Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 283 Karma: -10
Re: The Ehrman Project « Reply #45 on Feb 22, 2011, 1:04pm »
UnkleE wrote:
Quote:
I too have read that none of Ehrman's examples are new, but all are well known. But I don't think it is true that the general public doesn't know about them.
I am absolutely positive that the general public (in the USA) doesn't know about them. I would be astonished if even 1% does.
I too have read that none of Ehrman's examples are new, but all are well known. But I don't think it is true that the general public doesn't know about them.
I am absolutely positive that the general public (in the USA) doesn't know about them. I would be astonished if even 1% does.
I'll be astonished if more than 1% have read the Bible.
I am absolutely positive that the general public (in the USA) doesn't know about them. I would be astonished if even 1% does.
Well I knew about them since I was a young christian. And the reason was that my Bible said so.
In Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrman discusses two textual issue in chapter 2 - John 8 & Mark 16 and comments that although they are not believed to be originally in the documents, they remain popular. The NIV is the most popular English language version of the Bible today. In John's Gospel it has the section concerned separated by lines from the rest, and clearly labelled: "The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." A similar note separates the doubtful section of Mark. Almost 50 years ago, my Bible had similar notes, though not quite as prominent or explicit.
Anyone who reads these sections cannot fail to see them. So I think the truth is not so much that they don't know, but that they don't care. Christians have been assured, I think accurately, that there are no major doctrines "at risk" from these and other textual doubts. The John passage rings true even if it wasn't original, and the only people likely to care about the Mark passage's doubtfu status are snake-handling christians, who are a small group (and a dying breed! ) Other textual doubts are less extensive.
I think it is true, as Ehrman suggests, that those who believe in Biblical inerrancy might be troubled by the uncertainty and should not use these passages, but for most christians, the lesser historical basis is not much of a problem (though would be if something major was at stake).
Now each of us can only judge other people's response from our own experience, and your experience in the Jehovah Witnesses would probably have been very different to mine, but I think possibly less typical.
I'll be astonished if more than 1% have read the Bible.
Prepare to be astonished Dave. Here are some statistics from all people in the US:
About 60% attend church monthly. 38% would call themselves "evangelical" (that's more than half the attenders) but only 8% meet the criteria pollster George Barna has set up to define "evangelical". This suggests to me that less than 8% (or one in 8 of church attenders) could be classified as "fundamentalist" (the kind most likely to be confused by Ehrman's textual explanations). 37% read the Bible at least weekly, a total of almost an hour a week. This is more than half of church attenders. Since the gospels would be one of the most popular sections of the Bible for christians, we can safely assume more than half of church attenders have read the passages we are discussing. According to this (somewhat doubtful) site (the best I could find at short notice), less than 10% have read the entire Bible, but still way more than your 1%.
Dave, I wonder if you'd hate me if I did some pious sermonising for a moment? You made a statement that could be easily verified, or in this case falsified, but you didn't bother to check. I know it was a throwaway line, but it was nevertheless not factual. It seems to me you do that a lot, making it difficult to engage with you seriously. End of sermon.
Joined: May 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 302 Location: Greater Boston Karma: 5
Re: The Ehrman Project « Reply #49 on Feb 22, 2011, 10:10pm »
And, UnkleE, one should also remember that anyone who attends church monthly also hears the bible, as quotations from scripture are an important part of any denomination's services.
And, UnkleE, one should also remember that anyone who attends church monthly also hears the bible, as quotations from scripture are an important part of any denomination's services.
Before people jump on Dave too hard, I have had the experience many, many times of talking to people who claim to read the Bible daily and who attend church weekly and mentioning certain verses, only to have them express scepticism that these passages exist. When I have opened a Bible and shown them the verses in question, they have expressed astonishment and said they had never read them.
People can and do read bits of the Bible regularly. It’s the bits they tend not to read or which tend not to be chosen as texts by preachers or the subjects of a homily that I find most interesting.
As for the idea that Ehrman’s stuff is not news to any Christians and not a problem anyway – remind me: what’s the subject of this thread again? It’s about a certain website isn’t it?
I'm curious what makes one "an authority" on this subject and what "expertise" is required to be able to speak on it. Ehrman has a doctorate in theology and a M. Div. If he isn't qualified, who the hell is?
The problem of evil is a philosophical problem. Plantinga as a philosopher is a leading expert on that topic and has influenced the field immensely. Ehrman is only a textual critic.
I haven’t read that particular book of Ehrman’s, but judging from the reviews and interviews he presents it purely as a personal reflection of how he sees the issues and implications around theodicy, and how it led him to abandon his faith. That aside, to pretend that you can do a Masters of Divinity without studying any philosophy is pretty fanciful – it’s not like were talking about a book on this subject written by a plumber. There is no barbed-wire fence around the question of theodicy with a sign over it reading “The Problem of Evil – ONLY PHILOSOPHERS ALLOWED!”.
Then we get this “Plantiga is a leading expert on that topic” stuff. Leaving aside this weird idea you seem to have that there is some league table of scholars (that only you seem to know about), why does this mean that no-one else can write on the topic? Especially if, as in this case, he’s writing an account of his personal reflections on this particular theological problem?
Quote:
If Ehrman was a philosopher by training and published relevant writing on the subject, then he'd be an authority. William Rowe he ain't.
He’s not claiming to be an “authority” – it’s a personal account of his reflections in the theological issues. He IS an authority on what the issue means to HIM and that’s what the book is about. I also love the double standard here. When William Lane Craig make pronouncements on history and textual criticism, despite being a philosopher, we’re supposed to listen. But if a historian and textual critic writes about his ponderings on a philosophical issue, he is to ignored. How interesting.
Quote:
Seriously, all this conundrum stir around his popular books is generated by carefully targeted marketing to sell as many of them. He just does it to annoy the conservative circles in the USA. Ehrman's fame thrives only on controversy.
You have amazing insights into his motives. Did he admit all this to you while drunk when you last spoke to him or is this more spiteful stuff you’re just making up?
Quote:
Bultmann minus the theology.
I’m sorry – I see very little connection between Ehrman and Bultman at all.
Quote:
Quote:
By what calculus Other than your personal preference driven by your religious beliefs that is? Got an objective measure for this or is this just more spite?
How do you know on what my personal preferences are based?
The dogmatic assertions in your posts tend to give some hints.
Quote:
I find Crossan annoying as much as Ehrman; I just think he's a better scholar than him.
So you keep asserting. I was asking how you judge that and on what objective measure it’s based. Your inability to reply sensibly has been duly noted.
Before people jump on Dave too hard, I have had the experience many, many times of talking to people who claim to read the Bible daily and who attend church weekly and mentioning certain verses, only to have them express scepticism that these passages exist. When I have opened a Bible and shown them the verses in question, they have expressed astonishment and said they had never read them.
I hope we weren't hard at all. If you say many christians don't know their Bibles well, I'd agree. If he says he doubts 1% have read it, I think it merits correction (hopefully gently!)
Quote:
People can and do read bits of the Bible regularly. It’s the bits they tend not to read or which tend not to be chosen as texts by preachers or the subjects of a homily that I find most interesting.
I agree regarding sermons and homilies.
Quote:
As for the idea that Ehrman’s stuff is not news to any Christians and not a problem anyway – remind me: what’s the subject of this thread again? It’s about a certain website isn’t it?
I never doubted his conclusions about what we can regard as reliable history were threatening to many, but I think most of the factual textual stuff I've read (and I haven't read the whole book) is known by many and should only be awkward for fundamentalists, who judging by the stats, are a smallish percentage of the total, even in the US. (If Barna has adequately defined the key doctrines that might define a fundamentalist, they are about 1 in 6 of all christians in the US, and I would guess way less elsewhere.)
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 283 Karma: -10
Re: The Ehrman Project « Reply #53 on Feb 23, 2011, 12:28pm »
UnkleE wrote:
Quote:
Anyone who reads these sections [of the Bible] cannot fail to see them. So I think the truth is not so much that they don't know, but that they don't care. Christians have been assured, I think accurately, that there are no major doctrines "at risk" from these and other textual doubts. The John passage rings true even if it wasn't original, and the only people likely to care about the Mark passage's doubtfu status are snake-handling christians, who are a small group (and a dying breed! ) Other textual doubts are less extensive.
You're an educated, intelligent person, UnkleE, but you are making the mistake of assuming that everyone else is also. Firstly, there are very few church goers in America who have ever read the Bible. Most church members don't even take their Bible to church. Some Churches have Bibles handy to look up selected verses but that's about it. By far, what the greatest number of Christians believe, is what is preached at their church. They put their full trust in what is preached - not what the Bible says. Some people will even quote verses that are not even in the Bible, because that is what their preacher told them. The added ending in Mark has far more implications than snake handlers. The Gospel of Mark, being the first of the gospels, did not mention any details about Jesus' resurrection. Why? Probably because whomever wrote Mark did not know anything about it. After the other Gospels were written, it became obvious that the Mark gospel omitted the most important testimony about the resurrection, so someone added a fake ending.
Quote:
Now each of us can only judge other people's response from our own experience, and your experience in the Jehovah Witnesses would probably have been very different to mine, but I think possibly less typical.
I don't understand what you mean by that. As I have explained before, JWs have the unique experience of talking to people of all faiths and to those with no faith. When JWs ask people to look up a verse in their own Bible, most have no idea where their Bible is, if they even have one. They don't use it; they don't read it. Remember, I became a JW; I wasn't one before I joined them and I wasn't one after I left them, so please explain why this reference keeps popping up.
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 283 Karma: -10
Re: The Ehrman Project « Reply #54 on Feb 23, 2011, 12:54pm »
Unkle E wrote:
Quote:
38% would call themselves "evangelical" (that's more than half the attenders) but only 8% meet the criteria pollster George Barna has set up to define "evangelical". This suggests to me that less than 8% (or one in 8 of church attenders) could be classified as "fundamentalist" (the kind most likely to be confused by Ehrman's textual explanations).
That is not even close to being true.
Quote:
37% read the Bible at least weekly, a total of almost an hour a week. This is more than half of church attenders. Since the gospels would be one of the most popular sections of the Bible for christians, we can safely assume more than half of church attenders have read the passages we are discussing.
Sorry, UncleE, but that is not true.
Quote:
According to this (somewhat doubtful) site (the best I could find at short notice), less than 10% have read the entire Bible, but still way more than your 1%.
UncleE, these statistics are nonsense. 1% would be really pushing it for those who have read the entire Bible. When I was a JW, I talked to real people for some 30 years and I can tell you that it was extremely rare to find anyone who has read the Bible. We hated going to more affluent communities because very few were interested in religion. The poor and uneducated were the ones who were interested but they knew very little about the Bible. If you lived in the US, I would ask you to go out and ask 100 people if they have read the entire Bible. If you found one I would be truly surprised.
The obvious answer is: "based on what?" Have you spoken to a statistically valid sample of people, checked the difference between what they say and what they do, and drawn statistically valid conclusions? No, neither have I. So the best you and I have is vague impressions and extrapolation from a small and statistically unrepresentative sample.
That is why I said: "Now each of us can only judge other people's response from our own experience, and your experience in the Jehovah Witnesses would probably have been very different to mine, but I think possibly less typical." I wasn't inferring anything derogatory, just suggesting (1) that we would be both extrapolating from small samples, (2) your sample was different to mine, and (3) I would guess your sample is smaller (you were a believer for a lesser time) and less representative (you were probably in a less representative church or churches).
So if you prefer your limited experience to statistically valid surveys, we have little more to say. Except perhaps the point that I made to Dave, that we are all prone to have highly subjective opinions, but if you don't allow those opinions to be affected by evidence as appears to often be the case with you and him, then there is little to discuss. I mean no rudeness, just explaining.
I can't help feeling that Carghill's comments are as far from the centre of scholarship in one direction as he indicates the Ehrman Project's are in the opposite direction. It seemed to me that Cargill inferred that there were two views, the scholarly view and the unthinking conservative view, but the situation is more complex than that.
As we have already discussed, historians and Bible scholars have long recognised there are textual "problems" (the sheer number of available copies guarantees this), and the results of their studies can be found in the text and notes in most Bibles. And perhaps some christians argue against those conclusions, I don't know, though I doubt Witherington for example would.
But the criticisms of Ehrman that I have read don't come from that, but from the sceptical conclusions he draws about what we can know of Jesus. Some scholars agree with him, but many mainstream scholars who understand the textual issues do not agree with Ehrman's conclusions about what we can know as historical, for example Evans, Bauckham, Wright, Meier, Dunn, Charlesworth, etc, including Ehrman's colleague and former teacher Metzger.
Ehrman's views merit respect, but I still think the Ehrman project site could have a useful function, in bringing an alternative view to the general public. It will depend on the quality, or otherwise, of their scholarship.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f221/terracops/satie.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u504/unklee99/f075d7d4.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
) Other textual doubts are less extensive.
![[avatar]](http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/Pope3.jpg "[avatar]")
If you say many christians don't know their Bibles well, I'd agree. If he says he doubts 1% have read it, I think it merits correction (hopefully gently!)![[avatar]](http://www.shmoop.com/media/covers/literature/lit00223.jpg "[avatar]")