Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
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.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
I thought the upside-down Hebrew was the point...
ReplyDeleteChris
How is your book coming on?
ReplyDeleteIs this a question for Chris or for me?
ReplyDeleteI suppose that depends on whether the interpretation should be based on the original intention and whether that intention was adequately reflected in the actual text or can be determined in some other way.
ReplyDeleteThe American thinker has a helpful new review (not the positive tone of my introduction); http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/review_of_bart_d_ehrmans_misqu.html
ReplyDelete(But is the American thinker on the toilet?)
Doh! That should have read: "note the positive tone of my introduction".
ReplyDeleteThis is all rather cryptic.
ReplyDeleteBlame it on the last week of term.
ReplyDeleteThe paperback edition also includes some new material from Ehrman such as a Q&A in which he further explains his view of Scripture. He clarifies there that it was not his knowledge of textual variation in the Bible that led him to agnosticism, but rather it was the problem of evil. (He also notes that he's working on a book on that very topic.) He says his knowledge of textual criticism changed his view of Scripture, but did not end his faith. His reflection on evil did that.
ReplyDelete