The Question of the Greek New Testament

[Rhondazvous]

Read Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted and all will become clear.


I dug up a little sample for you from pages 5-6.

A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided

by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expectation
of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass
them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for
them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their surprise
they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of
what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of
research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable
contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the
first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did
not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were considered
canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by
Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did
not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the
Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds
on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard
to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical
Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are
filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New
Testament contains historically unreliable information about the
life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament
are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers
claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.

Thanks. That's a must read. And thanks for making the extra effort.