(August 1, 2011 at 1:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehr...40301.html
Quote:Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?
Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.
Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."
You got it, Bart. A tissue of lies!!!
Bart Ehrman is actually pointing out some valid things. There certainly are questions about who wrote several of the New Testament books. There are also books who claim certain authorship that seems unlikely. The problem with Bart is that he is a little bias. He takes a valid area of study and leans as hard toward being critical as possible. Don't get me wrong, he is an expert, and he has to use his trademark tone. Books that are more strongly worded sell better. I would say that is isn't exactly making anything up, but his case in this book is a little . . . overstated.
The fact is we really just don't know who wrote some of the books of the New Testament. We do our best to draw conclusions, but not a lot is one hundred percent. For example: Biblical scholars used to say that John was second century without a doubt, but a papyrus find dated very early second century led scholars to believe that John was almost certainly late first century. The date for John was one of the more certain dates, but it changed. So Biblical scholarship is not as exact a science as we would like. Scholars don't think John actually wrote the book of John, but they can't rule it out.
Second, the question of authorship in the ancient world really is more complicated than Ehrman would lead everyone to believe. Someone writing a letter from dictation (a scribe) would still sign the author's name. Sometimes the person composing the letter would give the scribe an outline and tell him to write a letter to that effect. Sometimes someone working for someone else would use their master's name because they were sending letters on his behalf. Sometimes an author's name would be included even if all he did was approve the letter. If someone belonged to a group led by someone of authority they would learn everything from him and use his name. Also the practice of psuedopigrapha was not always seen as deceitful, especially given the history of it in the Jewish community.
This is the gist of the issue as I've gotten it from other New Testament scholars. Bart Ehrman does have his supporters but a lot of NT scholars don't quite follow him on this one.
I was so used to your other picture this one is throwing me off min! Well, it is good to be back on the forums. I was wondering when someone was going to talk about the new Ehrman book.
Cordially yours,
Sir Coffee Veritas Esq.
