A review of Bart Ehrman's defense of his book

M.S. Bruce at Bruce4Truth.com has written a brief review of a lecture he heard by Bruce Ehrman in defense of his book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why". Our own Layman has already written his own Non-Flattering Review of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus which I recommend everyone interested in this book read. What is interesting about M.S. Bruce's blog entry is that (I have it on good information) he is a theology student, and rather than review the book, he is describing what he heard at a lecture defending the book. His take -- very similar to Layman's take.

His concluding paragraph gives quite a bit of the flavor of his account of the lectures and the question and answer session:

In closing I would like to know, Mr. Ehrman, how do you draw these conclusions from the textual variants? How can we trust any ancient text by the standards that you judge the New Testament? On what grounds do you identify additions to the text? Why do you make blatant and erroneous denials regarding the Deity claims in the synoptics? Why can't you understand basic metaphysics regarding the Trinity? Why would almost all of the apostles die for what they knew to be a lie? Most of all, why do you base your personal beliefs that Jesus was not God and that there was no resurrection on such poor arguments that are laced with untruths, circular reasoning and unwarranted conclusions?

Comments

zok said…
another good review by craig blomberg at http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2006/0200/0206.php
BK said…
Thanks Zok, I will definitely read it.
Steven Carr said…
'Why would almost all of the apostles die for what they knew to be a lie?'

This old rubbish again? Anybody care to give document evidence from before 200 AD as to how each of the apostles died?

In fact, name one person who was executed for preaching a resurrection. (Stephen never said Jesus was resurrected, only that he was in Heaven)
BK said…
Steven,

That is absolutely a foolish statement. Peter and Paul were both unquestionably executed by the Romans around 65 A.D. and both clearly preached a resurrection (a few silly arguments to the contrary notwithstanding). I certainly agree that there is less evidence for the martyrdom of the other apostles, but your blind discounting of the possible legitamacy of the teachings of tradition demonstrates your simple refusal to give any credit to sources of information you choose to disbelieve.

Popular posts from this blog

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

The Meaning of the Manger

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark