The truth according to Bart D. Ehrman

[Aractus]

See what I mean? Ehrman is happy to make sweeping claims like that the NT text was heavily modified between the 1st and 2nd centuries and we don't know what it originally said. But if you ask him what part has been changed, he can't show you. He simply claims he knows it's been changed because of the existing textual variants. One might remind him that most Scholars agree that the existing textual variants represent the original text and errors in transmission including all the changes from the first to second centuries. Ehrman thinks the changes from the first-to-second century are invisible because the "original text" doesn't exist in any copies! One might remind him that not a single line of text has been removed from the NT - that is, no early manuscript contains something that isn't found in the later manuscripts. Compare this to the Hebrew scripture which we know for certain has some missing text (and the text should be found in an earlier copy than what we have).

We shall wait and see what text the newly discovered first-century Mark fragment has. Undoubtedly it won't contain any "new reading" not already found in the various variants of the text that we already have, unlike what Ehrman would expect.

[Minimalist]

How is he outside the mainstream? Isn't he primarily a popularizer of knowledge not considered that controversial by most Biblical scholars?

The fact that your bible is riddled with errors, falsifications and doctrinal "upgrades" by the powers that be has been known since the 16th century among scholars.

History of higher criticism

The Dutch scholars Desiderius Erasmus (1466? – 1536) and Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677) are usually credited as the first to study the Bible in this way.[11] When applied to the Bible, the historical-critical method is distinct from the traditional, devotional approach.[12] In particular, while devotional readers concern themselves with the overall message of the Bible, historians examine the distinct messages of each book in the Bible.[12] Guided by the devotional approach, for example, Christians often combine accounts from different gospels into single accounts, whereas historians attempt to discern what is unique about each gospel, including how they are different.[12]

All that Ehrman has done is to spread the views of centuries of earlier scholarship so fools like you could learn that you are being conned by bible bullshit. You should thank him every day....except you can't stand the fact that he casts doubt on your holy horseshit so you try to demonize him.

He is really no different than Israel Finkelstein who brought complex archaeological findings - which were well known among scholars - to the attention of laymen. Many laymen are not quite as terrified as you, Daniel. They would rather have facts than fiction.

Try to join the rest of the world, huh.

[Aractus]

I'm sorry - did you claim that I'm terrified? Don't presume to tell me how I feel about things. Textual criticism doesn't scare me, and I believe in it. I know pastors/priests who are terrified by Textual Criticism and who do not believe in it. Not long ago I pointed out to an Anglican priest that it's the only way we get the Greek from which to translate, he said "nonsense we translate from the original manuscripts" - I said, uh no we don't we use a printed critical text, and have been doing so ever since Tyndale, we don't just use a manuscript, we use a critical text.

There are a small handful of known errors in the OT for which there is no correct Hebrew reading. Conversely there are no known errors in the NT for which there is no correct Greek reading. Working out which reading is the correct one is the job of Scholars who specialize in Textual Criticism. Until Ehrman or someone else can demonstrate there are parts of the NT for which there is no correct reading in the Greek, he has completely failed to demonstrate that the NT has been altered from the 1st century originals.

Only completely ignorant layman are persuaded by arguments such as his. "He has evidence" - yes he has evidence, but his evidence is wafer-thin and circumstantial and academic. It's hardly a compelling argument. I've never seen any clear evidence of textual alteration from the 1st to 2nd centuries that isn't already accounted for in the variances in the texts that we have.

[Minimalist]

I've seen your type plenty around here.

You have built a world of fantasy for your so-called future and anyone who dares cast doubt on it scares the living shit out of people like you.

You are no better than any other jesus freak, pal.

[Aractus]

1. I didn't say I'm better than anyone, moron. 2. Don't fucking presume to tell me what I think and what I feel. I could just as easily say to you that I've seen "your ignorant type plenty". You've deluded yourself into thinking you know how I feel about things, when you have no fucking clue.

3. Stop using the "people like you" rhetoric, unless you're afraid not to?