Vorkosigan

You must be thinking of some other Bart Ehrman. The one who published the book in the OP is a talented scholar who regularly publishes in all sorts of venues and attends conferences. Here's his CV

http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/BartCV.htm

Apikorus

Perhaps praxeus could post Maurice Robinson's CV.

RUmike

His CV is more than impressive. (Ehrman's)

S.C.Carlson

Maurice Robinson is the leading scholarly defender of Byzantine priority.

Stephen

Steven Carr

Here is a page where he does just that :-
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html

'Associated as it was with the faulty Textus Receptus editions which stemmed from Erasmus' or Ximenes' uncritical selection of a small number of late manuscripts (hereafter MSS), scholars in general have tended to label the Byzantine form of text "late and secondary," due both to the relative age of the extant witnesses which provide the majority of its known support and to the internal quality of its readings as subjectively perceived.'

gregor

prax

Is every thread for you just a vehicle to proselytize your own brand of inerrancy?

Diogenes the Cynic

Ehrman does discuss his scholarly conclusions in public forums all the time (I don't think he has any particularly unique theories, though). What kind of publishing history does Robinson have? I have to tell you that Byzantine theory kind of makes him sound like a crackpot.

Steven Avery

Hi Gregor... not necessarily. However, I offer a consistent position, a true (tangible, historic) inerrancy, which is fundamentally the alternative to the "infidel" position.

However in a spectrum there is a wide range, and I have a lot of respect for all sorts of positions. I learn a ton from Andrew, Roger, Gakusei and others, sometimes even from the infidel side.

As to a spectrum, eg. Professor Robinson rejects the TR, however his disassembling of the alexandrian position is theoretically an incredible bombshell, understood or at least respected by many sincerely working in those textual realms. There was one period of interaction in the textcrit forum in the late 90's and into this decade that was especially interesting.

Ehrman is quite significant because he takes the slippery slope of modern textual liberalism to its ultimate conclusion of existentialist textual despair. In a sense Ehrman is far more honest than the Metzgers and Fees and Geislers and Whites, whose beliefs are transparently inconsistent, but who master at hand-waving.

And you can see how far down the path of confusion we are when the infidels are so sure of the alexandrian position, which is essentially the most absurd "2-manuscript" position possible. (yes, yes, I know about the modern facade of morphing to "reasoned eclecticism").

Oh, I lost a post in here.. yes Ehrman speaks at conferences and even goes on panels, however he passes on direct challenges like a textual debate with Professor Robinson. However, I don't mean to overemphasize that, people do what they want to do.

Anyway, Gregor, the last thing I want to be here is a polemicist. So feel free to holla if you think I am just sounding repetitious and rote. I'm here for learning and fun and challenge.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Diogenes the Cynic

What the hell is "textual liberalism?"

Steven Carr

Maintaining that there is a possibility that your personal views may not be inerrant.