Bart Ehrman: "Biblical Scholarship and the Right to Know" (page 3)

designs

PS and other Christians-

Try and imagine that 90% of what is said about Jews, Jewish life etc. in the NT is wrong and slanted and you have the beginnings of seeing Bart's point.

PSacramento

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 is making a statment that carries weight because of his scholarly credentials, yes?

If Tom Jones said these things they would carry no weight, agreed?

As such he needs to state the evidence that leads to his conclusion of the intent to deceive.

That isn't too much to ask, is it?

PSacramento

Try and imagine that 90% of what is said about Jews, Jewish life etc. in the NT is wrong and slanted and you have the beginnings of seeing Bart's point

It's funny because that was one of the first serious discussions I had when I started dicussing these things with a Jewish resereacher who's uncle is a rabbi and rabbainic scholar.

I still remember his words (paraphrasing),:The writers viewed the Judaisim of their time in their own way, as did the other jewish sects, they weren't always right, but it was understandable that they wrote them that way.

bohm

PSac: okay so there is two standards in play here: You do not need to provide "proof" of the assertion the devil exist and has free will, while Ehrmann need to provide "proof" of his statement regarding parts of the bible being written with the intent to deseive?

PSacramento

PSac: okay so there is two standards in play here: You do not need to provide "proof" of the assertion the devil exist and has free will, while Ehrmann need to provide "proof" of his statement regarding parts of the bible being written with the intent to deseive?

IF I was making a "scholarly statement" then YES, it would be the same burden of proof.

You asked me a personal opinion and I stated it, Bart is stating a professional opinion as a biblical scholar.

IF you had asked me what my biblicla basis is for belief that Satan was an actual being, then I would have to present one as evidence for my view.

There is a difference there.

At best Bart can prove that, base don such and such criteria, the epistles to the Hebrews ( for example) was, in his view, not written by Paul ( of cours the epistle doesn't say it is so it would be a forgery anyways), but to prove that it was written to make someone believe it was Paul AND the intent to mislead was malicious, he woudl have to show evidence of that.

bohm

PSac: Interesting. So suppose i am confronted by two ideas: (A) is my dear old aunt who says Hebrews was written by paul and is the litteral truth and (B) Ehrmanns critical view on the same thing, i should require less evidence to accept (A) than (B) because my aunt is rather unscholared?

And on the other hand, if i am confronted by a really uninformed atheist who claim Hebrews is a forgery, and on the other hand William Lane Craig the fameous scholar who claim it is not, i should now require less evidence before accepting (B) than (A)?

PSacramento

PSac: Interesting. So suppose i am confronted by two ideas: (A) is my dear old aunt who says Hebrews was written by paul and is the litteral truth and (B) Ehrmanns critical view on the same thing, i should require less evidence to accept (A) than (B) because my aunt is rather unscholared?

And on the other hand, if i am confronted by a really uninformed atheist who claim Hebrews is a forgery, and on the other hand William Lane Craig the fameous scholar who claim it is not, i should now require less evidence before accepting (B) than (A)?

I know that english is my second language but I can't be that unclear in what I wrote, can I?

If two people make opposite statments about the samething then the burden of proof falls on them equally, unless of course the parameters are totally different.

EX:

You can't defy gravity

Birds fly.

Both are correct and both contredict each other.

bohm

I know that english is my second language but I can't be that unclear in what I wrote, can I?

If two people make opposite statments about the samething then the burden of proof falls on them equally,

Okay, i notice you say opposite statements, but nevertheless, we have two statements:

(A) you: "the devil exist and has free will"

(B) Bart: "Parts of the bible was written to desieve"

you reject (B) for lack of proof and encourage us to do the same, but accept (A).

Now, does (A) and (B) both require the same degree of proof as your statement indicate? ie. in rejecting (B) and accepting (A), can i then assume you have more hard evidence in favor of (A) than (B)?

PSacramento

Okay, i notice you say opposite statements, but nevertheless, we have two statements:

(A) you: "the devil exist and has free will"

(B) Bart: "Parts of the bible was written to desieve"

you reject (B) for lack of proof and encourage us to do the same, but accept (A).

Now, does (A) and (B) both require the same degree of proof as your statement indicate? ie. in rejecting (B) and accepting (A), can i then assume you have more hard evidence in favor of (A) than (B)?

Ah, I understand what you mean.

You are asking how I can believe in the devil and yet demand evidence of Bart when he says thsoe things ( imply that I have no evidence of the devil of course), correct?

bohm

Yes that is the gist of it. Ofcourse i believe the devil (being a supernatural being) require more evidence in general than a simple forgery, but both are positive assertions which require evidence and for the sake of argument we can say they require equal amounts of evidence.

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

Share this