caddy
Puritan Board Senior
This link works. The above link in Steve's Post does not.
CCWblog.org: Public Debate with Bart Ehrman in Seminaries: A Bad Decision
CCWblog.org: Public Debate with Bart Ehrman in Seminaries: A Bad Decision
Preparing for Ehrman
- Thread starter Jerusalem Blade
- Start date
- Status
Kostenberger's book is excellent. The major thrust, though, is to refute the Baur thesis rather then dwell on the textual issues.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Poet
Yes, Tom and Daniel (Poimen) – this is a great recommendation; I started reading it a couple of days ago (thanks to the generosity of AMR / Patrick!). He goes, as you said, Tom, not after the textual issues, but the paradigm enunciated by Walter Bauer in the ‘30s (only translated into English in the ‘70s) and lately elaborated upon by Bart Ehrman. To get an understanding of this I think is foundational to getting a grasp of what Ehrman is about.
The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Kostenburger and Kruger.
I also started reading Bauckham’s, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (I read a lot of books at once – but every college or seminary student does the same). Now he does go after the textual issues, but in the broad sense of their historical relevance based on the eyewitness testimony they contain – first person accounts of interaction with Jesus and/or observation of Him – “. . . both a reputable historiographic category for reading the gospels as history, and also a theological model for understanding the Gospels as the entirely appropriate means of access to the historical reality of Jesus” (p. 5). This book is a tour de force against the “methodological skepticism” that pervades so much New Testament scholarship these days. (Thanks again to AMR!)
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Richard Bauckham.
The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Kostenburger and Kruger.
I also started reading Bauckham’s, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (I read a lot of books at once – but every college or seminary student does the same). Now he does go after the textual issues, but in the broad sense of their historical relevance based on the eyewitness testimony they contain – first person accounts of interaction with Jesus and/or observation of Him – “. . . both a reputable historiographic category for reading the gospels as history, and also a theological model for understanding the Gospels as the entirely appropriate means of access to the historical reality of Jesus” (p. 5). This book is a tour de force against the “methodological skepticism” that pervades so much New Testament scholarship these days. (Thanks again to AMR!)
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Richard Bauckham.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Greetings Steve:
I happened upon the YouTube debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace posted by the Ehrman Project. In watching it I was struck by Bart Ehrman's use of Higher Critical thinking in his presentation. When Dr. Ehrman points out that 2 Corinthians "actually" contains 2 letters put together he is no longer arguing from Lower Criticism, but from the Higher Critical philosophy. There are no manuscript evidences that support the thought that 2 Corinthians contains two different (or five different!) letters of Paul.
Blessings in your studies, brother!
-Rob
I happened upon the YouTube debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace posted by the Ehrman Project. In watching it I was struck by Bart Ehrman's use of Higher Critical thinking in his presentation. When Dr. Ehrman points out that 2 Corinthians "actually" contains 2 letters put together he is no longer arguing from Lower Criticism, but from the Higher Critical philosophy. There are no manuscript evidences that support the thought that 2 Corinthians contains two different (or five different!) letters of Paul.
Blessings in your studies, brother!
-Rob
Last edited:
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Poet
I’m coming back to this thread as I just finished another reading project and am starting again in Kostenburger and Kruger’s (K&K), The Heresy of Orthodoxy.
It has been important for me to realize that one of the bases of Ehrman’s point of view is that, following Walter Bauer’s hypothesis, he maintains that orthodox Christianity was not the original “Christianity”, but it took over much as a neighborhood bully takes over his turf, knocking down opposing and earlier versions of the Christian faith. I don’t think I want to get and read Ehrman’s books in this area; it is sufficient for me at this point to understand K&K’s analysis and refutation of both the Bauer thesis and Ehrman’s expansion of it.
K&K go about examining the numerous refutations of the Bauer thesis, point by point, showing that Biblical Christianity was the original in various parts of the Roman Empire, certain major cities in particular. They also note the peculiarity that Bauer did not much avail himself of the New Testament data in compiling his research and drawing his conclusions.
I am aware that K&K really have their sights set on Ehrman (and somewhat Elaine Pagel – another Gnostic Gospel promoter who has bought into Bauer), so this is a fascinating read for one determined to understand the mind-set of Bart Ehrman. To refute his textual false assertions is only part of the task, for he seeks to revise the very histories both of the early church and the composing and transmission of the NT gospels and letters.
He has fortified himself in his errors (his mind a satanic stronghold), and the reward of his labors is wealth and fame, for a brief spell. A tragic object-lesson to us all.
It has been important for me to realize that one of the bases of Ehrman’s point of view is that, following Walter Bauer’s hypothesis, he maintains that orthodox Christianity was not the original “Christianity”, but it took over much as a neighborhood bully takes over his turf, knocking down opposing and earlier versions of the Christian faith. I don’t think I want to get and read Ehrman’s books in this area; it is sufficient for me at this point to understand K&K’s analysis and refutation of both the Bauer thesis and Ehrman’s expansion of it.
K&K go about examining the numerous refutations of the Bauer thesis, point by point, showing that Biblical Christianity was the original in various parts of the Roman Empire, certain major cities in particular. They also note the peculiarity that Bauer did not much avail himself of the New Testament data in compiling his research and drawing his conclusions.
I am aware that K&K really have their sights set on Ehrman (and somewhat Elaine Pagel – another Gnostic Gospel promoter who has bought into Bauer), so this is a fascinating read for one determined to understand the mind-set of Bart Ehrman. To refute his textual false assertions is only part of the task, for he seeks to revise the very histories both of the early church and the composing and transmission of the NT gospels and letters.
He has fortified himself in his errors (his mind a satanic stronghold), and the reward of his labors is wealth and fame, for a brief spell. A tragic object-lesson to us all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
