Dan,
I remember you refusing to take on board what was said by the leading American expert on Egyptian manuscripts regarding the Gospel of Judas, because it didn't suit your existing notions.
So what makes someone qualified to write a book on a subject seems to be whether they are in agreement with you or not.
Here is a look at Bart Ehrman's book by Professor Ben Witherington:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.htmlThis is interesting for a fuller refutation of his work:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogs...g-jesus_31.htmlI have seen many of the points Ehrman makes solidly challenged -
example (from comments):
"The claim that reading ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41 radically changes the picture of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark doesn't stand up to close examination. Ehrman's project to deconstruct evangelicalism, starting with the doctrine of scripture, relies on exaggerations like this one.
The idea that evangelicals should be scandalized by ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41 is without merit. Both Lane (Mark NICNT 1974) and France (Mark NIGTC 2002) argue for reading ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41. No scandal here.
Ehrman has chosen as his target for attack, a very rigid form of fundamentalism which seeks mathematical certainty in matters of NT text. This sort of target is very easy to attack."
An aquaintance of his, Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. has written a pretty devastating critique on both Ehrman's general approach and also on his specific points.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000There always seem to be two views and both of them are subjective. So how does one choose.
"I think Bart is writing about his personal journey, about legitimate things that bother him," says Darrell Bock, research professor of New Testament studies at the Dallas Theological Seminary. Like many Christian scholars who have studied the ancient scrolls, Bock says his faith was strengthened by the same process that destroyed Ehrman's.
Bart was a part of Fundamentalist Christianity and he was enrolled in the Moody Bible Institute, "an austere interdenominational institution in Chicago that forbade students to go to movies, play cards, dance, or have physical contact with the opposite sex", and eventually became disenchanted with it (rightly so), and this disenchantment may have lead to him taking opposite views to people like Bock.
Anyway, I've read enough solid criticisms of Ehrman's work to be convinced that I won't be convinced, but I would expect someone holding your views would entertain no doubts about his book.
Blacknad.
