|
GroupW -> RE: Has anyone read Misquoting Jesus? (7/18/2008 7:36:41 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: danielmount
I've read the book. It is quite off-base. Ehrman tries to take what in many instances are scattered manuscripts, almost never more than 5% or 10% of the evidence in any given passage, and base a case off a few corrupt manuscripts that don't even agree with each other.
That seemed to be his point. There are indeed a multitude of changes to the manuscripts we've used for our translations.
That said, he also does a marvelous job of shooting himself in the philosophical foot when he admits that the vast, vast majority of the changes are insignificant and do not change meaning. He goes on to exacerbate his own problem by noting that we are relatively confident that our current body of knowledge accurately reflects the likely wording of the originals.
He's actually brought us some good news!
Personally, I think the book is worth the read under the condition that:
a) you can read a book critically and don't expect the author to agree with you or be of the same mind.
b) you can read something that challenges your positions without necessarily being shaken in your faith.
c) you are willing to read the works of authors that are antagonistic to your faith in order to be challenged to think more deeply.
d) you can objectively judge the quality of an argument and extract that which appears to be valid and discard the rest.
I would not recommend this to those who do not intend to chew on it. I would also not recommend it to those who are relatively unsure of their faith. I would however recommend it to people who like intellectual challenges and can see past the antagonism to extract some real gems of understanding.
|
|
|
|