Poohbear,

A fascinating read and as usual I’m late to the party!  Thanks for posting this thread.

So many things occur to me that I’m beginning to lose track.  Your notes are packed with curiosities.  I apologize as I know parts of this response are reflected elsewhere in other responses.

Ehrman, like many “critical scholars” studied ancient Greek. But this isn’t to deconstruct Greek mythology, it’s to challenge the bible.

How on earth would you know why Dr. Ehrman studied Greek?  If we are to trust what he says himself (and why wouldn’t we?) he was a believer when he was studying Greek and the NT – not to mention a Pastor doing all the things Pastors usually do.  And how can anyone study the NT critically without first learning Greek?  Why is learning Greek in order to examine NT texts critically a problem for you?  I simply don’t understand.

I’m very sure there are people studying Greek mythology critically too, but no one is up in arms about their findings because nobody (I know of) believes that what survives of Homer is inerrant and should be the basis of our lives and how we organize our societies.

When the famous model Bettie Page was challenged over her scanty attire she pointed out the Adam and Eve were naked too, and God walking in their garden was probably naked too. Why was she saying this? Because the ultimate authority on moral issues was the bible. In the West the bible remains an authority …

So, Bettie Page justifying nudity by referencing Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden is proof that the bible is the ultimate authority on moral issues in the West?

So, according to postmodernism and deconstructionism there are no truths – except the views of the “critical scholars” telling this. And life has no meaning – an accidental universe created itself before it existed, like magic.

Being sceptical of traditions and attempting to understand origins and meanings of scripture (however failingly) does not invoke a magical universe (quite the opposite) – nor does it mean there are no truths or that life has no meaning.

So sure, bit by bit, many of the things “critical scholars” said didn’t exist have come to light. An interesting one is the “invisible archaeology” in Edom which points to the possibility there were far more people living in Israel in the Bronze and Iron Age than previously thought. I grew up being told things like there is no such thing as a racial Jew and that King David never existed – it would be nice if “critical scholars” did a self assessment of their former claims.

Many scholars held views which were later proven to be wrong when new information arose.  Good and honest scholars update prior beliefs to align better with new information.  There are many more errors YET to be made in scholarship and many more opinions YET will change.  I find that very comforting!  I’m very wary of any kind of belief or opinion which refuses to change when new contradictory information arises.

I am fine with John being the author of John’s Gospel and writing what he actually saw. 

That’s great, and I don’t think anyone here would mind that you hold that view.

For instance “virgin” is “almah” in Greek which means “young girl.” So “scholars” want to pour cold water on your Christmas sentiments because THEY want the authority once accorded to scripture. But “almah” has other connotations, and Isaiah said this particular almah having a child would be “sign” to Israel.

If “almah” is a Greek word then why do you cite the word when referencing Isaiah which was written in Hebrew?

I think your view that scholars are hoping to gain some kind of authority that the scriptures once had is incorrect.  I’m sure there are exceptions, but it seems to me that scholars are just looking for answers like the rest of us.  They just have more time (and hopefully more ability) than many of us do.

We grew up being told “There’s no evidence of any King David.”

This was meant to say “There is no King David.”

In 1993 we had the first evidence for the “house of David” (Tel Dan inscription)

To this day I haven’t read any scholarly article pointing how the absence of evidence was employed to prove evidence of absence – and how we got it wrong. I am not talking about archaeologists, who are more circumspect, but the modern day scribes who “interpret” findings.

“There is no evidence of King David” and “there is (was) no King David” are two completely different statements.  You are the one inferring the second statement from the first one.  There was no evidence, outside of the bible of a King David, until they found the Tel Dan stele.  Now – I think – scholarship mostly agrees that there is evidence of a King David or a House of David.

I remember learning of a similar thing about 30 years ago when I was studying a little about Mesopotamia.  I hope I am remembering this correctly: In the 19th century many scholars questioned the historical existence of Nineveh as it was only mentioned in the bible and not mentioned anywhere else.  Then archeologist found the ancient city.  Now scholars all agree the city of Nineveh existed.

Why is that a problem?

One final question.  Is it truly your view that archaeologists are circumspect – and critical scholars working in textual criticism and other biblical studies (modern day scribes who “interpret” findings) are not circumspect?  If so, isn’t it possible that you hold this view because archeologist confirmed a historical fact that you wished to be true – and that the some scholars hold different views to yours regarding the origins and meanings of some scripture?