tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post8407735384407947119..comments2024-03-29T00:57:56.876+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: A Non-Evangelical Reads Misquoting JesusP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87584324361264607682019-05-03T20:35:40.098+01:002019-05-03T20:35:40.098+01:00Sorry but he is clearly purposefully misleading hi...Sorry but he is clearly purposefully misleading his popular readership when he does not present all the facts despite knowing them. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-81558224455668870212019-05-03T20:32:23.122+01:002019-05-03T20:32:23.122+01:00Fully agree. It has long been recognised that Ehrm...Fully agree. It has long been recognised that Ehrman clearly has an agenda in his 'popular' writings - to make people doubt the reliability of the NT, particularly the Gospels. As you said he gives no proper explanation of the variants, thus ensuring his readers, most of whom have no knowledge whatsoever of TC, conclude the NT is wholly unreliable and we have no way of knowing what was in the original text. Yet, strangely, he has also said that he and Bruce Metzger would agree the original text, with very few disagreements! I am glad some scholars have called out Ehrman's nonsense, but sadly those who read his popular books are unlikely to read those books negating him. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-59344293513373920512019-04-02T20:08:44.935+01:002019-04-02T20:08:44.935+01:00"Be that as it may, the question I think is w..."Be that as it may, the question I think is worth considering is the degree to which Misquoting Jesus does, in fact, mislead people. ... I did close the book thinking—and I know others who did as well—that Ehrman had overcooked his goose, especially as regards inspiration. But, then, I’m an Evangelical and so, according to Ehrman, maybe that explains it.<br /><br />What, then, do non-Evangelicals take away from the book? ... a man who is quite certainly not an Evangelical."<br /><br />Personally, I doubt Ehrman would have ever intended to mislead anyone. That he also did not provide Scott Adams with a sufficiently nuanced theology of inspiration to replace the common view among lay people, yes, including non-evangelicals, should also not be placed at his feet since Ehrman is not a Christian, let alone a Christian theologian. <br /><br />The real problem is with silly doctrines of inerrancy that cannot deal effectively with the realities of the human scribal tradition and with church pastors in general who prefer to let their congregations remain ignorant not only of issues of text cricism specifically but of common consensus views of critical biblical scholars in general. In America this is part of a long religious history of pietistic anti-intellectualism dating back to the Christian religious wars following the Reformation when the persecuted fringe religious groups came to the so-called New World to practice their religious faith in freedom. <br /><br />Just my two cents. <br /><br />Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13411752250129672502019-03-29T13:19:41.138+00:002019-03-29T13:19:41.138+00:00Jesus is the same fictional Jesus from the LXX ver...Jesus is the same fictional Jesus from the LXX version of Zechariah.<br /><br />Paul only ever indicates 2 sources of Jesus info, Scripture (the LXX) and dream teachings.<br /><br />Paul never indicates Cephas or anyone else was a disciple of Jesus. Apostle doesn't mean disciple.<br /><br />Philo independently confirms Jesus is the same Jesus from the LXX version of Zechariah:<br /><br />https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13541PerpetualMotionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04620422554600308484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-69495548173052827092019-03-29T13:18:41.397+00:002019-03-29T13:18:41.397+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.PerpetualMotionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04620422554600308484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-83947431391214505362019-03-29T13:14:31.362+00:002019-03-29T13:14:31.362+00:00Even if the Gospels have been perfectly preserved,...Even if the Gospels have been perfectly preserved, every aspect of them is fiction.<br /><br />Jesus riding on a donkey is from Zechariah 9<br /><br />Turning the other cheek is from the Greek text of Isaiah 50.6-9<br /><br />Clearing the temple is based on an ancient faulty translation of Zechariah 14.21<br /><br />I can go and on.PerpetualMotionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04620422554600308484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-27677263983185971692019-03-26T23:41:13.647+00:002019-03-26T23:41:13.647+00:00I totally forgot I had blogged this! Thanks for th...I totally forgot I had blogged this! Thanks for the hat-tip.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74347167085718726812019-03-26T17:36:45.627+00:002019-03-26T17:36:45.627+00:00Regarding how Ehrman presents the magnitude of the...Regarding how Ehrman presents the magnitude of the problem in terms of variants, I think the following takeaway by Adams is also instructive:<br /><br />"Sometimes the copiers left stuff out, sometimes they added their own explanations where things didn’t seem to make sense, and other times they simply made errors."<br /><br />While Ehrman is accurate on the number of variants in the NT, he doesn't qualify this by discussing the nature of those variants. As the more complete collations of recent years demonstrate, the vast majority of variant readings are singular or have simple mechanical explanations. Deliberate omissions and interpolations are comparatively rare, but Ehrman seems to leave his readers with the impression that such changes were on par with scribal errors in terms of their frequency.Joey McCollumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352192479713307345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-65470953428147397382019-03-26T06:21:16.633+00:002019-03-26T06:21:16.633+00:00David, sorry the point wasn’t clear. Eric appears ...David, sorry the point wasn’t clear. Eric appears to have put his finger on where you got stuck. Adams’s last line is saying he has no idea how Christians can maintain their faith given Ehrman’s case in the book. His five arguments before that are facetious.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75570096133705757182019-03-25T20:51:50.850+00:002019-03-25T20:51:50.850+00:00I believe that in that sentence Adams is referring...I believe that in that sentence Adams is referring not to Eherman's own argument, but to any potential argument that believers could use to answer Ehrman.<br /><br />Ehrman left Adams with the impression that the case against the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts is so strong that Adams can't conceive of any potential counterargument to the case Ehrman makes.<br /><br />To me, this highlights precisely Gurry's point.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-58373657875134304522019-03-25T20:38:41.481+00:002019-03-25T20:38:41.481+00:00Adams: "I kid, but I have no idea what the re...Adams: "I kid, but I have no idea what the real argument is."<br /><br />Cool, super helpful. #yawn<br />David A. Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06874993056069730058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-79535812492960351142019-03-25T20:36:22.285+00:002019-03-25T20:36:22.285+00:00It seems to me that Adams shows that he knows pret...It seems to me that Adams shows that he knows pretty well what the argument of Ehrman's book is.<br /><br />Also, it helps us (whether evangelical or not) see how Ehrman leaves the uninitiated with the wrong impression just by how he misled Adams.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-82262239556741478982019-03-25T20:23:26.431+00:002019-03-25T20:23:26.431+00:00I am asking the author of this post what the refer...I am asking the author of this post what the reference to the Dilbert author does for you? Doesn't seem like he has any answer(s), he just said that he apparently doesn't know what the argument of the book was. How does his take help evangelicals claiming Ehrman leaves the uninitiated with the wrong impression? David A. Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06874993056069730058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53999790056768857592019-03-25T20:20:07.510+00:002019-03-25T20:20:07.510+00:00Anecdotally, the sound-byte that most lay people I...Anecdotally, the sound-byte that most lay people I've talked to seem to take away from the book is the same one that stood out to Adams':<br />//Just to give you a flavor of the magnitude of the problem, according to Ehrman, there are more changes (both intentional and unintentional) in the Bible than there are words in the New Testament.//<br /><br />And the way Adams puts this illustrates very well how Ehrman is deceptive in the way he presents the evidence.<br /><br />I can't blame Ehrman's readers for thinking that that number of variants is a huge number, and also for thinking that because it's such a large number it casts great doubt on the reliability of NT manuscripts.<br /><br />But they're wrong about both of those assumptions. And while it's understandable for the lay readers not to grasp why, Ehrman absolutely should know better. Indeed, he surely does know better. But he's not trying to present the facts dispassionately, as he pretends. He's being a propagandist.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84500219968457350792019-03-25T20:13:27.894+00:002019-03-25T20:13:27.894+00:00You mean besides the Dilbert reference?You mean besides the Dilbert reference?Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26424875406312600322019-03-25T20:02:11.817+00:002019-03-25T20:02:11.817+00:00So what is the point of this post?So what is the point of this post?David A. Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06874993056069730058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-6614279305961148772019-03-25T17:45:23.502+00:002019-03-25T17:45:23.502+00:00This is very interesting. Perhaps those who are mo...This is very interesting. Perhaps those who are more well versed in TC would not feel this way specifically because they are filtering their reading through their knowledge of the field in general. This was very illuminating!Natan B de Carvalhohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02570208997269734026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-755766910000643222019-03-25T15:29:06.737+00:002019-03-25T15:29:06.737+00:00It amazes me that such a scholar has this cognitiv...It amazes me that such a scholar has this cognitive dissonance. He and Dr. Metzger went came to polar opposite conclusions on their faith after engaging in the TC field. Bock and Wallace's Dethroning Jesus has a great chapter interacting with Erhman's writings. Benjamin Murrayhttp://deeplygrateful.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com