Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Do You Believe In Scientism?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hedrick" data-source="post: 75981434" data-attributes="member: 239032"><p>Ehrman yes, Carrier no. Ehrman starts off OK, but ends up trying to claim every book in the NT is inauthentic. I prefer to work with a broader consensus, which is that we have 7 authentic letters from Paul, others that are probably not, though there are reasonable arguments about Colossians. I’m skeptical about authorship for all the non-Pauline letters</p><p></p><p>John’s are a special situation. Both the Gospel and the letters come from what looks like an ongoing Johannine tradition, but it’s not obvious that they actually claim to be written by the original disciple.</p><p></p><p>Ehrman’s problem is that he’s stuck on an early 20th Cent theory that Jesus is a failed apocalyptic preacher. I think it’s pretty clear that he mostly preached that the Kingdom was present immediately in him, with some future elements that I’m not sure the Gospels preserve with complete accuracy. This goes back to the intro to the NT that he wrote when he was still a Christian. My impression from reading it was that he wasn’t using current historical Jesus scholarship.</p><p></p><p>I’ve seen several new approaches that are more rigorous. Not Carrier's, but others. I haven’t seen any where the data is clear enough to support them. Generally I prefer to stick with middle of the road critical scholarship, people like James Dunn and the authors of commentaries in major series like the Anchor Bible or Hermeneia.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hedrick, post: 75981434, member: 239032"] Ehrman yes, Carrier no. Ehrman starts off OK, but ends up trying to claim every book in the NT is inauthentic. I prefer to work with a broader consensus, which is that we have 7 authentic letters from Paul, others that are probably not, though there are reasonable arguments about Colossians. I’m skeptical about authorship for all the non-Pauline letters John’s are a special situation. Both the Gospel and the letters come from what looks like an ongoing Johannine tradition, but it’s not obvious that they actually claim to be written by the original disciple. Ehrman’s problem is that he’s stuck on an early 20th Cent theory that Jesus is a failed apocalyptic preacher. I think it’s pretty clear that he mostly preached that the Kingdom was present immediately in him, with some future elements that I’m not sure the Gospels preserve with complete accuracy. This goes back to the intro to the NT that he wrote when he was still a Christian. My impression from reading it was that he wasn’t using current historical Jesus scholarship. I’ve seen several new approaches that are more rigorous. Not Carrier's, but others. I haven’t seen any where the data is clear enough to support them. Generally I prefer to stick with middle of the road critical scholarship, people like James Dunn and the authors of commentaries in major series like the Anchor Bible or Hermeneia. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Do You Believe In Scientism?
Top
Bottom