SUGGESTION: Bart Ehrman Collection

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/580889#Comment_580889

MJ. Smith said:

MJ Smith said:

Which I would call a "crock of self-justifying ..."

David Paul said:

since you called me a "crock",

Watch your grammar. "Which" is not used to refer to a person. Therefore, I did not call you "crock". Rather I called the sentence that I quoted "crock".

Right...I actually got that part. What I was fishing for was your "it's not the person but the thing (sentence, statement, argument, belief, etc.)" declaration.

I think that I and my crock sentence equate with Bart and his dumb conclusions. It can't be denied that both were generated within our minds, so in a real sense, I suppose, one could say "it's personal". Frankly, it doesn't bother me.

I don't think Bart is dumb in a broad sense at all. He is a pretty sharp tack. I'm actually not all that anxious to pin either "dumb" or "stupid" on Bart, though I do feel like he has a cozy, on-going relationship with intellectual non-sequiters. Some of those are pretty egregious.

At some point, we all succumb to actions that are stupid, dumb, or both. Those are just words that describe conditions. When the conditions are met, the words become active. Avoiding such words, at all costs, is dumb. That's my point. If folks want to say I'm stupid for calling Bart's conclusions dumb, they only need to make their case that I have met the criterion. Some might say, "Well, I wouldn't say 'stupid', just 'mean-spirited'." Okay, fair enough...except...calling me "mean-spirited" is mean-spirited. Right? "No, it's just describing the situation!" Ah, I see...so doesn't that just bring us back to square one?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/580918#Comment_580918

David Paul said:

so doesn't that just bring us back to square one?

Perhaps, but I deliberately left my sentence incomplete to indicate that I recognized the impulse but refused to ... a case where contextual reading is reader-dependent.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/580962#Comment_580962

I noticed on the Eisenbrauns website they have Bart book on clearance...what a deal!! I was wondering if Logos could match that price?

Oh...wait...no, of course not--because Logos doesn't carry any of Bart's books. [:^)]

[^o)]

Kent

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/603764#Comment_603764

David Paul said:

I noticed on the Eisenbrauns website they have Bart book on clearance...what a deal!! I was wondering if Logos could match that price?

Oh...wait...no, of course not--because Logos doesn't carry any of Bart's books. 

A better book would be,

More recently, Bart Ehrman, a leading textual critic, has written a book for a popular readership titled Misquoting Jesus. Ehrman is well known for his indefatigable scholarship and provocative opinions.This work, which, according to Ehrman, is the first book written on New Testament textual criticism for a lay audience, concludes that It would be wrong ... to say-as people sometimes do-that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case. Some of the chief examples of theological differences among the variants that Ehrman discusses are a passage in which Jesus is said to be angry (Mark 1:41), an explicit statement about the Trinity (1 John 5:7-8), and a text in which "even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come" (Matt. 24:36 NIV). But Ehrman's argument is overstated in each instance. For example, although certain ancient manuscripts speak of Jesus as being angry in Mark 1:41 while others speak of him as having compassion, the fact is that in Mark 3:5 Jesus is said to be angry-wording that is indisputably in the original text of Mark. So it is hardly something that changes the interpretation or theology of Mark's Gospel to see Jesus as angry in 1:41.

 

J. Ed Komoszewski. Reinventing Jesus (Kindle Locations 1034-1042). Kindle Edition.