The times they are a changin’

I appreciate your opinion that Ehrman ‘sensationalises’ his writings. Can you supply some examples?

He gives quite number of extra examples of obvious forgeries such as the Pilate writings, and Nag Hamadi collection, but when examining the accepted books he shows by studious examination why there are philosophical contradictions between books claiming to be written by the same author.

Remember, atheists sell more books. Why? Because they are the more rational (that doesn’t make them right, of course) and have more compelling evidence.

I would have thought you might have caught on that I was referring to the comments dated 24/4/12. These are arguments NOT TAKEN from Ehrman’s book. Do you have any rebuttals?

Seuss never argued for or against the existence of God.

Initially, Glenn. What are these early Christian documents to which you refer?

As to resurrection claims, do you think that Joseph Smith really conversed with God and John the Baptist? What about the golden plates? People are prepared to die for their beliefs too.

Luxuriously short or not, legend can grow very quickly as I found out recently of a Russian man who has made a shrine to John Lennon which he has based on his belief that the former Beatle did and said thing he didn’t – in other words – legend. More about Ehrman soon.

As I obviously can’t tempt you into honest debate, Glenn, maybe you’ll point me to one of your studious writings we’re I might glean exactly what your answer is to my enquiries. Ehrman admits that most of the 300,000 textual errors are just that, that’s why they’re called ‘textual.’ But he highlights quite rightly that these errors throw accuracy into doubt as to what we read in the closest extant manuscripts ACTUALLY tell us about the nature and death of Christ.

I realise you’re busy, but as I gather this is more than a hobby and actually is an apologist site, perhaps I could persuade you actually to have a dialogue. You never know, you might save a soul.

Could it be, Glenn, that you are like the super-computer that can do vast universal equations but cannot add two plus two. I mean no disrespect by this comment, it’s just that it seems, at least to me, that I had factored in what you say about the manuscripts not being the originals. That’s not what I meant.

It seems likewise obvious to me that if you have hundreds of thousands of textual variants in lanquage that the original message is going to evolve over time. Nature shows this to be the case. What the original writers meant will eventually be lost, even if you have the most accurate of copyists.

Factor in too that culture itself is a variant, the expectations of expectant people (though the military messiah did not emerge), the fact that accounts of miracles can be falsified, and the length of time (30 to 60 years after the alleged events)that is involved; how can we possibly accept that things happened in EXACTLY the way the gospels.

The biggest cliffhanger, though, is the possibility that some or many of the New Testament books could be fake. Ehrman describes beautifully in his book, Forged, how the ACTUAL religious and political situation PROBABLY looked back then and wipes away any modern stereotype we may have learned in church about these writings.

Pilate said, “what is truth.” Yes, what is it, if we accept Biblical truth, then don’t bother looking scientifically deeper into these issue. But you and I know that, as modern persons, we nowadays require a much higher criteria of proof.

As you will know, Glenn, all legends are usually based on real identities. Even the most dimensional characters in fiction are usually based, at least partly, on actual people. Robin Hood, probably originally: robbing hood, must have been someone who at least inspired the ‘accounts’ of what later became legend.

Of course, I’m not comparing the two characters in any way other than to state 30 years after the events of Jesus written ALLEGEDLY by disciples of Jesus today is simply not enough to verify the truthfulness of the all stories in all the details – especi. Here’s why:

Robin Hood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood#Early_references)

“The oldest references to Robin Hood are not historical records, or even ballads recounting his exploits, but hints and allusions found in various works. From 1228 onwards, the names ‘Robinhood’, ‘Robehod’ or ‘Robbehod’ occur in the rolls of several English Justices. The majority of these references date from the late 13th century. Between 1261 and 1300, there are at least eight references to ‘Rabunhod’ in various regions across England, from Berkshire in the south to York in the north.[26]

In a petition presented to Parliament in 1439, the name is used to describe an itinerant felon. The petition cites one Piers Venables of Aston, Derbyshire, “who having no liflode, ne sufficeante of goodes, gadered and assembled unto him many misdoers, beynge of his clothynge, and, in manere of insurrection, wente into the wodes in that countrie, like as it hadde be Robyn Hude and his meyne.”[27] The name was still used to describe sedition and treachery in 1605, when Guy Fawkes and his associates were branded “Robin Hoods” by Robert Cecil.

The first allusion to a literary tradition of Robin Hood tales occurs in William Langland’s Piers Plowman (c. 1362–c. 1386) in which Sloth, the lazy priest, confesses: “I kan [know] not parfitly [perfectly] my Paternoster as the preest it singeth,/ But I kan rymes of Robyn Hood and Randolf Erl of Chestre.”[28]

The first mention of a quasi-historical Robin Hood is given in Andrew of Wyntoun’s Orygynale Chronicle, written in about 1420. The following lines occur with little contextualisation under the year 1283:

Lytil Jhon and Robyne Hude
Wayth-men ware commendyd gude
In Yngil-wode and Barnysdale
Thai oysyd all this tyme thare trawale.”

Why do they keep making films about Robin Hood? Because it inspires us, moves us, brings out, albeit reluctantly, the nobility that humans are capable of.

I’ve been listening to a debate between Craig Evans and Ehrman. As you have pointed out, Glenn, that Jewish ‘history’ is largely oral (the inverted commas are because, in the case of Jesus, it cannot be determined accurately, due to 300,00 textual differences and the time involved for the first ‘gospel account,’ whether it’s history or tradition).

As ‘salvation originates with the Jews,’ Christianity has inherited an ‘account’ or ‘accounts’ of the Messiah via Jewish oral tradition. As Jewish history is exegetical in nature (interpretable and growing to each generation and in difference in circumstances) what are we actually to believe, as the FACTS show that an apparently evolved set of differing texts have been bequeathed to posterity?

Ehrman lists the many overt differences actually in the telling of the story of Jesus that differs from gospel to gospel AND points out that the writers didn’t appear until much later bearing the name apparently of a genuine disciple or apostle (to ‘authenticate’ their ‘authorship’). Add to this that they wrote in modern koine Greek and there are good reasons to question their authenticity.

I don’t think the Robin Hood analogy is too far from the truth. Salvation is a popular notion, and so are heroes. As you point out, that there is a mere 70 years (‘mere’ by your reckoning) separating the first reference to Hood and the first written account of Jesus.

Of course, Robin Hood didn’t start a religion but he did spawn many movies.

Glenn, are you genuinely asking me to present learned arguments that are best left to the experts? Are you qualified as an expert to rebut my claims should they be scholarly?

The fact that Christianity (in its many forms)has lasted for 2000 years because it has popular notions and inspirational memes, doesn’t mean, due mainly to the intrusion of the principle of parsimony, that its founder could perform miracles!

Religion has lasted for the same reasons and was probably the first human attempt at science – a way to explain phenomena that could not be readily understood.

But so you know I’m not just carrying a torch for Ehrman, here is an article not by Erhman”

“Seven letters are generally classified as “undisputed”, expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Six additional letters bearing Paul’s name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The first three, called the “Deutero-Pauline Epistles,” have no consensus on whether or not they are authentic letters of Paul. The latter three, the “Pastoral Epistles”, are widely regarded to be pseudepigraphical works, though certain scholars do consider Paul to be the author.[2] There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul’s name apart from the alleged New Testament epistles: These are the Epistle to the Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians. Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and modern scholars reject Pauline authorship.[3]?”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

You see, it’s not just my imagination or Ehrman’s ‘sensationalism’ that need to take a holiday. There is simply not consensus about certain generally-accepted books in the New Testament that can stand up to scholarly scrutiny.

Thanks for the video, I’m downloading it now.

Tell me, Glenn, do you think the Shroud of Turin, worshipped and adored by so many adherents (mostly Catholic), is the genuine shroud of Christ or a forgery?

Can you tell me, please, where to locate your thesis on morality. Thanks.

Glenn, you are so much like your idol, William Lane Craig. He too simply declares himself the winner of a debate because he, “has heard nothing to demonstrate that theism is not true and that atheism is true.” This is his default ‘argument’ as well.

Glenn, your apologist arrogance (I prefer the literal understanding of this word) is that you believe that what you believe is true, a default belief based on the fear of I prefer the literal understanding of this word) theism losing the control it once had before the Age of Enlightenment. This movement, like the Reformation and the fall of the Berlin Wall, came about because some dared to question the status quo. I state again, it is YOU who has to prove the existence of an external agency capable of miracles in a universe that simply does not support such a view.

Do you accept the existence of aliens because some have a religious fervour for such a belief? They say there are thousands who have had abduction experiences, have seen UFOs; why don’t you accept their testimony? Could it be because as an intelligent educated man you seek the wisdom of parsimony before you go off half cocked in belief that likely would earn you a mocking?

Ghosts?

Demons?

Levitation?

All have ‘evidence’ for your consideration.

You may recognise that I argue much like the much-vaunted late Christopher Hitchens. Now this was one intelligent man – well-travelled and thought-provoking in his comments. Have you read his book?