Bart Ehrman: "Biblical Scholarship and the Right to Know" (page 2)

PSacramento

I am confused about the "right to know" what exactly?

leavingwt

PSacramento: The article will explain it. I didn't quote any of those portions above. Hence, my title on this thread is a bit misleading.

Being an intelligent believer means understanding the truth about the religion that one believes in, where it came from, how it became what it is, and the historical and cultural forces that molded it. As a biblical scholar, I’m especially concerned with highlighting the truth about the Bible, and I think everybody has the right to know which of its views can’t be squared with the findings of science. People have the right to know that we don’t have the original writings of the New Testament but only later copies, all of which have mistakes in them. People have the right to know that there are discrepancies in the Bible, both major and minor, scattered throughout the entire thing, Old Testament and New Testament. People have the right to know that the historical Jesus appears to have predicted that the end of history as we know it was going to occur in his own generation. People have the right to know that many of the stories about Jesus in the New Testament were fabricated by well meaning but misguided Christians who wanted others to believe in him. People have a right to know that a large number of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, as many as eleven or twelve of them, were not written by their alleged authors, the Apostles, but are in fact forgeries written by other people lying about their identity in order to deceive others.

leavingwt

Yes, that is the 'right to know' portion.

PSacramento

I agree that YES, all people that WANT to knwo about those things shoudl be told.

As you k now not every one wants to know or even cares but lets put those aside for now.

I think that Bart is 100% correct that bible should know that those issue exist AND that those issue have also been dealt with ( whether Bart agrees with the answers or not).

Bart also needs to be carefule about what he says:

People have a right to know that a large number of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, as many as eleven or twelve of them, were not written by their alleged authors, the Apostles, but are in fact forgeries written by other people lying about their identity in order to deceive others.

Bart is quite correct that those epistles (not books) were quite POSSIBILY not written by the apostles that they are ascribes too BUT unless Bart KNOWS the INTENTION behind why those letter were written by someonelse then saying it was to "deceive others" is incorrect and he has no evidence of that and, as we ddiscussed thisn in the other thread, Bart doesn't use the term "forgery" in its common use in his book, though he certiably does seem to be using it THAt way here.

designs

PS-

While I haven't dug into Bart's work the obvious signs that Books like Romans, Galatians, Hebrews etc were not written by a Jew named Saul (Paul) are the Jewish errors and assumptions that are made.

PSacramento

Not the point Designs, Bart maybe 100% right but unless he can prove "intent to deceive" then saying that was the intent is wrong.

designs

PS-

I would then call 'intent to deceive' something like in the Trial of Jesus where you have the Jews saying 'His Blood be upon us'. This is a clear show of intent to malign a culture/religion. As Rabbis for over onethousand years tried to explain to the Church: 'No Jew would ever call upon themsleves the curse of Cain'.

Or having Jesus suddenly spout Latin Baptismal Liturgy like in Matt. 24. Cleary the Bishops had an agenda.

PSacramento

I would then call 'intent to deceive' something like in the Trial of Jesus where you have the Jews saying 'His Blood be upon us'. This is a clear show of intent to malign a culture/religion. As Rabbis for over onethousand years tried to explain to the Church: 'No Jew would ever call upon themsleves the curse of Cain'.

Cain killed an innocent and KNEW that he did, how they Jews of the Sanhedrin that view Jesus as a false prohpet and an instigator woudl equate him to Abel is a bit of a stretch, BUT I understand your analogy but remind you that Rabbis after the fall of the temple were not much like the Sanhedrin before the fall ( as one rabbi reminded me recently).

Or having Jesus suddenly spout Latin Baptismal Liturgy like in Matt. 24. Cleary the Bishops had an agenda.

Not sure what you mean...

bohm

psac: I am just curious. The other day you wrote you believed the devil existed as a thinking being with free will.

Is that assertion proven in the sence you ask for proof of Bart Ehrmann now?

Bart Ehrman: "Biblical Scholarship and the Right to Know"

Share this