Well, there is an actual absence of Catholic Scholars (although Pope Benedict’s Books have both historically sound methodology and are very pro-Catholic), but conservative Christian positions on various issues are still a widespread in scholarship and are not easily dismissible in methodology.
I actually wouldn’t use the word “preach” with anything that he does. He just states facts as he finds 'em and doesn’t push any agenda either way
Did you read my link? Though Ehrman may present legitimate facts, his presentation, as well as implicit premises and the conclusions he draws, are indeed meant to present (or are at least based on) an agenda.
that would not “contradict” any doctrine, right?
It could, it could not. It depends on some additional facts (assuming Ehrman is right in the first place, which I’m willing to grant, but if I remember correctly I HAVE read a defense of the line as historical), some of which we may never know.
But consider his treatment of certain reconciliations of “contradictions” like the temple cleansing: he, nor does any of academia, does not gain any ground from there being a contradiction here (unless he has an agenda to push), but he still presents quasi-problems with the “two cleansings” reconciliation which, while convincing to the layperson, do not pass once one acquires a better understanding of context - both a contextualized definition of inerrancy and analyzing why Jesus was actually so controversial destroy his objections to the reconciliation.
Mmmm? Not sure why unfortunately for me?
Does their discarding and exclusion from the final canon of the NT have a negative impact for women or somethin’?
No, but if you want to advocate that they ought to be included in the Canon, or are historically reliable at all, you need to do more than just point them out.
I’ve read a bit of them and I find them very, very interesting, tho.
I find them fascinating too. But this fascination led me to study them and realize that their limit to aiding academia is in contextualizing gnosticism, and they can’t tell us anything significant about Jesus.
Which leads me to a question, and I don’t know who to ask. You seem to be smart and know a lot, Pieman. Plus, you have the name of my favorite dessert, so that counts a lot to a woman. So can I ask you a question?
Sure. Hit me.
When the Christians who were deciding on which “books” to include in the NT in the 4th century were going through that process during those 3-4 centuries…do you know if any of them wrote down* why *they made the decisions they did?
Well, I don’t know if they themselves wrote it down, but scholars have deduced what their criteria were. Unfortunately I’m typing this in programming class so I can’t go into specifics, but I can assure you they are indeed reliable.
Why some of the writings–even Thomas, which actually claims to be written by Thomas himself, I think–would be left out?
Again, I will list these criteria and analyze any text you want later, when I have more resources later.
I know that Josephus fellow touched upon the Simon-Peter one in his big book, I think… but do you know if any of these people who did the deciding told anyone or recorded down anywhere why they made the decisions they did?
Irenaeus did, but he was a while before. I don’t know of any primary sources, but as I said above scholars are virtually certain of their criteria.
Or did they just make their decisions and then have the books that did not “make the cut” banned and burned and that was that?
No, they were legitimate criteria, but even if not, the books were not burned, except for Arius’ works. Nowhere did anybody say you should or had to burn Gnostic works.