Sin and Self

[bhsmte]

This mostly in Misquoting Jesus, I take it? Been meaning to read this.

I have read excerpts from several of his books and read some of his scholarly work.

What I find interesting though, is when he debates others on NT historicity and other various topics.

And of course, the conservative faction of NT historians and scholars have come out against him in a big way, as he is seen as a bit of a traitor.

 

[FireDragon76]

And of course, the conservative faction of NT historians and scholars have come out against him in a big way, as he is seen as a bit of a traitor.

Ehrman's popular writings are sensationalistic. He takes old, tired arguments and foists them on a naïve public and pretends to add to knowledge in the process.

Marcus Borg on Dominic Crossan, on the other hand, while liberal scholars, do not make the same mistakes, and sometimes they accentuate things that orthodox scholarship has de-emphasized. That's why I could read a book like The Meaning of Jesus, by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, and come away from it feeling that both of their perspectives were complimentary. Ehrman, on the other hand, has nothing new to say about his Jesus, the "failed apocalyptic prophet", quite an old argument, and goes against the consensus of New Testament scholarship.

 

[Received]

Well, guess I have to actually pick up the Meaning of Jesus from my bookshelf now.

 

[bhsmte]

Ehrman's popular writings are sensationalistic. He takes old, tired arguments and foists them on a naïve public and pretends to add to knowledge in the process.

Marcus Borg on Dominic Crossan, on the other hand, while liberal scholars, do not make the same mistakes, and sometimes they accentuate things that orthodox scholarship has de-emphasized. That's why I could read a book like The Meaning of Jesus, by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, and come away from it feeling that both of their perspectives were complimentary. Ehrman, on the other hand, has nothing new to say about his Jesus, the "failed apocalyptic prophet", quite an old argument, and goes against the consensus of New Testament scholarship.

Ehrman going against the old guard of nt historians does not make his points invalid. As i have stated, it is my observation that the nt has had significant preconceived bias intertwined in regards to most nt scholars and historians for many years.

Keep in mind, ehrman speaks out loudly against the work of the jesus seminar and nt historians that claim jesus never existed. In fact he wrote a book, stating his case to why Jesus was a real historical figure.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, guess I have to actually pick up the Meaning of Jesus from my bookshelf now.

It's definitely worth reading, especially for a synopsis of N.T. Wright's viewpoint.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ehrman going against the old guard of nt historians does not make his points invalid. As i have stated, it is my observation that the nt has had significant preconceived bias intertwined in regards to most nt scholars and historians for many years.

Ehrman's viewpoint, which really isn't that different from Robert Price's, is not on a vanguard of brave scholarship, quite the contrary, his central idea, that Jesus life is embellished by pagan mythologizing, is quite old, and even more questionable now than in the 19th century, because we know so much more about Second Temple Judaism. Its only "revolutionary" because we have an ex-evangelical insider advocating it.