bart ehrman's writings

[nonoylpz]

will somebody who is an authority on textual criticism answer dr. bart ehrman's thesis. or please recommend sites where i can find intelligent refutations againts his writings. thanks

[benedicta00]

who the heck is he?

[redhen]

Ehrman doesn't bring anything new to the table. These are all old arguments, although I haven't seen many Catholic responses.

Here's a debate between Ehrman and William Lane Craig, an evangelical theologian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg-6oWca5qE

Here's another Protestant rebuttal.
http://www.ccwonline.org/ehrman.html

[CalCatholic]

Originally Posted by benedicta00

who the heck is he?

He is a New Testament Scholar and author, who was an evangelical Christian, who became an agnostic. However he still is a New Testament Professor (that's where the money comes from), even though he is not a believer anymore.

[Pax]

I've been reading Erhman's book Misquoting Jesus. The book is okay on one level and bad on another. It gives insights into the difficulties of textual criticism, but it makes too much of it. The exagerated significance of minor differences in scriptural copies is especially problematic. The amazing thing about all of the manuscripts is the degree of consistency as opposed to the differences. This is something Erhman, IMHO, fails to appreciate. He is a bit OCD and overly impressed with textual issues which may explain his sliiping into agnosticism. I also came across an error in the book which makes me question his scholarship.

[Gottle of Geer]

Originally Posted by nonoylpz

will somebody who is an authority on textual criticism answer dr. bart ehrman's thesis. or please recommend sites where i can find intelligent refutations againts his writings. thanks

## Some indication of what that thesis is would be helpful. Why does he need refuting ?

[anon5216]

Originally Posted by Pax

I've been reading Erhman's book Misquoting Jesus. The book is okay on one level and bad on another. It gives insights into the difficulties of textual criticism, but it makes too much of it. The exagerated significance of minor differences in scriptural copies is especially problematic. The amazing thing about all of the manuscripts is the degree of consistency as opposed to the differences. This is something Erhman, IMHO, fails to appreciate. He is a bit OCD and overly impressed with textual issues which may explain his sliiping into agnosticism. I also came across an error in the book which makes me question his scholarship.

That all depends on what I've read elsewhere on these forums referred to as "extreme inerrancy" - where the bible has to be believed as basically the dictation of God - down to the slightest, most minute detail.

If that were the standard belief required then Ehrman has either proven it false, or shown that we can't know which (if indeed any) of the variants extent are the actual dictation.

In any case, Ehrman has proven that "extreme inerrancy" can't be applied to any biblical text we currently have.

[Pax]

Originally Posted by anon5216

That all depends on what I've read elsewhere on these forums referred to as "extreme inerrancy" - where the bible has to be believed as basically the dictation of God - down to the slightest, most minute detail.

If that were the standard belief required then Ehrman has either proven it false, or shown that we can't know which (if indeed any) of the variants extent are the actual dictation.

In any case, Ehrman has proven that "extreme inerrancy" can't be applied to any biblical text we currently have.

We really don't need Ehrman's musings on textual criticism for the purpose of disproving "extreme inerrancy". Ehrman's problem is that he doesn't think that you can trust any of the scriptures at all because we don't know what the original text actually says.

[Chicago Bears]

Originally Posted by Pax

Ehrman's problem is that he doesn't think that you can trust any of the scriptures at all because we don't know what the original text actually says.

This is not correct. Ehrman bases many of his analyses on the historical Jesus and early Christianity on the NT writings. Also, in his The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Ehrman makes the case that scholars do have an accurate picture of the NT as written. See pages 479-489.

Can you cite where says that the NT cannot be trusted at all?

[redhen]

For those interested, here's a link to hours and hours of video of Ehrman teaching.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...ch&hl=en&dur=3

just click on "More from this user" for the rest.

It's pretty standard fare, he doesn't deviate much in his classes, although he can't resist making a few insinuations.

[Donald45]

I recommend the following very helpful texts, which can be purchased, or ordered, at your local bookstore:

Darrell L. Bock, The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities (Thomas Nelson, 2006); ISBN 0-7852-1294-9

Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (InterVarsity Press, 2006); ISBN 0-8308-3318-8

Timothy Paul Jones, Misquoting Jesus: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus (InterVarsity Press, 2007); ISBN 978-0-8308-3447-1

Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done To Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories & Bad History---Why We Can Trust the Bible (HarperCollins, 2006); ISBN 0-06-112001-4

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

[SkinnyJay]

Here is a great dialogue between Ehrman and Colbert I like Colberts Parable haha =P

Link

[TertiumQuid]

Dr. James White recently debated Bart Erhman. The video can be purchased here. The MP3 can be purchased here. If you want a complete refutation of Erhman, this is it.

Regards,
James Swan

[Gottle of Geer]

Originally Posted by redhen

For those interested, here's a link to hours and hours of video of Ehrman teaching.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...ch&hl=en&dur=3

just click on "More from this user" for the rest.

It's pretty standard fare, he doesn't deviate much in his classes, although he can't resist making a few insinuations.

## That should be very educational, if not in one sense, then in another TY