Forged: Writing in the Name of God Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are by Bart D. Ehrman
John Kissinger [11/27/2015 12:33 PM]
Peter, for example, could not have been literate because he was a fisherman.“Fisherman had to do business. Guess what? That involves writing, contracts and signed documents,” he said in an interview. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/
William Lance Huget [11/28/2015 1:43 AM]
Bart once had credibility, but he is now an agnostic/skeptic who is attacking the faith he once embraced.
Glynn Brown [11/29/2015 9:27 AM]
Ehrman is one of the leading biblical scholars today,I disagree with some of his conclusions and extreme skepticism,but his scholarship and credentials are top notch.
John Kissinger [11/29/2015 9:31 AM]
so you believe in a fake NT?
Glynn Brown [11/29/2015 10:00 AM]
It’s called psuedoepigrapha
Glynn Brown [11/29/2015 10:02 AM]
It doesn’t matter who wrote the gospels,they are inspired.
Glynn Brown [11/29/2015 10:04 AM]
For centuries the church thought that Hebrews was written by Paul,but now virtually everyone denies this.
William Lance Huget [11/30/2015 2:05 AM]
The Church has always been unsure of the authorship of Hebrews. Some traditions does not make it a fact. It does not matter since the book is still inspired.
Bart used to be a credible scholar. He is popular, but not a leading scholar. He has been refuted over and over. He is simply a disgruntled skeptic who could not get over the problem of evil, etc.
Glynn Brown [11/30/2015 5:10 AM]
He still is a credible scholar,he is still a professor isn’t he?
John Kissinger [11/30/2015 5:14 AM]
so is and Peter Wagner many more but so what? http://churchwatchcentral.com/2015/10/16/when-peter-is-the-wolf-wagner-protests-that-the-nar-is-not-a-cult-or-americas-taliban/
Glynn Brown [11/30/2015 5:20 AM]
We cannot discredit a senior scholar because we disagree with him. Or because he challenges our beliefs.
John Kissinger [11/30/2015 5:20 AM]
Glynn Brown [11/30/2015 5:24 AM]
Why do you think we have had great theologians in church history? It was the result of Jewish and pagan opposition. The church fathers had to step up their game and answer their difficult questions.
William Lance Huget [11/30/2015 4:11 PM]
Bart is a professor. His views are now indefensible and not credible. This can be objectively shown in light of credible, conservative, evangelical scholarship. Some think Jesus Seminar is credible scholarship, but it is shoddy and not evidence based.
Glynn Brown [11/30/2015 4:46 PM]
So only conservative, evangelical scholarship is credible? Erhman is one of the best texual critics on the planet.
John Kissinger [11/30/2015 4:48 PM]
Moody Bible, Wheaton College and Princeton are not exactly liberal. What are some of his leading publication except this https://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart
John Kissinger [11/30/2015 6:00 PM]
Glynn Brown Still much interested in this discussion here. Though far done with text-criticism studies for years, I remember well when Misquoting Jesus came out in 2007. It was like the good Metzger book from the 70s but watered down for laymen. I still wonder what exactly was Ehrman wanting to do except becoming sort of the Dan Brown of text-criticism
William Lance Huget [11/30/2015 9:46 PM]
Herman worked with Wallace and WAS good, but he has now moved away from these solid things and has become a skeptic, agnostic, critic of Christianity and the Bible. Honestly, he is objectively refutable and has fallen from sound scholarship into rambling and nonsense. It may fool the masses who have a low view of the Bible, but it does not fool informed people.
Glynn Brown [12/01/2015 5:11 AM]
His book, ‘the orthodox corruption of scripture ‘,is still considered one of the top ten books of textual criticism.
John Kissinger [12/01/2015 6:50 AM]
by whom? there’s been a great increase in the focus on the importance on eastern orthodox text tradition since it was published. The main criticism against his and Metzger’s work was namely NOT paying too much attention to Eastern Orthodox texts
Glynn Brown [12/01/2015 8:14 AM]
John Kissinger [12/01/2015 8:20 AM]
Tommy Wasserman just reported about the New Papyrus (P134) of John presented at SBL but he is hardly a specialist in Slavic (or other eastern text families like Georgian or Armenian) texts to make a solid case on text criticism in regard to Eastern Orthodoxy. I saw his good Western list of books, but perhaps when making a case on Eastern texts is beneficial to cite some Eastern works too? Hence Wasserman’s wondering “What Is the ‘Text’ in Textual Criticism?” http://www.evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/12/2015-ets-and-sbl-paper-summaries.html#more
Tommy Wasserman [12/01/2015 8:32 AM]
I am not certain what you actually mean by “making a solid case on text criticism”. I listed some essential works for the discipline of textual criticism.
John Kissinger [12/01/2015 8:35 AM]
“a solid case on text criticism in regard to Eastern Orthodoxy” and its textual tradition. We were discussing the validity of “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” in regard to Slavic and other Eastern texts.
Tommy Wasserman [12/01/2015 8:36 AM]
Well, I still don’t have the slightest idea what you mean about “a solid case on text criticism.” As for “orthodox corruption of scripture”, do you know what case I make?
Tommy Wasserman [12/01/2015 8:37 AM]
Here is my “case” on the issue of orthodox corruption: https://www.academia.edu/10011104/Misquoting_Manuscripts_The_Orthodox_Corruption_of_Scripture_Revisited