WinePusher wrote:
The trouble I have with Ehrman, and other scholars of his type, is that they exploit thoughtful inquiry to support their preconcieved conclusions about Jesus and God. They are similar to Evolutionists and Darwainists, who take a perfectly fine scientific theory and use it to to refute creationism and Christianity. It's an abuse of history and science on their part.
The only claim is see that is being made is that the bible is not an inerrant book, but that is not the same as refuting christianity and I am sure Ehrman does not think so. I agree that the title of this book is somewhat suggestive (but that is often the work of the publisher, who often wants to make titles juicy and controversial).
Ehrman himself states:
Ehrman, JI, pg. 271 wrote:
Students are often surprised to learn that I am completely sympa-
thetic to this �nal point of view. The goal of my class is not to attack
the Bible or to destroy the students’ faith. One of my goals is to get
them to think about issues that many of them care deeply about and
that ultimately matter.
...
So, too, with this book. Some readers will �nd it surprising that I do
not see the material in the preceding chapters as an attack on Chris-
tianity or an agnostic’s attempt to show that faith, even Christian
faith, is meaningless and absurd. That is not what I think, and it is
not what I have been trying to accomplish.
WinePusher wrote: 2) Do the many differing views of the resurrection show that it is a false event?
I disagree, the Gospels do show us what actually happened expect from different points of views. Not only do the Gospels confirm the resurrection, but so does widespread growth of Christianity in spite of Roman persecution and an empty tomb. The empty tomb is not an invention of Paul, but rather a fact drawn from the fact that the Jews could not produce the body of Jesus.
The only thing the resurrection stories show is that there were early christians who believed Jesus had been raised from the dead. This doesn't prove anything. The resurrection cannot be proven by historical means, just as any miracle story from history. Belief in the resurrection is based on theological criteria, not historical.
My point with Paul is that his view on resurrection as mentioned in 1 Cor. 15 does not require to see the resurrection so as that Jesus came back alive with the same body as that he was buried, but with a heavenly, incorruptible body. I think that the idea of Jesus resurrection was born out of the Jewish conviction that a righteous martyr would get an afterlife vindication in heaven by God (Daniel, Maccabees). The empty tomb is a later development from that tradition.
1 Cor. 15 wrote:
44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being�; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
I would think that if the Gospels were completely harmonized, it would lead to greater doubt. While the synoptics were somewhat copied off one another, they provide different viewpoints and perspectives of Jesus' life and ministry. And notice that the discrepencies are only minor events, not major events.
Matthew and Luke used Mark and another source which we call Q. This accounts for most of the agreements. Lucan and Matthean Sondergut have greater divergencies when they talk about similar events (birth and resurrection narratives), the location of the Q material in the gospel Matthew and the gospel Luke is often different.
The differences between Mark and John are so large (especially on the point of the teaching style and openness about Jesus' identity) that you can't see them both as historical witnesses. I think neither of them are, but this would require a meta-discussion on the issue how we should regard the gospels.
