#8
Post
by Jac3510 » Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:55 pm
Heya Christian... sorry so long to respond.
My simple answer, though this certainly isn't a rebuttal, is that I was just really unimpressed with the article as a whole. I'll have to read the book for myself, but I don't expect much. Dr. Ehrman is, apparently, pretty liberal. The problem there is that liberals and conservatives approach the bible from entirely different perspectives. Without going into detail, that just means that, for the Ehrman, his conclusions are built into his presuppositions, so it is no surprise he comes to those that he does.
I will offer one quick example. Based on this review, it appears that Ehrman considers gnosticism an early heresy, and while I'd have to read his book to know, based on what I know from other liberal theologians, my bet would be that he is arguing that Paul (and others) wrote in response to that. Conservatives highly disagree. That would mean the majority of the NT would have to have been written in the second century BC, and, of course, that has massive ramifications of its own. But and however, that is a basic assumption of people like our esteemed Dr. Ehrman.
I'll read him in detail later this year, but for now, I wouldn't put too much stock in what he has to say. It's just the nature of the beast . . . in the meantime, I'd refer you to Metzger, the premier scholar on textual criticism. There is no doubt that what we have are, for all intents and purposes, the original manuscripts (that is, we have managed to restore them). That is just a matter of fact. What Ehrman is getting into is higher criticism, and while there is a place for that, SO MUCH of it has to do with a person's preconceptions it is beyond funny. There's a lot of conjecture and suggesting . . .
In fact, here's the bottom line on higher criticism of Dr. Ehrman's kind: even if we grant complete acceptability to his arguments (and we don't), the BEST he can offer is some sort of weak alternative to the orthodox position based on very, very, very different assumptions that have to be accepted a priori. In other words, while he MAY be justified in his beliefs, given his assumptions (though I don't think so), he certainly hasn't done anything negative to our own.
If you want some detailed study, again, check out Metzger, and start reading any of the Word Biblical Commentaries. They have outstanding articles on each book.
Hope that helps. God bless
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And
that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
