© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
This comment is about Bart D. Ehrman in general, not about Mr. Boylen’s article specifically. Some time ago I carefully read Professor Ehrman’s *Misquoting Jesus.* His fundamental thesis that early Christian texts were altered in profound ways was enticing to me. But after studying this particular book, I found that Professor Ehrman’s argumentative logic in some cases was astoundingly poor. I am not a NT scholar by any means, but I do have 20 years experience in courts examining evidence and the persuasive and logical presentation of evidence. I found Professor Ehrman making incredible leaps in logic and discounting valid and even compelling counterarguments.
To underscore my point, I wrote a brief but detailed amazon.com review of *Misquoting Jesus* in regard to Professor Ehrman’s arguments that the account of Christ’s atonement found in Luke 22:43-44 is a forgery. (It strikes me that in Professor Ehrman’s writings, greater and greater swaths of the NT are deemed “forgeries”–a few more of his books and I wonder if anything in the NT will be deemed “authentic.”) My amazon review is titled “Chiasmus and Luke 22:43-44” and is the second review under the one star reviews. It has excited numerous comments, including additional comments by me. I hope you find it all compelling in perhaps taking a second look at Professor Ehrman.
In brief, I think the arguments of what is a “forgery” and what is “authentic”–specifically in regard to doctrine–are of labyrinthine complexity (largely because so few original texts predating ad 100 are even available), thus making it possible for acknowledged experts in early Christian Greek texts like Professor Ehrman to begin presenting themselves as experts in early Christian theology. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. The complexity of what went on before the lights went out (and the lack of Christian texts that would illuminate that period) calls for LDS NT scholars who possess extraordinary knowledge and a critical eye, especially when confronting the theological implications of textual authorship arguments furthered by popular scholars like Professor Ehrman.
Hey Craig, have you considered all the additional evidence concerning the Luke 22 passage? Thomas Wayment (http://newtestament.byu.edu/wayment.php) recently published an important piece on P. Oxy. 2383 that supports the reading of Ehrman and many others.
I don’t think Bart claims to be an “Expert on early Christian Theology” as you say…rather, he makes pretty clear he draws his conclusions from the stance of a historian, and a darn good one at that.
I’ve read most of what Ehrman has written. Like his work.
Considering this book, I think, “Christmas is coming. This would make a great gift for me.”