The truth according to Bart D. Ehrman

[Aractus]

Chas has informed me Ehrman has discovered a vast quantity of facts regarding early Christian text alteration ...

Some background information. I'm not that familiar with Ehrman's work. He's a Biblical Scholar, one that's lost his Christian faith, and he seems to specialize in textual criticism. So it should come as no surprise that he aims to locate the textual variants and work out which is the correct reading.

Ehrman doesn't mind sensationalizing his work, and it seems also doesn't mind making claims that are well beyond the scope of his are of expertise (textual criticism).

Ehrman basically has no problem claiming that the book of Acts and some of the Epistles are deliberate forgeries. This goes way beyond the scope of textual criticism, and these claims need to be backed up by evidence or dismissed as uninformed gibberish. It is also well outside of general scholarly thought and theory on these matters. Don't get worked up, that on it's own doesn't mean it's wrong - but just like the "flying spaghetti monster" you can not prove a negative, and this is no different. To substantiate huge sweeping claims of forgeries, there should be some clear evidence.

Ehrman seems to cite a lack of self-identified authors for the four Gospels as his "evidence" that they are forgeries and attributed to disciples. This claim rests on the assertion that authorship attribution came at a later date, however every manuscript we have, which contains the beginning of the book (ie the first leaf), of the Gospels contains the titles. The Greek titles look something like this:

• EUAGGELION
  TO KATA MATQAION
  
  EUAGGELION
  TO KATA MARKON
  
  EUAGGELION
  TO KATA LOUKAN
  
  EUAGGELION
  TO KATA IWANNHN

If they were added later we would expect to find copies that did not contain these titles. Especially if, as Ehrman seems to claim, if they were added late in the 2nd century. As yet not a single manuscript that is devoid of the titles has surfaced. So his claim that they were added late in the 2nd century doesn't have any tangible evidence for it. Remember a lack of evidence isn't evidence.

Now if Chas or others want to inform me on more of "Ehrman's facts" I'll be more than happy to discuss them.

[Chas]

Chas has informed me Ehrman has discovered a vast quantity of facts regarding early Christian text alteration ...

Some background information. I'm not that familiar with Ehrman's work. He's a Biblical Scholar, one that's lost his Christian faith, and he seems to specialize in textual criticism. So it should come as no surprise that he aims to locate the textual variants and work out which is the correct reading.

Ehrman doesn't mind sensationalizing his work, and it seems also doesn't mind making claims that are well beyond the scope of his are of expertise (textual criticism).

Ehrman basically has no problem claiming that the book of Acts and some of the Epistles are deliberate forgeries. This goes way beyond the scope of textual criticism, and these claims need to be backed up by evidence or dismissed as uninformed gibberish. It is also well outside of general scholarly thought and theory on these matters. Don't get worked up, that on it's own doesn't mean it's wrong - but just like the "flying spaghetti monster" you can not prove a negative, and this is no different. To substantiate huge sweeping claims of forgeries, there should be some clear evidence.

Ehrman seems to cite a lack of self-identified authors for the four Gospels as his "evidence" that they are forgeries and attributed to disciples. This claim rests on the assertion that authorship attribution came at a later date, however every manuscript we have, which contains the beginning of the book (ie the first leaf), of the Gospels contains the titles. The Greek titles look something like this:

• EUAGGELION
  TO KATA MATQAION
  
  EUAGGELION
  TO KATA MARKON
  
  EUAGGELION
  TO KATA LOUKAN
  
  EUAGGELION
  TO KATA IWANNHN

If they were added later we would expect to find copies that did not contain these titles. Especially if, as Ehrman seems to claim, if they were added late in the 2nd century. As yet not a single manuscript that is devoid of the titles has surfaced. So his claim that they were added late in the 2nd century doesn't have any tangible evidence for it. Remember a lack of evidence isn't evidence.

Now if Chas or others want to inform me on more of "Ehrman's facts" I'll be more than happy to discuss them.

Ehrman's scholarship goes beyond textual criricism.

The titles don't prove anything.

[Aractus]

Then you should have no trouble providing me with his valuable facts.

---

So, you haven't looked at the evidence.

I haven't looked at his specific evidence, but I've seen plenty of other evidence. If you produce the evidence for me I'll consider it for you.

[Chas]

Then you should have no trouble providing me with his valuable facts.

---

So, you haven't looked at the evidence.

I haven't looked at his specific evidence, but I've seen plenty of other evidence. If you produce the evidence for me I'll consider it for you.

I have given you the reference. Are you expecting me to reproduce his works here?

[Annik]

http://www.usefulcharts.com/religion/old...ripts.html

This useful chart shows us that we've only found fragments for early 2nd century documents, so they likely do not include titles in any language.

[Angrboda]

Is your bookstore or library not adequately stocked, Daniel?

I've read Misquoting Jesus and substantial parts of Forged, and find that you are misrepresenting his work.

Not surprising as your argument appears to rest on ignorance, bad scholarship, and the typical healthy dose of wishful thinking which typically infects Christian thinking.

If you want to assess Ehrman's arguments, I suggest you get off your ass, get out your wallet, and do the actual research.

(For what it's worth, while I enjoy Ehrman's work, I would add the usual caution about getting all your information from one, potentially biased source. However, from what I understand, possibly largely from Ehrman himself, is that there is nothing controversial about Ehrman's claims outside of those leveled by rabid fundamentalist and other uncritical and disingenous apologists who can't abide by the truth if it inadvertently slaughters their sacred cow. In addition to Ehrman, I have Metzger's new edition on the New Testament [largely pilloried by the fundie community as Metzger chose Ehrman to assist him in the long needed update of the work], Father Brown, and Isaac Asimov, as well as a handful of more specialized volumes. Alas, studying the Christians' magic book is not high on my priorities these days, so I've read little of each.)

[Minimalist]

I'm not that familiar with Ehrman's work.

Then read it and educate yourself.

[John V]

Ehrman seems to cite a lack of self-identified authors for the four Gospels as his "evidence" that they are forgeries and attributed to disciples.

I've never understood this argument. What, someone was willing to just make up the book but were too scrupulous to include a false name?

Really though, all you need to do to refute such argument is ask, "Would you believe them if they included the name?"

[Minimalist]

I've never understood this argument.

Amazing. You are finally right about something.

You DON'T understand the argument!

[Mister Agenda]

I've never understood this argument. What, someone was willing to just make up the book but were too scrupulous to include a false name?

Really though, all you need to do to refute such argument is ask, "Would you believe them if they included the name?"

If Mark was actually written by the disciple Mark, I would believe more of the book. Not the supernatural parts, but the historical stuff would be coming from someone who was a first-hand witness. That would be a big improvement, credibility-wise.