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.
Do you think it could be deliberate ambiguity when Elliott says he looks forward to 'many more perceptive contributions to textual criticism' from Ehrman?
Given the extensive list of simple (or, "very stupid"?) mistakes perpetuated or created in these essays as listed by Elliott's review, perhaps someone should write an article on the "Careless Corruptions of Ehrman:! :) It certainly does not engender confidence in Bart's scholarship. I'd be quite embarassed to have even a few of these mistakes attributed to me.And as to 'many more perceptive contributions,' perhaps Elliott is hoping for many contributions which are "more perceptive"?! :)RD