Bible automatically means one is criticizing the religious beliefs of those who follow it and claim it to be the word of God, and therefore, perfect.

BH

That's the problem. They will admit to variants and even possible deliberate tampering with their texts, but will say "It's not a major theological issue if an issue at all". What, pray tell, would be a major theological issue?

XKV8R

thanx for this toto. i just watched some of the responses to ehrman. pretty weak. actually, the responses are knocking down straw men and answers that don't really address the questions at hand. they remind me of craig evans' attempt at debating erhman.