by yadda yadda 2 25 Replies latest watchtower bible
Yadda, you didnt think much of Bart Erhman back then, and Leo didnt give her opinion on him that I could see in a quick skim thru (i was hoping she would)...
Has your opinion of him changed now? Anyone else think poorly of his work?
I ask because I rate him, but am well aware of how easy it is to fall into the trap of confirmation bias and I am trying to avoid doing that these days.
WMF,
I have not read any bible scholars works. But I do not believe the bible can be from God. I have looked up Bart Erhman, am watching a lecture he is giving about his book "Misquoting Jesus". I find him balanced in his lecture, he mainly states the facts about transcription and copying texts, he doesn't really give his opinion although it's clear what it is.
But is he just confirming my bias too? Can I still believe in God and not the bible? Is that possible? Once I read his work who knows but I like him and he seems interesting so far.
Kate xx
I think there are two Bart Ehrmann's. One the credible academic, and one the writer of populist books. Not that his books like "Misquoting Jesus" have anything that is academically questionable in them, but he sometimes likes to use sensationalist wording, the gospels are "fakes" etc
In the following Post Leo disagrees with the use of the term, so I guess she doesn't agree 100% with all he says, she refers us back to this very thread too :
"There are two separate issues discussed here, whether Matthew is a "clever fake" by its use of unhistorical literary contrivances (such as the lack of sources for the prayer in Gethsemane or the trial) or whether it is a "clever fake" for "pretending to have been written early by an eyewitness". The first point is certainly relevant to the book's historicity but not so much as to its authorial intent, as even the best ancient Greek historians invented much in their accounts (such as speeches or genealogies), but this does not mean that they construed themselves as "faking" their histories as opposed to arriving at the truth in some other way than the use of specific sources (see Paul Veyne's Did the Greeks Believe Their Myths? for a discussion of this point). With respect to the literary convention of pseudonymity, it is similarly not necessarily the case that those who composed the pseudepigrapha conceived of themselves as "faking" their accounts or revelations; it is possible that some believed they were copying down a book given to them in a vision (this is a very common motif in the revelatory literature). With respect to the gospels themselves, I have earlier written on this subject and how invention in gospel writing does not necessarily imply an intent to deceive (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/167595/1/Are-the-gospels-just-midrash).
On the second point, I see absolutely no reason to think that Matthew is "cleverly" written to appear to be an eyewitness account composed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, as I see nothing in the book that suggests this. The book is anonymous, there is no use of the first person (unlike, say, in the Gospel of Peter), and the descriptions of the Temple and its functions are naturally to be expected in a story set during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. The allusion to James' martyrdom in Matthew 20:22-23 is muted compared to that in Mark 10:38-39, but this is probably a consequence of Matthew utilizing an earlier edition of Mark. The prophecy of the Temple's destruction in Mark looks rather much like it was written before the fact because it relies mainly on Danielic apocalyptic traditions and doesn't fit too well with the events of AD 70; it is the Lukan version that makes the connection with AD 70 explicit. The author ofMatthew was writing after AD 70 and has clearly interpreted the Markan apocalypse in light of these events; he has thus disentangled the destruction of the Temple from the conclusions of "all things" by modifying the disciples' question in 24:3(whereas in Mark 13:4 the two are closely linked) and the time reference in 24:29, and by introducing the theme of apparent delay in the parousia through the insertion of three parables with delay or a prolonged wait as their central theme. The eschatological expectation was that the parousia would not closely follow on the heels of the Temple's destruction but it is still imminent and would occur in the lifetime of those who witnessed Jesus. This fits the probable date of the book (circa AD 80) quite well. It would make no sense to not just preserve but expand on the Markan promises of imminence in Mark 9:1 and 13:30 (as the author of Matthew does in 10:23) if they still weren't of any value to the book's intended audience. For a good lengthy discussion of the eschatology of Matthew and the role of the "generation" expectation, see David Sim's Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew."
Kate ....." Can I still believe in God but not the bible " yes you can but why?
Either side of the fence gets you somewhere right or wrong , but sitting on the fence results in frustration
which can lead to inner turmoil which is not good for your phsych or physical wellbeing.
You can have a fulfilled and happy life without supernatural belief or input.
Best wishes to you.
Mark was the first gospel which the others then redacted and embellished. Mark comprised logia from some Q document or oral tradition, with the rest largely filled in by a form of midrash and pious fraud. Being convinced that Jesus was truly the resurrected Son of God, they had no compunction about interpreting OT parables in light of Jesus life.
Jesus himself did this extensively during his ministry. His first public appearance after baptism was reading from Isaiah in a synagogue and announcing that it was fulfillfed in him that day; then after his claimed resurrection he walks with the disciples explaining to them all the things he fulfilled from the Hebrew scriptures. The gospel writers were merely imitating Jesus in doing the same.
Scholar Robert M Price: "It is clear from this that a concern for historical accuracy played no part in the creation of the Gospels. The principle of eyewitness, perhaps even of representing history at all, was simply not operating. This is a chain of original storytelling, not a reproduction or editing of earlier tradition. Literary criticism reveals Mark as writing most of his Gospel out of his own imagination (drawing mostly on scriptural elements), while his redactors are recasting his efforts for their own purposes, with no concerns about compromising or falsifying historical truth or accuracy. That there was vast fabrication by all involved throughout the Christian documentary record has long been undeniable, and there is no reason to make any distinction in reliability between canonical and non-canonical writings."
I am no scholar, but i woke up when i thought about what i read, and i am 100% i am finnished with the gospels. At best in modern terms they are great theatre and great entertainment but no more real than the heroes we watch on the screen.
