BART D EHRMAN MISQUOTING JESUS PDF

Summary[ edit ] Ehrman recounts his personal experience with the study of the Bible and textual criticism. He summarizes the history of textual criticism, from the works of Desiderius Erasmus to the present. The book describes an early Christian environment in which the books that would later compose the New Testament were copied by hand, mostly by Christian amateurs. Ehrman concludes that various early scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to de-emphasize the role of women in the early church, to unify and harmonize the different portrayals of Jesus in the four gospels, and to oppose certain heresies such as Adoptionism.

Author:Tobar Malacage
Country:Denmark
Language:English (Spanish)
Genre:Politics
Published (Last):4 September 2009
Pages:392
PDF File Size:4.34 Mb
ePub File Size:5.52 Mb
ISBN:366-7-58322-170-9
Downloads:29373
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader:Kazijind



I was suddenly transformed from being a competent scholar with whom others might disagree here or there to being a Major Public Enemy. Conservative scholars said all sorts of bizarre things about me in the wake of the book. My long-time acquaintance and occasional debate opponent, Craig Evans, wrote, in a book, that I had become an agnostic as soon as I realized that there were lots of textual differences among our manuscripts, and he pointed out how absurd that was.

It was indeed absurd — but not because this was why I became an agnostic but because Craig assumed and informed his readers that it was. My realizing that there are differences among our manuscripts had precisely NOTHING to do with my becoming an agnostic, and Craig should have known that.

Where did Craig get his information from on this one? He made it up. I have never understood how both things can be true at the same time. But on the other hand, if the book simply points out information that textual scholars already know, why is it outrageously controversial?

So when I state the facts baldly, they get upset about it. No one says: HEY! He gets wrong how many manuscripts we have! He gets wrong how many textual variants there are! He is wrong that some of these variants matter! He is wrong that there are lots of places where textual experts disagree on what the text says! He is wrong that there are some places where we will never be able to know for sure what the text said!

Now, having said that,. And that much I can agree on. But on the practical level, I live my life — or at least my professional life — with the assumption that in the vast majority of places we have a pretty good idea what the authors probably wrote. Any more than we can know for sure what words were always written by Homer, Plato, Euripides, Cicero, or Plutarch. If you were a member of the blog, you could read full blog posts five or six times a week! For less than fifty cents! So why not join?

You would get tons for your money and every dime goes to charity.

LUIS HARSS LOS NUESTROS PDF

Accidental or Intentional Revisions of Copyists

Rather the Council created the Nicaean Creed and twenty Canons, which were rules about church administration. Reviewer: Truth Defender - favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite - October 24, Subject: Amazing book, one of the best in the field.. One of the leading Biblical scholar and historian Professor Ehrman clearly presents how the New Testament was altered over the ages, by whom and for what purposes. Even the Christian theologians admit that the New Testament we have today is not in its original form.. How, in that case, it can be claimed that it is an inspiration from God?

LAGOTHRIX LAGOTHRICHA PDF

Bart Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus

I was suddenly transformed from being a competent scholar with whom others might disagree here or there to being a Major Public Enemy. Conservative scholars said all sorts of bizarre things about me in the wake of the book. My long-time acquaintance and occasional debate opponent, Craig Evans, wrote, in a book, that I had become an agnostic as soon as I realized that there were lots of textual differences among our manuscripts, and he pointed out how absurd that was. It was indeed absurd — but not because this was why I became an agnostic but because Craig assumed and informed his readers that it was.

Related Articles