Re: The Reliability of the New Testament
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:59 am
I agree with Jeremiah...
Ehrman and others have used the 'telephone game' analogy. And I observe that this understanding of Scripture is quite popular on the street. Many people believe that Jesus was probably a good ethical teacher, but as the stories about him got passed from person to person (and generation to generation) they became exaggerated and distorted (adding things like miracles and deity and resurrection, etc).
This view isn't scholarly... and it's basically been debunked. But I do agree it's still popular on the street.
CS Lewis is famous for his trilemma: Jesus was either Lunatic, Liar, or Lord. But almost no one argues that Jesus was a lunatic or liar. Habermas, I believe, added the LEGEND option, and rightly so, because for most people today those are the two options (either the Biblical claims about Jesus are legendary or they are true). I'd say most Americans probably choose the legendary option.
This thread, it seems to me, is just pointing out that a common way of ARGUING FOR the legendary option is built on a false-foundation. The original readings of the New Testament have almost certainly been preserved for us in later manuscripts. The only way to argue for the LEGEND option today, it seems to me, is to say the authors were either lying from the beginning or to late-date the Gospels entirely. But evidence for those options is crumbling too.
Ehrman and others have used the 'telephone game' analogy. And I observe that this understanding of Scripture is quite popular on the street. Many people believe that Jesus was probably a good ethical teacher, but as the stories about him got passed from person to person (and generation to generation) they became exaggerated and distorted (adding things like miracles and deity and resurrection, etc).
This view isn't scholarly... and it's basically been debunked. But I do agree it's still popular on the street.
CS Lewis is famous for his trilemma: Jesus was either Lunatic, Liar, or Lord. But almost no one argues that Jesus was a lunatic or liar. Habermas, I believe, added the LEGEND option, and rightly so, because for most people today those are the two options (either the Biblical claims about Jesus are legendary or they are true). I'd say most Americans probably choose the legendary option.
This thread, it seems to me, is just pointing out that a common way of ARGUING FOR the legendary option is built on a false-foundation. The original readings of the New Testament have almost certainly been preserved for us in later manuscripts. The only way to argue for the LEGEND option today, it seems to me, is to say the authors were either lying from the beginning or to late-date the Gospels entirely. But evidence for those options is crumbling too.