16 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 7 '21 at 19:42 comment added Jess "There is no doubt, even among conservative scholars, for example, that Mark 16:9-20 is a late addition to the original gospel,..." Actually, that statement is open to a lot of equivocation. Books often go through major revision & updates. Mark's Gospel may have been updated with a longer ending at some point. The bigger issue is whether a logical inference can be made, that the longer ending had sufficient canonical apostolic authorization to be part of the Gospel of Mark. A defense of it being included as canonical can be found here: curtisvillechristianchurch.org/MarkOne.htm
Jun 17 '20 at 8:57 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
Feb 28 '19 at 8:30 comment added Alex Strasser The difference between the popular Bart Ehrman and the scholarly Bart Ehrman should also be noted (kind of mentioned above). His popular level stuff distorts many of the facts to come to a different conclusion than his scholarly work necessitates.
May 7 '18 at 23:02 comment added guest37 "Christianity is a religion of the book. From the outset, it has stressed specific texts as authoritative scripture" - This actually is not true.
May 6 '18 at 21:52 comment added rhetorician Oh, and +1 for a fine answer. Don
May 6 '18 at 20:56 comment added rhetorician So we meet again, two years later! Your last paragraph was good, but it was pregnant with meaning and needed to be unpacked, in my opinion. If you think I did a good job of unpacking, fine. If not, feel free to revert to the paragraph as written originally.
May 6 '18 at 20:52 history edited rhetorician CC BY-SA 4.0
Expanded and developed his line of reasoning at the end of his answer.
Apr 13 '17 at 12:47 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/
Aug 23 '16 at 23:41 comment added rhetorician Again, true my moniker on the SE, I need to point out that, yes, in THEORY, "critical scholarship should be examined on its own merits." One's perspective on whatever side one happens to be vis a vis virtually any issue in any scholarly discipline, however, cannot be hermetically sealed off from one's presuppositions and one's motivations for taking a stand, not to mention the way in which one takes that stand. Take, e.g., the titles of Dr. Ehrman's books; they hardly originate in a dispassionate, neutral, just-the-facts-ma'am perspective. As 4 ad hominems, they're bad UNLESS they are true!
Aug 23 '16 at 16:47 comment added Schuh Thanks, @rhetorician. I think critical scholarship should be examined on its own merits first. Only at the point of 'theologizing' does motivation become relevant. ISTM Ehrman clearly distinguishes between his work as a scholar of texts and history and his personal opinions about theology. But even then I think we can avoid ad hominem critiques and focus on the content of the argument itself.
Aug 23 '16 at 15:14 comment added rhetorician True to my moniker on the SE (viz., rhetorician), I suggest you consider the motivations of Dr. Ehrman for doing what he does. First, he obviously wants to sell books. I find nothing wrong, categorically, with that motivation. Even the harshest critics of Christianity need to eat, pay bills, and support themselves. What about his motivation regarding his audience, however? Is Ehrman simply a disinterested critical scholar just laying out the facts as he sees them, or is he, as a disaffected Christian, attempting to persuade his audience of his point of view regarding Christianity?
Aug 23 '16 at 2:28 comment added Birdie You are welcome to ask that question as well, but the answer will vary depending on school of thought. For example, the Reformed view will differ hugely from the Catholic view or the Baptist view as to how to deal with the issue of variety in manuscripts.
Aug 22 '16 at 15:43 comment added Aaron Johnson I suppose another question would be how should a believer embrace this fact
Aug 22 '16 at 15:25 comment added Schuh In short, @AaronJohnson, I challenge your assumption that Christianity needs to defend itself against the facts of critical scholarship, which is mostly what Ehrman offers. How one manages beliefs that contradict historical facts is a personal choice; e.g, 'inerrancy' in light of obvious errors and uncertainties in the text.
Aug 22 '16 at 10:50 comment added Aaron Johnson So to shorten it all down, your point is.........
Aug 22 '16 at 1:45 history answered Schuh CC BY-SA 3.0