Bart D. Ehrman - The Bane of Fundies!

[Minimalist]

Tell me Min if the copiest did such a poor job why is it that the book of Isaiah is word for word accurate after 1000 years between known copies, this knowledge tends to lean in favor of the copiest.
PS. there are many others who are experts in the ancient languages and they disagree with Ehrman, and they are no more biased than he is.

Wrong book, G-C. Ehrman outlined all the mistakes ( and the reasons for them ) in Misquoting Jesus. BTW, this is not news to anyone except you apparently. Scholars first detected these holy fuck ups 3 centuries ago. Ehrman is not breaking any new ground here. The inaccuracies of your bible have been known and understood for a long time.

Perhaps some time we'll get into Misquoting Jesus...although it is a tad dry until the last couple of chapters.

---

Did not try to change the subject or anything else, I live and face reality every day the biggest difference between you and myself on this matter is I do it with God and not alone and for me it's a sound choice.
After reading all four gospels I see that they are all in agreement that Christ was crucified on Friday the day of preparation for the Sabbath.

That must be the gospel according to G-C then because they absolutely DO NOT say that. Do you just make this shit up as you go along?

P.S. Keep your god. I don't need fairy tales or an invisible friend.

---

I'm not aware of any recent scholarship dating the Gospel of Luke as late as 135 CE,

Don't confuse my musings with Ehrman. I'm well aware of the pious pronouncements but as I said above "Luke" is dated to 70 because of the sacking/burning of the temple. Scholars had a choice. They could look like fools and insist on "prophecy" OR they could look for a fall back position and cite the sack of Jerusalem for a convenient date.

All I am saying is this.

"Jesus" did not say the temple would be sacked and burned. He said ( allegedly ) that not one stone would be left standing on another. What is curious to me ( and perhaps not to you ) is that such a condition did happen in 135 when Hadrian leveled the ruins and built a Roman ( i.e. pagan ) city on the rubble.

Now, as to the references,

The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[70] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[71]

I realize the "traditionalist" crowd insists on the earliest possible date but Marcion ( again ) was c 140 and Marcion refered to it as "The Gospel of the Lord" not "Luke." That seems to have been a later invention. That mid-second century date seems to keep recurring and coincidences make me suspicious.

BTW, the quote above is from Wiki and refers to a 1990 book by Donald Guthrie called New Testament Introduction. Wiki is lousy but at least they give their sources.


More than I can say for religious writings.

---

Ah sorry I misread, I thought you had said the gospels agreed jesus died on the day of preparation for the passover.

The thing is, in mark jesus eats the passover meal with his disciples. However John claims Jesus was sentenced on the day of preparation

John 19:14 "It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.

“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. "

So unless you think it took them 18 hours to get around to crucifying him (that is 9am passover day), which certainly isn't indicated by john, the stories still don't match up. I think the important part here is that john's version not only leaves out the passover meal scene, but makes it impossible to happen. John's version does have a last supper, but it is much different than mark's passover meal scene; but I think you already know this.

Ehrman discusses this and proposes a logical reason for it. I'll see if I can dig up the reference after dinner, Cdog.