A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
Philippians 1:18 in action. Ehrman admits that he used to believe in God, back when he had the testicular fortitude to do so.
Here's another one of Ehrman on The Daily Show:http://ruminationsbythelake.blogspot.com/2006/07/ehrman-on-daily-show.htmlIt isn't as hilarious. I wonder if they'll get Dan Wallace on?
There was an interesting quote in Ian's link. The host refers to Misquoting Jesus as "a Hell of a book".
Good fun to watch, probably not such good fun to be interviewed on. I wonder how any of us would have got on.Error of fact re John 7.59-8.11: Ehrman for some reason says this was not known among commentators for 1,000 years. This is obviously wrong. Ambrose and Augustine both discuss it for a start. Augustine even gives reasons why some people would have omitted it.
Ehrman was probably referring to Greek commentators.
"Even more significant [than the manuscript and versional evidence] is the fact that no Greek Church father for 1000 years after Christ refers to the pericope as belonging to the fourth Gospel, including even those who, like Origen, Chrysostom, and Nonnus (in his metrical paraphrase), dealt with the entire Gospel verse by verse. Euthymius Zigabenus, who lived in the first part of the twefth century, is the first Greek writer to comment on the passage, and even he declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it" (Metzger & Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 4th ed., 319-320).Jim LeonardSouthwest Pennsylvania
OK, perhaps I'll let him off with a slight slip rather than a serious mistake.Why exactly is the absence from Greek commentators 'even more significant' than the ms evidence?
Hi,My name is Carlos Arias and I am a evangelical pastor From México, I am not a New Testament Scholar, but I am interesting in New Testament Criticism.Can you give me your opinion, about Dr. Ehrman? He Wrote "Text and tradition: The role of New testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies" And I might think, that he isnt very objetive about the age of Bezae Codex.I´m a beliver of Bizantine TextThanks, and God Bless you
Greetings, Carlos. Thanks for your question. Ehrman is obviously a very well qualified scholar in the area of textual criticism. Yet this does not mean there is no room for disagreement with him, as can be seen from various posts on this blog.However, I am unaware of any unconventional views of Ehrman on the date of Codex Bezae. Naturally, there are various views as to the value of the readings of Codex Bezae.
Dear Mr. Williams,Thnks, for your answer. I am really interesting in the textual Cristicism of the New Testament. I might do my final proyect about this topic.Nice too met you,God Bless you,Carlos