BART EHRMAN THE ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE PDF
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture:The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. By Bart D. Ehrman. In the last couple of posts I have talked about the basic thesis that lay behind my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. After doing my dissertation I became . Dr. Ehrman, I do not know if others would find this interesting, but I which in full was: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early.
|Published (Last):||18 April 2008|
|PDF File Size:||10.11 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.50 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: Victors ehrmab only write history: Bart Ehrman explores the close relationship between the social history of early Christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging New Testament, examining how early struggles between Scrioture “heresy” and “orthodoxy” affected the transmission of the documents over which many of the debates were waged.
He Victors not only write history: He makes a crucial contribution to our understanding of the social and intellectual history of early Christianity and raises intriguing questions about the relationship of readers to their corruprion, especially in an age when scribes could transform the documents they reproduced.
This edition includes a new afterword surveying research in biblical interpretation over the past twenty years. Paperback1st editionpages. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To irthodox other readers questions about The Orthodox Corruption of Scriptureplease sign up. Be the first to ask a question about The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
Lists with This Book. Jun 17, Candace rated it liked it Shelves: Ehrman’s thesis in this book is that many of the textual variants that are found in the manuscripts of the New Testament are the result of intentional changes to the text on the part of the scribes who copied the texts.
He contends that the scribes made these changes to the text as a result of, and in response to, the various Christological disputes of the second and third centuries and he analyzes several variant readings with this contention in mind. While I agree with Ehrman that the scribes Ehrman’s thesis in this book is that many of the textual variants that are found in the manuscripts of the New Testament are the result of intentional changes to the text on the part of the scribes who copied the texts.
Further, I feel as if Ehrman is arguing that the scribes who changed the texts did so fully conscious of what they were doing and the effect it would have on those who read the texts. In other words, I feel as if he has, in some way, painted the scribes as people who intentionally wielded their power in order to sway arguments toward the conclusion which they held.
I believe that the early Christian scribes were also users of the texts; for me, that means that they were part of living, breathing churches which I believe in some way experienced the work of the Holy Spirit among them. As such, I believe that the scribes would have been cautious to retain the truth of the texts which they copied and hesitant to make changes to them.
Ehrman’s book is useful, but his arguments should probably be taken with a grain of salt. It seems like a lot of folks either didn’t know what they were getting into with this book or completely misunderstood the primary message. First of all, unlike a lot of Ehrman’s output, this is not intended for mass-market appeal rather it is more suited for serious study of the New Testament.
Second, the argument is not that every change in the early scriptures was done for purely intentional reasons and he acknowledges that most changes were accidental and not particularly substantive, in man It seems like a lot of folks either didn’t know what they were getting into with this book or completely misunderstood the primary message. Second, the argument is not that every change in the early scriptures was done for purely intentional reasons and he acknowledges that most changes were accidental and not particularly substantive, in many cases the result of fatigue-driven parablepsis occasioned by homoeoarcton or homoeoteleuton on the part of the scribes.
However for this work he has decided to focus on those changes that have evidence of intent behind them. However, what is most important about this text is the transformative effect is has on the understanding of the work of the scribes in the first couple centuries of early Christianity. Far from being human xerox machines, scribes were authors and readers with scriptural views of their own that on occasion, prompted textual changes due to a proto-orthodoxy agenda.
Ehrman frames these changes in response to several competing “heresies” of the time, those being the views of the Ebionites and Theodotions adoptionists ; Marcionites, Docetists, and Gnostics separationistsand Patripassianists modalists.
Scribes Altered Their Sacred Texts
As such, the debates of these early centuries in christology and the success of the proto-orthodox view at the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon had a profound impact as to how texts were copied, transmitted, and ultimately selected for inclusion. In very academic language, Ehrman makes a very good case for several specific coorruption from the Gospels and writings of Paul. Also in this new edition, not only has he corrected several errors in the first printing but has added an illuminating afterword that reflects on just how much the discipline has changed since this was originally published in Still a pivotal and somewhat prescient work in the field, for the serious student of the New Testament this is worth the time.
Dec 24, Jon Sedlak rated it did not like it. It scriptue refutes a corrupption of claims and exaggerations found within this book by Ehrman. Sep 02, Thomas Simmons rated it liked it. Was expecting a work of scholarship and got a lot of hot air. The ‘evidence’ is largely spurious, seriously limited in scope and the bqrt draws conclusions from a lack of actual substance. Hill Who Chose the Gospels and others have basically had to put this work into the category of pop fiction.
This is a must-read for those interested in textual criticism and early Christianity. It’s a serious piece of scholarship and has remained influential since it was first published in Along with the work of others, it has lead to a new appreciation of textual variants as windows into the the history and interpretation of the text, rather than chaff to be discarded in the quest to reconstruct the ‘original text’.
Ehrman puts forward a solid argument that many of the variants in the gospels w This is a must-read for those interested in textual criticism and early Christianity. Ehrman puts forward a solid argument that many of the variants in the gospels were influenced by the christological controversies of the early centuries. While it’s true that the scribes were living, breathing people who were likely to have been influenced by such controversies, I’m not convinced that all of Ehrman’s examples fall into this category.
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
Variations on the truth? A very complex study of textual variations from the early centuries after Christ and possible motives. Is what we ‘re a d what was written? Is our interpretation correct or are we led to believe a variation on the theme?
Mind boggling and to some degree, scary. Jan 08, Fred Kohn rated it it was amazing Shelves: Put on notice by the author that this book contained technical discussions, I was prepared for a difficult read. In fact, the book was largely free of technical jargon. I suppose my knowing a bit of Greek helped, but I can’t imagine even not knowing Greek being an impediment for a reasonably dedicated reader. Being put on guard by another reviewer that fo book was “seriously flawed,” I read it more closely than perhaps I might have otherwise.
Armed with my 21st edition of Novum Testamentum Gra Put on notice by the author that this book contained technical discussions, I was prepared for a difficult read.
Armed with my 21st edition of Novum Testamentum Graece and a reconstruction of the Fhrman Text used by the NIV translators, Ortthodox put the “seriously flawed” claim to the test and could find no substance to it.
Perhaps Christians who consider themselves heirs to orthodoxy believe by the title that this book is an attack on modern day orthodoxy. But that claim has no merit. Of all the corruptions discussed in this book and I’m guessing there had to be well over a hundredonly six of those considered by Ehrman to be corruptions by my count are reproduced in my edition of Novum Testamentum Graece.
What Ehrman doesn’t discuss, and what makes me mad, is that occasionally even when orthodox scholars recognize what is original, they still translate according to the corruption! For example, 1 John 2: Yet modern translations all say “for WHEN he appears”, reproducing a corruption that is common in the Greek texts as well. Sep 20, Eric rated it liked it Recommends it for: A friend sent me a complementary copy of this as evidence for the intentional manipulation of early Christian manuscripts for the purpose of stamping out the numerous heresies that plagued the nascent church.
There’s a run on sentence, phew, sorry. The evidence is compelling, but it’s not particularly disconcerting. While A friend sent me a complementary copy of this as evidence for the intentional manipulation of early Christian manuscripts for the purpose of stamping out the numerous heresies that plagued the nascent church.
While Ehrman might have a point that the early church may have formed differently if the textual evidence weren’t aligned with the party line during times of inquisition, I find that hard to believe. It’s not like today when we can inseminate millions of homes with our literary seed – each individual manipulation was just that, one individual copy.
I find it hard to believe that the 0. Either way, it’s pretty well done. Oct 25, Cera rated it really liked it Shelves: A very interesting look at the way in which battles over ‘correct’ Christology shaped the text of the New Testament. Ehrman is, luckily, aware of this, and structures each chapter with a more general opening and introduction, so that readers like myself can skim more lightly over s A very interesting look at the way in which battles over ‘correct’ Christology shaped the text of the New Testament.
Ehrman is, luckily, aware of this, and structures each chapter with a more general opening and introduction, so that readers like myself can skim more lightly over some of discussions about sources while still getting the gist of the argument.
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture : Bart D. Ehrman :
I was also pleased to see that Erhman bears in mind that, while the Christians whose version of Christology eventually triumphed framed themselves as the orthodox and those who differed as heretics, the so-called heretics were of course framing themselves as correct and the orthodox as a heretical sect.
Each group had a particular view of Christ that they believed was correct, and Ehrman touches briefly on some of the changes that the groups now called heretical made in order to support their positions. Jul 14, Sharman Wilson rated it liked it Shelves: Ehrman lets you know up front that most of this book is written for Bible scholars.
He encourages the rest of us to read the introduction, read the beginnings and summary of each chapter, skimming as desired thru the meat of the chapters. I tried to read it cover to cover, but after the first chapter I decided to take the author’s advice and thus got a lot more out of it.
His thesis is that as orthodox scribes copied out new manuscripts of the Bible, they felt obliged to add, subtract, or tweak w Ehrman lets you know up front that most of this book is written for Bible scholars. His thesis is that as orthodox scribes copied out new manuscripts of the Bible, they felt obliged to add, subtract, or tweak words in order to make the scriptures state more clearly what they ought to be saying.
They wanted to make it harder for the heretics to prove their heresies from the scriptures. Ehrman goes through the main heresies they were trying to stamp out and how the Bible was changed to reflect the orthodox view better.
Sep 10, Alicia rated it liked it Shelves: There were some parts of this book that I thought were great and other parts that were long and the arguments seemed like kind of a stretch. The parts of this book that I really like talk about the different things that different groups of early Christians believed.
Something we don’t hear about very much in church are that early followers had some very different ideas about things that what has become mainstream today. The parts of the book that I didn’t enjoy as much were the parts where he ar There were some parts of this book that I thought were great and other parts that were long and the arguments seemed like kind of a stretch.
The parts of the book that I didn’t enjoy as much were the parts where he argued about why changes were made.
Sometimes it seemed like what he was saying was such a stretch that he should have been saying that we can’t know for sure and instead he was trying to argue his side.