Question re Bart Ehrman

[Jerusalem Blade]

If I were to buy and study one book of Ehrman's in order to best understand and refute his views, which would be the one to get?

Thanks for any info!

Steve

P.S. I'll be posting a compilation of various posts / threads of mine on textual issues shortly, as I said I would, as I will not be on PB that much for a while.

 

[tellville]

If I were to buy and study one book of Ehrman's in order to best understand and refute his views, which would be the one to get?

Thanks for any info!

Steve

P.S. I'll be posting a compilation of various posts / threads of mine on textual issues shortly, as I said I would, as I will not be on PB that much for a while.

Well given that you are the textual guru around here I would imagine The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture would be up your alley. His conclusions from this book also set the stage for all his future books. It is academic in nature and really get's at the root of his view of the NT text. You can get it here: Amazon.com: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament: Bart D. Ehrman: Books

Read Misquoting Jesus if you just want a more popular treatment of his view of the NT text and more personal type stuff: Amazon.com: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus): Bart D. Ehrman: Books

Read Jesus Interrupted if you want his overall views on most things having to do with Christianity. It is written at a popular level.

Hope that helps!

 

[wturri78]

You could just save time by watching his interviews with Stephen Colbert

I know more and more people, who otherwise have no interest in religion, who are reading his books just because there's so much hype. Funny, if Ehrman writes a book attacking the Bible, he gets a giant display in the front and center of the local bookstore. I can't remember seeing any titles from F.F. Bruce or Ben Witherington set up like that. At best you'll find two copies in the "Christian" section wedged between books on the Gnostic gospels.

I hope you'll share with us what you learn. I'll soon be reading F.F. Bruce with some guys at church, and then we will probably read a pop-level Ehrman book. We aren't likely to encounter people who are arguing about deep theology, but we'll practically trip over people who are reading Ehrman.

Where have all the good heretics gone?

 

[Robert Truelove]

I read "Misquoting Jesus" and found the actual facts it presents to do more to strengthen the integrity of the text of Scripture than to undermine it. We do have a Bible that has been remarkably preserved in spite of the issue of variants.

The problem is the way he presents these facts and the deductions he makes. He presents the problem as being of such magnitude as to undermine the doctrine of inspiration. The weight of his argument falls heavily upon Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 (which he cites repeatedly). He attempts to paint in the mind of the reader that the New Testament text is filled with variants of this nature which is patently absurd. To the uneducated, his arguments can sound very convincing, but to those who actually know the real state of the manuscripts as regards variants, the straw man is easily revealed.

Finally, his point is essentially the same as the position taken by some Traditional Text advocates; that the Critical Text position undermines the doctrine of inspiration. If he is critiqued with an exclusively 'Traditional Text response', then what one has essentially done is agreed with Ehrman and sidestepped the issues by presenting the Traditional Text view as the answer. I say sidestepped because when all is said and done, variants remain in all of the extant manuscripts of the New Testament. Erhman's argument is essentially boiled down to the false belief that textual variants prove that the Bible is not the Word of God.

A real critique requires a demonstration that the issue of variants in the manuscripts (which all must acknowledge as a fact) does not undermine divine inspiration; regardless of the position one takes on the issue of textual criticism. The issue as to how one deals with variants (whether Critical Text, Traditional Text or what have you) is a secondary argument.

 

[Marrow Man]

Some of the problem with the "popularity" of Ehrman is that his expertise is on textual criticism, yet he is now making his money on books dealing with matters of exegetical study, areas in which he is woefully inadequate. As Mark mentioned above, his only worthwhile book would be the first (Orthodox Corruption); Misquoting is simply a popular treatment of that book, and his subsequent books are attempts to capitalize on the popularity of that book by attacking various others aspects of Christianity.

You might also find this interview with Bart Ehrman (on Issues, Etc.) to be helpful. There are a couple of followups with John Warrick Montgomery and Timothy Paul Jones that might be helpful (I've listened to the initial interview with Ehrman but not the followups).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks, Mark,

I just ordered The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, as that seems to go into his views in the most depth. "Guru"? I prefer "Warrior-scholar" as in the piece-in-progress of the same title:

The warrior must be a scholar, or rather, a certain class of warrior, as attacks will be directed in such manner as to undermine the very basis of spiritual consciousness, which stands upon the word of the King. Undermine the word of the King, as contained in the holy writings – in them alone – and the mind of the warrior has no foundation on which to be.

The word of truth – the Scriptures of the Jews, whether in Hebrew, Greek or English (etc.) – is the basis of spiritual life for the younger brothers and sisters of the Christ, who now take His place in the satanic warfare as He has ascended to the throne of glory and power, having accomplished His warfare, and blazed the path for those who follow Him.

The written Word itself must be defended, its reliability, intactness, purity, even these many centuries since their being written.​

I'm going to publish a lot of stuff in this vein on a site / blog under construction now, but should be ready very soon – I'll give the url here when it's up. First and foremost it will be "a journal of literature" and not apologetics.


Bill, I just bookmarked some of his interviews -- thanks!


Robert, you said,

Finally, his point is essentially the same as the position taken by some Traditional Text advocates; that the Critical Text position undermines the doctrine of inspiration. If he is critiqued with an exclusively 'Traditional Text response', then what one has essentially done is agreed with Ehrman and sidestepped the issues by presenting the Traditional Text view as the answer. I say sidestepped because when all is said and done, variants remain in all of the extant manuscripts of the New Testament. Erhman's argument is essentially boiled down to the false belief that textual variants prove that the Bible is not the Word of God.

A real critique requires a demonstration that the issue of variants in the manuscripts (which all must acknowledge as a fact) does not undermine divine inspiration; regardless of the position one takes on the issue of textual criticism. The issue as to how one deals with variants (whether Critical Text, Traditional Text or what have you) is a secondary argument.​

How do you think James White did against him in those debates, from his CT standpoint (I will have to download them and listen to them myself)?

I don't think I agree with all of your premises, though I will give them some more thought. Even though they do have more merit than Erhman's, I have warned that Islamists and liberal critics would take Ehrman's tack.


Tim, I'll check those interviews out – thanks!