So why does Ehrman give one impression to the general public and the opposite to the academic world? Could it be because he can get away with casting doubt on the New Testament to an uninformed public, but not to his academic peers? Does selling books have anything to do with it? I don’t know. I just find the contradiction here quite telling– the man who gets all the attention for casting doubt on the text of the Bible, upon further review, doesn’t really doubt it himself.
CrossExamined Blog » Blog Archive » Is the New Testament Reliable? Even Bart Ehrman Says Yes
Wow, someone's got an axe to grind. He doesn't contradict himself, Frank's article is a comparison of how "Misquoting Jesus" was promoted vs. things Dr. Ehrman has said. So I will agree that if you haven't actually read his book(s) and only go off how they are promoted then you might come away with the impression that there is a disconnect. However, he's said a number of times that he could very easily be a faithful christian knowing everything he knows about the text. From what I've read, it's the problem of evil that lead to his agnosticism, not the reliability of the texts. So I guess it's fair to say Frank (and you) probably haven't read his book(s), that seems typical of both of you.
ReplyDeleteUm, no, I have documented evidence of Bart Ehrman saying the same thing as the promotion for the books - that text is not reliable and when challenged admitting that it was. In debates and interviews. I've posted them here on this blog - several examples and as have many others said the same thing. And while I have also heard Ehrman say that the Problem of Evil was a big catalyst for his apostasy but also the textual reliability of the New Testament. Given that I have heard these things come out Ehrman's own mouth in video and audio, I'd say that it is you who doesn't know what he is talking about. On top of that in the article Frank quotes from Ehrman's own writing so accusing him of never reading his book(s) is really disingenuous on your part. Given how you have the knack of not understanding what you read when you read the Bible, it is possible that you didn't understand Ehrman either.
ReplyDeleteReferences
See my blog references here
And most definitely read Mariano Grinbank's posts.
Well to be fair, you've just reposted what others have "documented". Don't give yourself too much credit.
ReplyDeleteThe first one of yours (besides this one) is just about defining a greek word and the second one is about the problem of evil/suffering. So no... Mariano's are pretty much the same, one about marriage, another about typos in
"Misquoting Jesus", etc... I'll have to listen to the debates later, but I'm pretty sure you (and Frank) are just reading/hearing what you want to hear.
I think where you guys are getting mixed up is the word "reliable". I don't know of many people, myself included, who would argue that the gospels are unreliable in the technical sense, i.e. what we have today is reasonably close to the originals, i.e. Matthew in the NIV is probably very close to the original gospel of Matthew. But in misquoting Jesus, that was not the point at all, in general (because I doubt you've read it), he's saying who knows what Jesus actually said because the completely reliable Matthew and the completely reliable John do differ in very important ways. So, it's another question entirely if the originals "reliably" depict real events.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I have many, many posts regarding Bart Ehrman - not just two.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I don't deserve any credit. Only uninformed people like you think Ehrman has contributed anything worthwhile. God deserves all glory, honor, and credit. I didn't mean "documented" as if I came up with anything original. It is in a single place if you want to educate yourself.
Third, You missed Mariano's point entirely. No surprise there.
Fourth, Ehrman does not differentiate between unreliable in a technical sense and unreliable in that if its real or not. His whole point is about if we know what the texts actually said in a popular sense and therefore he doesn't trust them and he says no one should. Go ahead and look at his debate with Mike Licona and James White. And Daniel Wallace's discussion on Ehrman's conclusions and textual criticism. In his scholarly works he admits that we know what the original text says. Yet in his popular discussions he's not just talking about the difference between Matthew and John he's talking about the differences between the variants of Matthew and John. You've got a lot more research to do.
So you haven't read "Misquoting Jesus" then?
ReplyDeleteOK, just listened to the Ehrman/Licona Debate. Not sure where you think Bart Ehrman said what Frank claimed. Perhaps you can provide a quote? Again, this comes down to you misunderstanding the various uses of the term “reliable”, i.e. what we have now is “reliable” in the sense that it accurately reflects what was originally written between 65-100 CE, but what was written between 65-100 CE is not “reliable” in the sense of reflecting real events.
ReplyDeleteEhrman does makes a great point about god being beyond the historical method (i.e. the historian can tell you Jesus was crucified, but they can’t tell you Jesus was crucified for your sins). In fact, during that point, Ehrman says the “crucifixion is about as certain a piece of historical datum as we can expect from the ancient world”, so I really have no idea what you or Frank are talking about.
Ok, so I just watched the Ehrman/Licona debate and I really don't see where he's saying what you claim he's saying. Perhaps you can provide some quotes? This really does stem from your lack of understanding of the various uses of the term "reliable", i.e. what we have today is "reliably" close to what was written originally in 65-100 CE, but what was originally written in 65-100 CE does not "reliably" represent a historical reality.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I really liked Ehrman's point that god is beyond the historical method. A historian can tell us Jesus was crucified, but that historian cannot tell us Jesus was crucified for our sins, at least not using the historical method. And while he was making that point, Ehrman said the crucifixtion is as reliable a peice of historic data as we can expect from the ancient world, so I really have no idea what you or Frank are talking about.
Okay. Let's put all the cards on the table, Ryan. You are trying to say that if I have not Read "Misquoting Jesus" then I should not make comments on what the authors says or thinks. Correct?
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I want you to point out where I have said Bart Ehrman said something he did not say or misrepresented him in any way.
I haven't. You might try to argue because I've said that Ehrman says that the Bible is wrong because of textual variants that I've misrepresented him because he is saying that the Bible is not reliable because we don't know if it's true not because we don't know what it says. That is not what I'm saying. I'm also not saying that Erhman does not use the argument you ascribe to him. He used it in his debates against Mike Licona and William Lane Craig on the Resurrection. I made a mistake recommending the Licona Debate to you because they did not talk about Textual criticism much. And rather than ask you to read all 30+ Bart Ehrman posts on my blog. Let me point out 4 that show what I'm saying. Mariano has been point out the same thing. Prove me wrong: Listen to Ehrman's own lecture on the book and tell me that the book does not say what he just said in the Lecture.
Bart Ehrman lectured on Misquoting Jesus
James White on Textual Criticsm ands Bart Ehrman
Craig Evans debates Bart Ehrman Video
3 Jan 2009 "Misquoting Jesus" Ehrman & Williams
James White comment on Evan/Ehrman debate
Ehrman vs Infidel Guy
Textual Criticism done right by Dan Wallace
And there is more a lot more if you look. And open your mind.
You are trying to say that if I have not Read "Misquoting Jesus" then I should not make comments on what the authors says or thinks. Correct?
ReplyDeleteIf you haven’t read a book, you shouldn’t have opinions on that book, yes, absolutely. You did this with the Grand Design too. I would never presume to critique an authors work without reading it. I guess we differ there.
Also, you said “I think that even if Jesus did not speak Greek He could read it.”
Why would you think that? Obviously, if he was god incarnate he would have been able to speak !kung if he wanted to, but as far as evidence that Jesus specifically could read or speak Greek, there isn’t any.
As for the debates, I watched the first one and everything he said in this one was factual. We have translations of copies, no problem here. I think you are conflating “we don’t know what the originals said but what we have is probably close” and “what we have now is definitely wrong”. Given that the very first one you posted didn’t support your claim and that I can’t listen to him any longer because he sounds too much like Richard Dreyfus, I’m just going to write your claim off as cherry picking and confirmation bias on your part.
So let's get this straight:
ReplyDeleteIf you haven’t read a book, you shouldn’t have opinions on that book, yes, absolutely. You did this with the Grand Design too. I would never presume to critique an authors work without reading it. I guess we differ there.
But
As for the debates, I watched the first one and everything he said in this one was factual. We have translations of copies, no problem here. I think you are conflating “we don’t know what the originals said but what we have is probably close” and “what we have now is definitely wrong”. Given that the very first one you posted didn’t support your claim and that I can’t listen to him any longer because he sounds too much like Richard Dreyfus, I’m just going to write your claim off as cherry picking and confirmation bias on your part.
So you can accuse me of jumping to conclusions based on incomplete evidence yet you did the same thing with the evidence I provided regarding Bart Ehrman. Hmmm. Hypocrisy is something even atheists are capable of. I'd like to know why do you think that I'm trying to offer an opinion on "Misquoting Jesus" when all my posts have done is to provide information that I have found and then I comment on what I have found You can disagree with what I have said about what I posted. I have never claimed to review a book i have not read. Your judgment is pointless and more than unfair.
As for which debate you watched, I'm not clear. Did you watch the lecture? I think anyone who fairly and unbiasedly listened to that lecture would hear what I heard: We can't trust the New Testament because if it was divinely inspired there would be no textual variations. Just 'cause you obviously missed says more about you than anything else.
Also I'm not like you either because I have every intention of doing more reading [even stuff from people I disagree with] as time permits and if I want to post a review or a debate or any content I want to, I will.
It's dishonest to say I cherry picked, when I have multiple sources saying the same thing in the same context. Go ahead and remain ignorant if you like.
Post what you've found, I'm not taking your word for claims you are making about 5 hours of video I won't be watchig.
ReplyDeleteThen you don't know if I'm right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteI’m just going to write your claim off as cherry picking and confirmation bias on your part.
Don't honestly care. I'm fine with my assesment based on what I've seen that you are a cherry picker suffering from massive confirmation bias. We never have perfect information after all...
ReplyDeleteYour own presuppositions are often based on your ignorance. Take your assumption Jesus didn't read Greek. I did not say Jesus did not speak Greek, I clear said even if he didn't speak Greek we know He could read it. Evidence tells that the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament in widest use among Jews in the First Century. How do we know? Simple The Septuagint readings of the Old Testament are in the New Testament far more often than the Hebrew. Stands to reason that they were reading the Greek text and using it because more people - Jews and Gentiles - were more familiar with it - Like quoting from the KJV than the NLT.
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between assuming something and making unwarranted leaps.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like potatoes and humans have a common ancestor?
ReplyDelete