This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters - Comments

sjd's Avatar Comment 1 by sjd

thanks for that, great article :D

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:09:38 UTC | #608611

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 2 by AtheistEgbert

If you want to feel depressed about just how deluded Christians can be, read the comments underneath that article over at Huffington.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:32:07 UTC | #608616

Crazycharlie's Avatar Comment 3 by Crazycharlie

Bart Ehrman is the man.

You'll learn more about how Christianity started, grew and developed into the modern form of Christianity we all know today by reading his books than any other author.

I've read eight of his books and just ordered his latest, "FORGED, Writing in the Name of God- Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are."

All the modern day Christian apologists hate and fear what he has to say because he's spent most of his life studying the earliest manuscripts of the bible in the original languages, namely Greek and Hebrew, but also early manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, French, German, all of which he can speak. That asshole William Lane Criag especially likes to denigrate him. Ehrman simply reveals to a lay readership what most bible scholars have known for a long time; the bible ( "New Testament") was cobbled together by very human authors many decades after the death of Jesus sometimes with outright forgeries.

I consider Bart Ehrman not only a scholar but a historian.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:58:55 UTC | #608623

Crazycharlie's Avatar Comment 4 by Crazycharlie

AtheistEgbert-

When Ehrman writes an article or is on YouTube the comment section quickly gets filled up by insecure Christians heaping vitriol on him.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:09:04 UTC | #608625

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 5 by scottishgeologist

Lies in the bible? Mark Twain nailed this one beautifully:

"[The Bible] has noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."

Try this page for some more good ones from good old Samuel Clemens

Twain quotes

:-) SG

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:10:56 UTC | #608626

bachfiend's Avatar Comment 6 by bachfiend

B**ger you Crazycharlie (comment #3), yet another book to read. But then I was overjoyed to realize that 'Forged, Writing in the Name of God' isn't available as a Kindle. But then I noticed that it's available as an Audible audiobook, and this month's credit has just been added today. Purchased. I'll let you know tomorrow what I think of it.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:04:09 UTC | #608635

The Plc's Avatar Comment 7 by The Plc

Comment 2 by AtheistEgbert :

If you want to feel depressed about just how deluded Christians can be, read the comments underneath that article over at Huffington.

Indeed. There is a lot more psychological projection and stealing their opponents clothes going on than usual though. It's clear that a lot of them are realising that their naive worldview is in tatters.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:25:59 UTC | #608642

Crazycharlie's Avatar Comment 8 by Crazycharlie

bachfiend

Sorry, but you won't regret it.

Matt

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:41:44 UTC | #608644

mindyourmind's Avatar Comment 9 by mindyourmind

I love our man Bart, and have read pretty much all of his books, but is this not more of the same? All I need is for one of you *%$#@ to say that it is new and interesting and I will rush out and buy a copy :)

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:43:44 UTC | #608645

bachfiend's Avatar Comment 10 by bachfiend

Mindyourmind,

I have read all of Bart Ehrman's books (with the exception of this one, soon to be rectified). I suspect it will be more of the same, but then again, when I enjoy a book or a topic I will read it again. I've read 'the God Delusion' several times, same for 'the Greatest Show on Earth'. Have read all the accounts of the Dover trial and enjoyed all of them, each added a little different information and perspective.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:56:52 UTC | #608648

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 11 by Agrajag

In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Surely this is nothing but what we now call "ghost-writing" (holy-ghost-writing?). :-/

I immensely enjoyed "Misquoting Jesus" and "God's Problem". Well-worth reading.
Steve

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:14:11 UTC | #608655

Hellboy2's Avatar Comment 12 by Hellboy2

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421

Just read this article on BBC UK News site. Interesting. I wonder who these 'books' will be eventually attributed to?

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:20:39 UTC | #608657

PurplePanda's Avatar Comment 13 by PurplePanda

Comment 11 by Agrajag :

Surely this is nothing but what we now call "ghost-writing" (holy-ghost-writing?). :-/

Do you know of any ghost writers that write without the permission of the original author?

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:25:39 UTC | #608659

mmurray's Avatar Comment 14 by mmurray

Comment 11 by Agrajag :

In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Surely this is nothing but what we now call "ghost-writing" (holy-ghost-writing?). :-/

Ghost writing is agreed to by the person whose name is claimed as author and often organised by them. This doesn't sound like that.

Michael

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:29:48 UTC | #608660

littletrotsky13's Avatar Comment 15 by littletrotsky13

There is something I need from all of this: is there anywhere where I can see the actual evidence without having to pay for it? (as someone who's not going to have next month's rent ready this is a major issue at the moment) I've heard plenty of the various forgeries etc. in the bible but I can't use it in debate as it simply becomes a case of your word against mine with people who have counterarguments to the common ones that I know.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:32:18 UTC | #608662

mindyourmind's Avatar Comment 16 by mindyourmind

I think the forger's mindset goes something like "If they can believe that shit about a god then they can and will believe what I am dishing up for them."

Gullible's Travels

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:44:41 UTC | #608667

DocWebster's Avatar Comment 17 by DocWebster

I just emailed this link to my mom, I expect to be disinherited fairly soon. Always being right in an argument gets tiring when it just doesn't matter.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:59:10 UTC | #608673

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 18 by Sally Luxmoore

I am looking forward to hearing what Bart Ehrman thinks of this latest discovery.

No one knows yet what's in these books.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if they turn out to contradict everything that Christians think they 'know' about Jesus?

link text

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:19:12 UTC | #608682

jimbobjim's Avatar Comment 19 by jimbobjim

a bit of a silly article and makes 2 major errors:

  1. Pseudepigrapha does not refer to books in the new testament where the authorship might be in doubt. They refer to a different set of books altogether. (even Wikipedia could have helped with that one).

  2. No scholar (worth anything) suggest that someone wrote books of the Bible pretending to be someone else. The disputes about authorship are based on other reasons.

Maybe some more research shoudl be done before publishing something so weak.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:25:55 UTC | #608683

pasadena beggar's Avatar Comment 20 by pasadena beggar

I've read all of Ehrman's books. They're dense as a fruitcake and as dry as a cracker, and every time, worth the effort to get through. With exception of Hector Avalos, there is no other Biblical scholar who is Ehrman's equal.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:30:38 UTC | #608685

Simon Templar's Avatar Comment 21 by Simon Templar

Wouldn't it be wonderful if they turn out to contradict everything that Christians think they 'know' about Jesus?

Well from the article what we appear to have so far is a reference to a Messiah, a cross and an empty tomb - so far so good

There is something I need from all of this: is there anywhere where I can see the actual evidence without having to pay for it? (as someone who's not going to have next month's rent ready this is a major issue at the moment) I've heard plenty of the various forgeries etc. in the bible but I can't use it in debate as it simply becomes a case of your word against mine with people who have counterarguments to the common ones that I know.

Not necessary. All you need to know is; a) The Bible was changed by persons unknown because they had an agenda which they wished to convey to a certain audience. b) Most if not all biblical scholars know this but shy away from it as they are working to a given agenda for a certain audience c) Bart also knows this but wishes to highlight it as part of his agenda for his target audience.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:48:45 UTC | #608689

Rationem's Avatar Comment 22 by Rationem

Good article. One of the things I appreciate is when scientists or scholars explain their disciplines, their findings to a popular audience. It's a difficult task yet can bring great rewards to society. In the past, people like Lancelot Hogben brought mathematics to millions; today we have Richard(along with other scientists/scholars in different disciplines explaining their subjects) bringing evidence for natural selection to millions. I see Dr. Ehrman performing a similar function. It's quite useful, in my opinion, because I've noticed that what an ordinary theist believes/knows is usually different, sometimes radically, from what professional preachers/theologians/priests believe/know.

On a side note, Dr. Ehrman's debates on youtube with apologists are quite entertaining.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:31:18 UTC | #608701

Stefan Udrea's Avatar Comment 23 by Stefan Udrea

Heh.I was recently banned from a christian forum because I said that Paul was just a human so he could have been wrong when he said that men should lead women.They said Paul was infallible, and then banned me.I wish they had read this article.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:58:48 UTC | #608706

hitchens_jnr's Avatar Comment 24 by hitchens_jnr

Comment 19 by jimbobjim:

I'm afraid I've got to pick you up on your two objections.

1) Although the "pseuepigrapha" are usually understood to be non-canonical books, the adjective "pseudepigraphal" is often used to describe canonical New Testament books which purport to be written by people who didn't actually write them. Your comment that "even Wikipedia could have helped here" is somewhat undermined by the fact that the first section of the Wikipedia entry includes a discussion as to whether the canonical book 2 Peter ought or ought not be considered pseudepigraphical. Ehrman's point stands: there are numerous NT books which were written by people other than the authors they claim, and therefore they can be called "pseudepigrapha", since "written under false authorship" is what the term actually means.

2) I find this a bizarre assertion. Even some conservative Biblical scholars admit that some NT books (such as the disputed letters of Paul) were not written by the people who they claim wrote them. At its very outset 2 Peter claims to have been written by Peter, but you'd be hard pushed nowadays to find an academic commentator who accepts this. Perhaps you need to broaden your reading in the field.

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:06:08 UTC | #608707

keithapm's Avatar Comment 25 by keithapm

Comment 19 by  jimbobjim :

a bit of a silly article and makes 2 major errors:

  • Pseudepigrapha does not refer to books in the new testament where the authorship might be in doubt.  They refer to a different set of books altogether.  (even Wikipedia could have helped with that one).
  • Jim, I'd like to know just where you're coming from. In response to your comment I decided to check Wikipedia in order to see if, in fact, Bart had goofed. I want to know what Wikipedia article YOU checked because the one I looked at is completely in accord with Bart's use of the word.

  • No scholar (worth anything) suggest that someone wrote books of the Bible pretending to be someone else.  The disputes about authorship are based on other reasons.
  • Why would there be disputes about authorship if the writers of the texts could be shown to be who they claimed to be? Why does questioning the validity of the claims made make you a less worthy scholar?

    Maybe some more research shoudl be done before publishing something so weak.

    Maybe you should check your references (Wikipedia in this case) to avoid misrepresenting them.

    Oh, and welcome to the website, Jim.

    Keith

    Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:06:47 UTC | #608708

    irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 26 by irate_atheist

    What!!!!? It's a load of rubbish?!!!!!!!! Say it ain't so!!!!!!!!

    Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:07:19 UTC | #608709

    Orangutan99's Avatar Comment 27 by Orangutan99

    Comment 25 by keithapm :

    Comment 19 by   jimbobjim :

    a bit of a silly article and makes 2 major errors:

  • Pseudepigrapha does not refer to books in the new testament where the authorship might be in doubt.  They refer to a different set of books altogether.  (even Wikipedia could have helped with that one).
  • Jim, I'd like to know just where you're coming from. In response to your comment I decided to check Wikipedia in order to see if, in fact, Bart had goofed. I want to know what Wikipedia article YOU checked because the one I looked at is completely in accord with Bart's use of the word.

  • No scholar (worth anything) suggest that someone wrote books of the Bible pretending to be someone else.  The disputes about authorship are based on other reasons.
  • Why would there be disputes about authorship if the writers of the texts could be shown to be who they claimed to be? Why does questioning the validity of the claims made make you a less worthy scholar?

    Maybe some more research shoudl be done before publishing something so weak.

    Maybe you should check your references (Wikipedia in this case) to avoid misrepresenting them.

    Oh, and welcome to the website, Jim.

    Keith

    I think jimbobjim just didn't pay close enough attention and confused "apocrypha" with "pseudepigrapha". The former is indeed a different set of books than found in the KJV, at least.

    Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:33:52 UTC | #608718

    I'm_not's Avatar Comment 28 by I'm_not

    Comment 18 by Sally Luxmoore :

    I am looking forward to hearing what Bart Ehrman thinks of this latest discovery.

    No one knows yet what's in these books.

    Wouldn't it be wonderful if they turn out to contradict everything that Christians think they 'know' about Jesus?

    link text

    Lovely photos. Do I spy Asherah again?

    Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:46:28 UTC | #608721

    Zelig's Avatar Comment 29 by Zelig

    I find the Christianophobia displayed here outrageous and offensive, and think Mr. Ehrman should be prosecuted for "hate speech". How dare he say things I don't agree with . . .

    Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:01:04 UTC | #608723

    jimbobjim's Avatar Comment 30 by jimbobjim

    My first point about "Pseudepigrapha" is that it normally refers to the books not generally regarded as part of the Bible (old or new testament), Bart is (IMO) trying to add books into that category, most (if not all) good bible scholar don't regard and bible books (as in the 66 books) as Pseudepigrapha. That doesn't mean they don't dispute authorship. To call it Pseudepigrapha gives the impression that someone did it to pretend to be the writer - an assumption (see my second point)

    My second point, is that no good scholar (again IMO) believes that any New Testament book was falsely written by anyone on purpose. Bart seems to suggest that someone one day decided to write an epistle and pretend to be St Paul...there is no evidence for this. Assuming (for example) that some books were not written by St Paul, but bear his name ( a matter of some debate either way) the chances are that someone making a copy thought "This was originally written by Paul so I should put his name on it". I don't think that is being deceitful,but maybe careless, stupid or misguided. I think Bart is making a big assumption here.

    And Keith...thanks for the welcome.

    Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:03:07 UTC | #608724