Re: What Bible?

I don't know what Ehrman's background is, but the commentary you quote is
from a Mormon, and so we know where he is coming from. Unless Ehrman has
ancient manuscripts that most Biblical scholars have not seen, his ideas
about the canonical books being doctored sound like mere speculation.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Pim van Meurs wrote:

> Cool seems that Christians and non-Christians alike have found something in the writings of this author. Understanding the history of Christianity seems something we should be all interested in, even if the past may show something some of us may not like.
>
> I listened to some of the NPR interviews with Ehrman, he sounds like a very interesting and well informed person.
>
> His book "The orthodox corruption of Scripture" (see http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/orthodox.htm for instance) helps us all understand how history has shaped much of what we consider nowadays to be the canonical books of the Bible.
>
>
> <quote>Ehrman, perhaps better than any other scholar to date, shows that the manuscripts of the Bible were written and copied and recopied, not by emotionless machines, but by living breathing human beings "who were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day." (p. 3). They could not have approached their task objectively, as they went about rewriting the Bible manuscripts to say what they already felt that the Bible meant! "...theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently "othodox" and less susceptible to "abuse" by the opponents of orthodoxy." (p. 4). "...it was the perception of their opposition that led scribes of the proto-orthodox party to change the sacred texts that they transmitted." (p. 14). Ehrman shows how the term "heresy" was sometimes the orig!
 ina
> l
> Christianity which later orthodoxy fought! And in the first three centuries there was not an "orthodox" *original* Christianity, rather, there were various sects all claiming original "Apostolic" teachings! The various sects fought each others' views and claimed their own was the "original" and all others were "heresy". In other words, it won't do to just simply label the Gnostics as the heresy and throw out their beliefs, anymore than it will do to say the "orthodox" are the correct Christian teachings! Orthodoxy was in later times, what the earlier heresy used to be, and vice versa! It is an amazingly complex and utterly fascinating issue which most of us are completely unaware of. We Mormons particularly would do much better to acquaint ourselves further with the history of early Christianity. I say this more for my own benefit than for others, as I hold quite high standards for my own level of learning.</quote>
>
> Some video lectures
>
> http://www.yale.edu/divinity/video/convo2004/ehrman01.htm
>
> First Shaffer Lecture
> Bart D. Ehrman
> "Christ in the Early Christian Tradition Texts Disputed and Apocryphal I. Christ Come in the Flesh"
>
> http://www.yale.edu/divinity/video/convo2004/ehrman02.htm
>
> Second Shaffer Lecture
> Bart D. Ehrman
> "Christ in the Early Christian Tradition Texts Disputed and Apocryphal II. Christ The Divine Man"
>
> Thanks Janice, this really blows my skirts
>
> Pim
>
> Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote: At 03:19 PM 3/12/2006, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
> Another addition to my reading list. Thanks Janice for encouraging me to research this book further. The history of early christianity is quite fascinating to me and help understand the evolution of Christianity into its present form
> @ You're most welcome. Whatever blows your skirts.
>
> Here are some others who eagerly added his book to their reading list:
>
>
Received on Sun Mar 12 20:51:23 2006