(August 3, 2011 at 2:16 am)Minimalist Wrote: Poor G-C..it must hurt to have Ehrman cram your own fucking bible up your ass. Here's a guy who not only has read the final compilations....after all the mistakes and editing done by pious assholes and holy liars over the years but who has read the intermediate texts which show how those versions were doctored to make sure the ignorant ( that means YOU, G-C) sheep don't get any ideas.
G-C, Ehrman is so far beyond you and your pitiful capability to understand this stuff that you could be a bacterium on his shoe.
Well what you're talking about here is textual criticism, which is how we get the Greek text of the Bible. Pretty much everyone in the field has read some of that stuff, but they really don't have to. Textual criticism as a field has arrived at an almost completely agreed upon text, and this happened a while ago. Now a days there are maybe 7-8 real textual critics in the country when there used to be hundreds. The Greek text we have hasn't changed in a long time, and it is almost unanimously supported, so there's no issue there. As far as the record of errors and changes, the work of textual criticism resolved most of that. The errors and typos are something every Christian scholar is aware of, but there's really nothing at stake, they don't affect anything. The content is the same either way, and there is no central doctrine that is affected by any of the contested areas. There are still debates about whether to include one passage or the other, but those are all recorded and accounted for already. Like I said, there's really nothing at stake.
(August 3, 2011 at 2:16 am)Minimalist Wrote: And Coffee, I have no doubt that other "religious scholars" oppose him...he is threatening their livelihood and these holy joes hate that.
Well, I can certainly see how there would be some animosity between scholars on opposite sides of an issue, so I'll give you that. However, I am not aware of any scholar who feels his job is threatened by Bart Ehrman. The fact is, there is not much in the way of original evidence in the book, it's all stuff scholarship already knew. No one is really worried that someone will come along and write a book full of stuff everyone in the field already knew and shut down departments across the country. The book is more for a general audience. I will say that Bart Ehrman has a new perspective on the old issue, no one was really calling it outright lies before, so that has asked a further question. He has an interesting way of raising questions and making debates more broadly accessible, but like I said earlier, there aren't any scholars threatened by this. I've talked to a few and they mostly just find it amusing. This isn't to say that Bart Ehrman doesn't have the expertise or the right to write a book, I'm just saying that most scholars look at it and say, "oh, another book."
Also, I'd be interested to get your thoughts on the issue I raised about the complex nature of authorship in the ancient world. There are plenty of sources for what I'm saying, and I would dare say it is the majority view, even among secular scholars. I haven't had a chance to read the whole book, I was just given a sketch of his article, is there some new evidence to reverse the traditional view that he cites? I would be interested to know if there is. Perhaps he just represents a compelling minority, certainly nothing wrong with that, sometimes they end up being right.
I appreciate your feedback Min, you do always bring up timely issues. This one has been popping up, though I was perplexed as to why Ehrman chose the topic he did. I thought this issue was fairly well dead. Maybe I just haven't heard all the facts yet.
Pleasant evening friends.
