Toto

Calling someone a liar is not defamatory?

spin

When I asked Nazaroo to give some substance to his vociferations against Ehrman, the only thing he could come up with was the gap at the end of the gospel in Codex Sinaiticus. This apparently was to show that the ending of the gospel had been omitted. However, if we turn to the end of each of the gospels in Sinaiticus we find similar gaps some longer some shorter, but gaps for each. The next book starts with a new column. Nazaroo's evidence for his vociferation was so underwhelming one is left puzzled as to what caused such hot-and-bothered-ness. One can picture little Nazaroo wailing in his cot because the maid left his diaper on a minute or two longer than he was accustomed to.


spin

(Big jpegs: )
End of Matthew
End of Luke
End of John

Nazaroo

...except these pictures are of Codex Sinaiticus, and he made claims about finding dozens of blank columns in Codex Vaticanus.

Nice try though. Nearly fooled everyone. - but not really.

Nazaroo

Not when they are caught lying publicly and deliberately while presenting themselves as 'expert witnesses' giving serious testimony.

In fact, if Ehrman tried that in a courtroom, he'd be in jail now.

Riverwind

Toto

That's why the charge of lying is very serious, and that is why it would be defamatory if true.

But you have not presented convincing evidence that Ehrman was lying, or even that he was mistaken - only that he disagrees with you (and agrees with many other experts.)

And again, that is not saying that what he presents is correct, just that there is no evidence that he does not believe it, or that it is not a reasonable positionl

Nazaroo

I see you are an American intellectual from Texas. Like George Bush.

spin

Reference?

What I love about your responses is the contentlessness of them as compared to the bad attitude used to express them. Bravo. :notworthy:

Would you like to overcome your inability to express yourself meaningfully and try to be clear about your grievance or are we to assume that your grievance is not based on reason at all?


spin

Nazaroo

This is simply incorrect, and does not accurately reflect the evidence presented in the article and elsewhere.

There are certain facts that all reasonable scholars, especially textual critics, and all disinterested investigators will agree to. Here are a few:

(1) Codex Bezae contains the passage in its usual place, in both Greek and Latin. Bezae is dated as late 4th or early 5th century.

(a) Ehrman tried to claim the passage was a medieval insertion in two different broadcasts.

(2) Didymus quoted the passage extensively in his commentary on Ecclesiasticus. Bart knows this, because he wrote a whole book on it.

(b) Ehrman stated twice that no Greek father prior to the 9th century comments on the passage, even though he himself as editor of Metzger's book on NT textual criticism added a footnote correcting this falsehood originally propigated by Metzger.

jgibson000

How do you know this for certain?

And if this is the case, what becomes of your claim that you know Bart was the cause of this?

JG