Made disparaging comments about Ehrman’s books? Like what? Ehrman obviously has his own opinions. He notes that not all scholars agree but there are some undeniable facts and some inevitable conclusions from those facts.
I more or less parroted the comments in my first post in this thread. My bad.
It’s unfortunate that people are so eager to maintain tradition and myth that they can’t take an honest look at the facts. That’s one of the things that bothers me about some Christians. It seems to me that if you really worship God and Jesus then the truth should be of prime importance.
Saying not all scholars agree with Ehrman would be accurate. Saying his ideas have been trashed by Biblical scholars is just plain BS.
We have no way of knowing what Jesus said or did not say, we just have to believe the people who wrote what he was supposed to have said.So, who knows what quote is correct? It is a matter of faith in the writers just as any quote that someone else claims someone else said. Now we have recorders so we can play then back. Two thousand years ago word traveled slow people didn’t get the message until sometime later.
Monavis
Only partially correct. We don’t know for sure what Jesus said. but one thing the available evidence shows us without doubt is that the books that are in the New Testament were altered as they passed through the hands of scribe after scribe after scribe. Sometimes the changes were intentional to support a certain theology. Given these facts I think it would be foolhardy to give too much credibility to the accuracy of the NT. It can still be meaningful to us as but that meaning springs from within ourselves as we try to sort out the message from the tradition.
Just to add to the general chorus -
Ehrmans writing is very understandable and a good introduction for the lay reader - much more so than Pagels or Hans Jonas. I have read a number of his more popular books, and am waiting for Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene : The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend, which I have on order.
If you want to read Lost Christianities, I recommend picking up Lost Scriptures, where he reprints many of the texts he refers to in Lost Christianities.
My take is that he is not saying anything revolutionary to most Biblical scholars, he is just making it accessable to more readers. In reading his books, I didn’t find anything that wouldn’t be heard in most upper level Biblical Criticism or Biblical History classes. My reading of (and handful of conversations with a handful of) Biblical Scholars, they regard Ehrman as as “one of them”, a respected scholar (though not one of the revered or the radical) and think his books are exactly what the purport to be, an interesting read for a somewhat interested non-scholar.
But, that’s just it – how can you know any truth about God or Jesus if you can’t rely on Scripture? Looking at it the way Ehrman does undermines their faith – like the Galilean bandit who tears down without building up again, Biblical scholarship like Ehrman’s debunks the Bible without putting any new relevation in its place.
Full disclosure: As I said in this Cafe Society thread I watched 12 hours of a DVD course by Ehrman (twice now) - but have not read any of his books (yet).
In my view this is not true of Ehrman. Yes he “tears down” a literal every single word is true - even when they contradict- acceptance of the Gospels. But it is no more vicious than you would find in any Junior or Senior Level College Course in any non-Oral Roberts/Liberty University - as many here have already said. He certainly doesn’t give off the vibe that he enjoys it or thinks he is “fighting the man” or [Homer Simpson] freaking out the squares [/Homer Simpson] that the more iconoclastic guys in this field (and the Internet) give off. I find that he tries to be scholarly - he certainly isn’t a fanatic with an agenda.
In fact I am surprised at how far he goes with his idea of Proto-Orthodoxy. I have seen a Roman Catholic Reviewer angry at his charactization as to why the Proto-Orthodox side “won” … but the idea that a well respected secular historian says there* WAS * a proto-orthodoxy (to me) goes farther than most do. I have little doubt he would cause some of our more ardently secular SDGD colleagues heads to explode with his main theories about the existence of a Christian proto-orthodoxy (based first in Jersualem then in Rome :eek: ).
But it is true that he is not for fundamentalists or really for anyone who wants the Gospels to have been dictated by an apostle to a trusted aide with eidetic memory and notarized and then locked away unchanged from that day to this - if that then Ehrman isn’t for you either.
No it undermines certain popular myths and makes people take a new look at their faith and ask some questions. I think that’s a good thing. Ehrman’s work doesn’t make the Bible useless as a source of spiritual insight and ideas. It does challenge those who use the Bible to form rigid dogma. I think that’s good too.
No it undermines certain popular myths and makes people take a new look at their faith and ask some questions. I think that’s a good thing. Ehrman’s work doesn’t make the Bible useless as a source of spiritual insight and ideas. It does challenge those who use the Bible to form rigid dogma. I think that’s good too.
I’m reading Lost Scriptures right now. I find some of the theology mentioned in the Gnostic gospels pretty interesting.
You think that that is Harrington being angry? He offered a simple disagreement while providing reasons for the disagreement. It is, of course, possible the Harrington did some quote mining or overreacted to specific passages, but if that (generally favorable) review constitutes anger, then Harrington must be the most peaceable man on Earth.
Can you explain what Ehrman means by Proto-Orthodox? I’m a little unclear about that.
**Tomndeb ** you are right, angry was a poor choice of ‘word’.
Here is the wiki definition in which our Correspondent demonstrates he is shaky on exactly how to spell “completely” (said the man in the Big Glass house as he tossed the stone)
Proto-Orthodox Christianity is a term created by religious philosopher Bart D. Ehrman. The term loosely refers to the dominant form of modern Christianity, which incorporates many of the earliest Christian sects, such as Jewish-Christian Adoptionists, Marcionite Christians, and Gnostic Christians.
“Proto-orthodox Christians agreed with the Jewish Christians who said
that Jesus was completly human, but disagreed when they denied that he
was divine. They agreed with the Marcionites who said that Jesus was
completly divine, but disagreed when they denied that he was human.
They agreed with the Gnostics who said that Jesus Christ taught the way
of salvation, but disagreed when they said that he was two beings rather
than one.”[1]
[1] Bart D. Ehrman The New Testament: A Historical Introduction
He says in the The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers that if a any nominal “Christian” of today walked into a proto-orthodox meeting room – they may or may not understand some of the rituals (Baptism, Breaking Bread) the same way as these early Christians (he shows often why they would almost certainly be understood differently and I am open to taking a small hit for mischaracterizing the entire body of work by saying “may or may not” - but he does in fact say that paraphrased) – but the seemingly modern concept of Jesus fully divine and fully man that anyone in Western Christianity grew up with – on that point, in these places – Moderns and Protos would all be understanding and conceptualizing Jesus the same way. Ehrman spends a lot of time explaining how that happened (and from the Harrington link) I gather that in Lost Christianities it is the pretty standard accepted story.
I tried my best all – to answer and not spin it – if someone has a better or more succinct definition/explanation of the proto-orthodox concept (and remember I am basing this on oral & not written stuff mainly) then have at it.
FWIW here is Ehrman on NPR
Thank you that does clarify it for me. 