I'm fascinated by the work of
Bart Ehrman. How can he do such very good scholarship deciphering textual criticisms yet come to such different conclusions about how reliable the
Bible is than Peter Williams, Dan Wallace, or
James White? Why does he overstate the differences the textual variants make? These variants have been known for centuries, why would it only matter now? If
Christian theology rose and fell on these variants, why hasn't it affected Christian doctrine. The funny thing is that most of the cults and theological differences giving rise to so many different generations are not based on the important differences in manuscripts. Ehrman's arguments are based on the
New Testament because there are far fewer textual variants of the Old Testament. Ehrman is also not willing to apply the same rules for accepting historical documents for other historical documents than he does for the New Testament. Ehrman also ignores the wide spreadness of the manuscripts and there are more than one line of transmission,
One thing that is very interesting in this discussion centered around Mark 1: 41. Ehrman argues that a few manuscripts say Jesus became angry instead of Jesus being filled with compassion and that shows the manuscript was changed. I liked how Peter Williams answered that. I think that Williams is right.
Unbelievable? 3 Jan 2009 "Misquoting Jesus" Ehrman & Williams
Image via Wikipedia![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vmTqY-Ljj6LKludRYnUeX-evrIsVY3jPBLE4JIAHqxlX1UDfUPMhzSdz6bEzxqspgGrnFtAKfrJyIU-05qqxPQAmZjFigQXtTzpSWUNzK0TxPo0zsTEaoAahcn1UvByGODDceIsEhA_RoRV6_pe7Pa=s0-d)
No comments:
Post a Comment