People have been asking when the new edition of the next Bart Ehrman Textbook will be available. As I mentioned in my previous post, I have finished editing my textbook on the New Testament for its seventh edition (title still: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings). The book was first published in 1997 and has always been designed for college/university students taking a one-semester course on the New Testament. In it, I do not presuppose any knowledge of the topic but begin at ground zero.
The Next Bart Ehrman Textbook
When I started doing research on the first edition of this textbook back in the mid-90s, I had very clear ideas about what I wanted it to be. First and foremost, I wanted to approach the New Testament from a rigorously historical perspective. It is not that I had any difficulties at the time, either professionally or personally, with introductions that were more geared toward theology, exegesis, or literary criticism. But I wanted my book to be different.
I wanted to situate the writings of the New Testament more thoroughly than was typically done in the historical, cultural, social, political, literary, and ideological worlds from which it emerged. Plowing beneath the surface to find clues not only about such traditional issues as authorship, sources, and dates but also about what was then still a vibrant field of study, social history.
I wanted it to ask historical questions of the texts and of the events that they either narrated or presupposed. The history of the text and the formation of the canon of the New Testament interested me. In the historical Jesus, historical Paul, in the history of the Johannine community, and in the historical realities lying behind Matthew, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation.
Comparative Thought
Relatedly, I wanted the book to be highly comparative. How does John compare with the Synoptics and how do they compare with each other? Does the preaching of Jesus compare with the accounts of the Gospels? Or the theology of Paul? How does Paul’s theology stack up against the letter of James? Or the book of Hebrews? How does the book of Revelation compare with everything else? And on and on. In my view, these questions are central to the historical study of the New Testament and are inherently interesting.
Critical Engagement and Rigorous Scholarship
I also wanted the book to be critical and engaged in rigorous scholarship so that students read. It could see what the critical questions were and what evidence was typically adduced in order to answer them. I absolutely did not want to emulate some of my predecessors in trying to introduce students to the prominent scholars of the past who took one position or another.
In my experience, 19-20-year-olds are simply not all that interested and do not need to be, in the different positions taken on the nature of Justification in Paul by Bultmann, Käsemann, J. Louis Martyn, E. P. Sanders, N. T. Wright, and Douglass Campbell. They’ve never heard the names of these scholars (fine ones, all of them), and, so far as I’m concerned, in an introductory class, they have no need to hear of them. Far more interesting than a list of names of modern scholars is grappling with the texts themselves, to try to make sense of Romans or Galatians.
Bart Ehrman Textbook – What I Wanted to Achieve
Finally, I thought this kind of approach could be achieved at a level that a 19-or 20-year-old might appreciate. The really difficult task was satisfying that audience and the other audience of a textbook: the university professors who decide whether to use it. My goal was to make the book interesting, even intriguing, for beginners and yet fully competent in its scholarship. As far as making it interesting, I realized that the choice of content was fundamental. The study of the New Testament is absolutely fascinating if you know where to look, but dreadfully dull if you look elsewhere. At least as important was the style of writing and the layout of the page.
The 7th Edition
So now it’s in the seventh edition. I have made a number of changes here and there, including adding a number of “boxes” throughout. The boxes in the book are like inserted discussions (such as you might find in a news magazine like Time or Newsweek) on a related topic that is particularly interesting but not *directly* germane to the narrative of the chapter itself. The two most common boxes that I have are titled “Another Glimpse Into the Past,” where I give some additional factual information about the topic, and “Something to Think About,” where I discuss a controversial topic that can generate different opinions.
For this new edition, there are a dozen new boxes scattered throughout. I’ve eliminated others – especially the ones I thought were the … least interesting!. I thought it might be a useful exercise to post these new ones on the blog. They are like short snippets on interesting topics, each of which could be discussed in 30 pages or more, but which I devote usually 300-400 words only.
Since these are shorter than my normal 1000-word blog posts, my idea is to have *two* postings a day (so you can get your money’s worth on the blog!). I had thought about combining them to give two in each post, but since they are all on topics vastly different from each other, I decided that might be confusing. So these will be my upcoming mini-posts, two a day for a week or so, starting tomorrow, unless something more pressing comes up that I need to post about instead!
I am looking forward to this! (I have long wanted to get a copy of your textbook, but buying textbooks new is so expensive, and I thought it would be wrong to buy a second-hand copy and thereby take it away from a student who might need to buy it for their studies.)
Don’t think you need to worry about that one!
Go back an edition or two
Professor Ehrman,
Would you suggest this textbook for those simply interested in learning the history of the New Testament?
Thanks!
Yup, it’s a good resource for that — it’s its raison d’etre!
Professor Ehrman, when will the new edition be available, and will it be available through an online bookseller? Thank you.
Probably in a bout six months; and yes indeed, it’ll be on Amazon etc.
My edition of this textbook has been incredibly helpful to me. The “layout” with the “boxes” is a terrific way to present stuff. That you have finished this project shortly after finishing your book on the “Afterlife” is truly amazing. You are something else.
I often go through a little OCD with side boxes in books. Should I stop reading mid topic and lose my train of thought, and read the side box, or should I wait a page or two until I’ve finished the current idea or sub heading. But then there is often another box there. Somerimes I save up the boxes and read them all at once.
Decisions, decisions.
Oh, geez, will these be included in the test, professor?!
Most definitely
The occasional touch of humor also helps to make your New Testament text such a great read for anyone of any age. it does not distract from the professionalism of the book.
Great idea! They will be a welcome addition to my copy of the Second Edition.
Good idea!
Bart:: any idea when the 7th edition will go on sale, please? Sounds like a ‘must have’ for me.
In about six months I think.
Bart – You are one of the most fascinating human beings I’ve ever come across.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand you:
1. Work as a lecturer for undergraduate students on biblical studies.
2. Produce works for the professional academy.
3. Publish popular works for the general public (including this daily blog).
Are you aware of anyone else who combines these roles together as you have? I can’t think of anyone who does all three. And you have a wife and have raised children – how do you do it all?!?
Lots of people do #1 and *either* #2 or #3; not so many do all three. (And as to #1, it’s mroe than undergraduates; I also teach graduate students working toward their PhD; that actually takes a lot more time and energy!) I do it by being crazed about efficiency. And by not watching much TV! (Just sports, really, and news when I feel like getting depressed)
So does that mean you’ve never seen Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad?
Breaking Bad is my all time favorite TV viewing. I’ve never done Game of Thrones.
That’s awesome to hear – I am a huge fan of Breaking Bad also. If you loved Breaking Bad, you may like Better Call Saul, with some people (including me) claiming it is at least as good if not better than Breaking Bad.
I think you would enjoy Game of Thrones for its depiction of grisly medieval realism and gripping storyline. One of the best TV shows I’ve ever seen – the depth of character development, musical score, large-scale realistic action scenes (the ‘Battle of the Bastards’ is incredible) and photography is astonishing! There’s so much else I could rave on about, but that would get into spoiler territory.
PS: Not that I want for a second to distract you from all your other work – but perhaps swapping depressing news for GoT would work?
Battle of the Bastards was one of the best episodes on there. Game of Thrones deals with a lot of taboo topics that will make your head spin. I really liked Breaking Bad, but GoT is where it’s at for me. I think it holds the record for the most Emmys won right now. It took me a few seasons to really get into it, but once I did I was hooked!
Did original sin stay with humanity until Christ came sacrificed himself? If so, how did humans get into Heaven before Christ? Was that even possible?
I thought humans were not allowed into Heaven with original sin?
I’m afraid those are theological questions that a mere historian such as I cannot answer….
Great idea. Looking forward to this.
Interestingly enough, I have a professional development this week about the issues surrounding textbook use in the classroom from the middle grades through college. According to a 15-year international study quoted in Subjects Matter (my assigned reading), American students have the heaviest and thickest textbooks than any other country in the world; enough to break a foot if dropped on it. Back injuries from carrying textbooks have increased to the point of sparking the current fad of rolling backpacks.
There are actually people who critique textbooks. It’s usually (or hopefully) someone who is an expert within the genre s/he is critiquing. Problems with textbooks: not age-appropriate for the student, uninteresting to the student, does not engage the student with higher-order/critical thinking questions, bad design, authoriatative (one-sided, introduces bias of the author), the expectation that students should read massive amounts of informational text like a novel or story, too expensive, and out of date or not staying current with the latest data/studies. All textbooks contain errors. One company was so horrible with making mathematical errors, the school threatened to sue if it wasn’t fixed. Sounds crazy, but purchasing a curriculum full of errors is costly.
The good news is, at least for me, textbooks are here to stay. I’m an advocate for students having at least a textbook in the classroom with access to it online at home. Even with all the e-reading going on, most of us prefer a book in our hands over digital reading.
My current literature series is awesome, but the grammar portion is terrible so I supplement with other sources. Still, I think textbooks are important to have, and when they’re well-designed, it makes all the difference in classroom success.
Another thing to add to my previous comment—
Textbooks are only meant to cover a topic, not go in depth. In-depth study falls to the teacher/instructor which is difficult because there’s hardly any time for in-depth study.
Being the designer of your own textbook and teaching it is definitely advantageous. Does your textbook come with a teacher’s edition or guide? The college textbook I taught from was terrible. Everyone of us in adjunct complained about it because there was not enough support to us as instructors who are not professors. So I am wondering how often your textbook is given to an adjunct person (you may not know or maybe not at all) and whether s/he has any guidance: pacing, manual, etc…
My wife says I can’t buy any more books until I read all the ones I already have, so I’ll have to hold off on buying this one right away!
Maybe looking at the cover could count?
I have the 6th edition. Are there significant differences between that and your new one? When will it be available?
There are some — especially in the new boxes. But the substance is very similar.
Bart, should there be a minor edit 6th edition page 205 concerning Ecclesiastes. Bible reference should be 12:13-14 instead of 13:13-15? Look forward to the new edition!
Thanks!
Reading over this has helped me organize some earlier perceptions about e-reading vs paper-reading.
1) For ordinary linear reading for enjoyment , like most fiction, popular science, news etc., e-reading on a kindle or similar is the way to go.
2) For reading texts that need a lot of bookmarking and flipping back and forth(*) paper rules.
3) For detailed fast searches, perhaps coupled with 2), e-reading on a computer with good search capabilities is needed.
(*) And end notes are never sufficiently to be deprecated.(**) Footnotes on the same page are so much better.
(**) “never sufficiently to be deprecated” is a polite way of saying what I really meant.
This brings back good memories. This book in 1997 is what introduced me to you. I was taking an intro to NT at Auburn, taught by Dr. William Doty (visiting scholar for that term). We used Burton Mack’s book, “Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth”. One Monday, Dr. Doty showed up with your book and said, “I finally found our textbook!”. Looking forward to this purchasing this new edition.
Dr Ehrman: I’d like to see a book comprising of all your blog posts. That would be an awesome quick reference to anything New Testament and early Christianity.
Interesting idea. Thanks.
Dr. Ehrman – I posted something along these lines awhile back but forgot which post I put it under, so couldn’t find if there was a response. I just ordered New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. If I were choosing another between A Brief Introduction to the New Testament or The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, which would you recommend? (to minimize overlap…I’m sure choosing a book you wrote is like choosing which kid is your favorite!)
It depends on whether you want something on the entire Bible (Genesis to Revelation) or simply the New Testament.
Dr. Ehrman,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I understand, you agree with conservatives that Paul believes in a real, physical, tomb-emptying kind of resurrection. Are all of these verses which are from the undisputed letters good evidence for this?
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, 1 Corinthians 15:53, Romans 8:11, Romans 8:23, and Philippians 3:21
Thank you
I don’t think so. Unless it mentions and “empty tomb” then the verse doesn’t necessarily state there was an empty tomb.
Dr. Ehrman,
There seems to be a group in Corinth that followed Peter. In Paul’s 1 Cor. 15:11 statement, does Paul give a guarantee that when it comes to the key message of Jesus’ death on the cross, bodily resurrection, and resurrection appearances to witnesses, they (Paul and Peter) are on the same page?
No, there’s not a “guarantee.” There’s a sense that this is what Paul himself believed (that he and the apostles were on the same page) — or at least what he *said* he believed.
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you think it is a mistake given comments like “some doubted” to write the disciples off as merely credulous, since it does seem that they themselves wanted evidence before they believed in Jesus’ resurrection?
I’m not sure what “merely credulous” means. They certainly didn’t have a 21st century understanding of miracle and proof.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree with this quote?:
“Paul never says from where he got the information referred to in 1 Cor. 15.3-7, but he clearly regarded it as the authoritative list of fundamental beliefs passed on to him by prime witnesses, and we have no reason to believe that Paul was deliberately deceptive.”
Yes. But the options are still quite numerous. (And it’s not clear what “prime witnesses” means)
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you think it is likely that Paul got 1 Cor. 15:3-5 from Peter and James, or do you think the origin of that part like the rest of 1 Cor. 15:3-7 is very much a mystery?
I don’t know where he got it from.
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you think that “some doubted” Matt. 28:17 indicates the historical truth that not all of the apostles readily believed in Jesus’ resurrection?
Yes.
Dr. Ehrman:
Is this correct?
“Apocalypticists such as Jesus, his disciples, and Paul have at the heart of their view of resurrection God re-doing creation. i.e. Ezekiel, 2 Maccabees 7”
I’m not quite sure what it means. Ezekiel doesn’t have this view, e.g.
Dr. Ehrman:
The core of Jesus’ message, succinctly: The Kingdom of God has come near. Is this right? Anything you would adjunct?
Yes, but it completely depends on what you mean (or he meant) by “Kingdom of God” and “has come near” (which I would instead translate: “is near”)
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you agree?
“No one today doubts that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians; with the exception of a couple verses about women in the church in 1 Corinthians Chapter 14. The copy of 1 Corinthians in our New Testament is virtually identical to the original Paul sent to the church at Corinth.”
No. Saying that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians is not at all the same as saying we know his precise words in every place in the letter.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree?
“The chain of witnesses leads to the conclusion in 1 Cor. 15:11: “Whether it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.” In other words, Peter, the Twelve, James, Paul, and the other apostles are unified on the basic doctrine of Christ’s death and resurrection and that it is substantial for atonement. There are not several conflicting versions. Had there been, the movement would’ve collapsed in on itself.”
No, I heartily disagree. But I do think Paul is *claiming* something like this. There were lots of views early in in Christianity though, about most topics, as Paul himself shows (by the fact that he has “enemies” in all his own churches — let alone in the ones he didn’t found)
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you agree:
“The verb “ōphthē” refers more naturally to an objective reality that the disciples saw. It suggests that Jesus himself took the initiative to appear. A subjective vision would have been more conducive to “horama.”
No, it has nothing to do with teh distinction between “objective” and “subjective” (which are modern categories, not ancient ones)
Dr. Ehrman:
What do you think the chances are that the Clement from 1 Clem. is who Paul mentions in Phil.? 1 Clem. seemed to be a popular document in the church, why was it ultimately rejected from the New Testament? Would you say it is just as legitament from the historian’s point of view as say John, which was written about the same year?
I don’t think the dates work. 1 Clement would be 40 years after Phil, and in Phil. Clement was already a mature man.
Dr. Ehrman:
Is this a good summary of the convictions of the earliest Christians post-Resurrection? I tried to adapt them from “The Triumph of Christianity”
1) Although it was unexpected, Jesus was the messiah.
2) Via his resurrection, God showed that Jesus came to save people for eternal life, which was actually greater than the expected messiah who would be a powerful political figure.
Yes, I think almost all of the early Christians would say something like this (although there wasn’t just *one*, political, understanding of what the expected messiah would be)
Dr. Ehrman:
Some take a broad view of what those in the 1st century were expecting as far as the messiah, so would it be accurate to say that the biggest disappointment with Jesus’s situation was not his death on a cross, but that after it took place the Kingdom did not arrive?
I’d say those are two huge disappointments, that came at different times to different people.
Dr. Ehrman:
Why do you think 1 Clem. was excluded from the New Testament?
I suppose it was because it was not said to be written by an apostle or at the time the apostles were still living.
Dr. Ehrman:
There is a scholar who says that in vv.3-7 of 1 Cor. 15, all we have are 2 group appearances that comprise the following: 1 that was to Peter, James, the 12, and some others at once, and the other to the large group of ‘brothers’ However, I simply don’t know how one comes up with this theory because the text seems very straightfoward about the people, the groups, and the order of the appearances. Did you ever hear of such an alternative view?
No, I don’t recall hearing that one. Then again, it’s amazing how many things I don’t recall hearing….
Dr. Ehrman:
I heard an interview with you where you told of how a student refused to do an assignment where you had them argue for the other side of the debate. I actually think those exercises are very helpful, so I’d like to know in all good faith and honesty, what do you think the best argument(s) is/are that Christian scholars have offered that the resurrection actually did happen? I am NOT saying that you were convinced (obviously not) but what do you think is the best they have? Also, I’m NOT asking about a philosophy that says there’s really no arguments because prima facie it 100% just can’t happen. Thanks, and I look foward to your constructive reply
When I did believe in it, I thought the strongest arguments were eyewitness testimony and multiple atttestation.
Dr. Ehrman,
Did you ever consider the group appearances, or did you always regaurd them i.e. as no better than apparitions of Mary? Do you think the group appearance argument is the best one against hallucination theory?
Yes, that’s what I used to argue, until I realized we have similar phenomena elsewhere (Mary).
Dr. Ehrman:
Up until what point did you think the group appearances was a good argument? Were you already well into your career as a professor/scholar when you rejected it?
Yup. Only when I started looking seriously into it did I realize it was a problem.
Dr. Ehrman:
When you say eyewitness testimony do you mean primarily Paul and his list in 1 Cor. 15? and multiple atttestation, meaning the resurrection appearances in 2 of the synoptics + John?
Thanks.
And the sources of the Gospel narratives. Multiple attestation: independent traditions in each of the Gospels and in Paul, and apparently James (the person, not the book)
Dr. Ehrman:
“…[they believed] he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.”
– “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium” p. 231
From what I understand it may not have been the literal 3rd day, but it couldn’t have been several years either because then Paul’s experience would factor in the timeline…do you have any estimation of how long after it probably was?
No, I don’t know. I assume it wasn’t right away, but also wasn’t many months.
Dr. Ehrman,
Does the original Greek indicate in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 that Jesus appeared visibly to the eye and that Jesus took the initiative to appear? Because there are some on the very far left who try to say that they merely just felt a presence.
It suggests it was visible but it gives no hint about Jesus taking initiative.
Dr. Ehrman:
Is this correct?
“[The N.T.] speaks of Jesus appearing to his disciples, the text also uses the passive voice: Jesus WAS SEEN by the disciples, and not that the disciples SAW Jesus. In other words, the one doing the action is JESUS and the disciples are just passive recipients of the act. That means the disciples DID NOT DO anything to see Jesus (a dream, a collective hallucination or subjective visions of Jesus). The disciples were not the ones MAKING it happen.”
No. You can’t press the passive voice of OPTAW
Dr. Ehrman,
Does the language of 1 Cor. 15:3-8 strongly indicate that they saw Jesus with their eyesight a.k.a. eyewitnesses?
Yes, I think so. The verb is “to see” used in the aorist passive.
Dr. Ehrman:
“aorist passive.” please help me understand this, so this indicates that Jesus was seen by them (pointing to a genuine eyewitnessing of an event), and NOT that they actively sought him out/conjured him up, is that right?
Literally the word means “he was seen” by them (aorist is like our past tense; passive means the subject is acted upon rather than doing the action). But this particular verb, in the passive, can take on the meaning “appeared” (active rather than passive). So it’s usually translated “he appeared to them.”
Dr. Ehrman,
The passive seems important in indicating that Jesus did the action. So, if the writer meant to say they just conjured Jesus up, would it have been put in an active instead of a passive?
No.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree?
“The Christology of 1 Thessalonians could have been written by Peter or James or indeed anyone in the early church. It merely echoes the primitive kerygma, of which traces abound in the Pauline letters.” – Keys to Galatians: Collected Essays by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor
The Christology? Yes.
Did you ever think of doing a Commentary Series?
Ha! Never ever. Maybe I’ll add that to the list of questions to answer later in a full post.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think the resurrected Jesus appeared to them in an illustrious manner that was more impressive than the faded, nebulous ghost image that we usually think of? Because I’m wondering how “fine matter” could have been awe-inspiring, do you think maybe there was a glow or something that exuded palpable grandeur?
I don’t think anyone who actually has a vision thinks of what s/he sees as a nebulous ghost image; that’s how people who *haven’t* had visions imagine them.
Dr. Ehrman,
I wanted to see if I have this right. That the followers first and foremost based their belief in Jesus’ resurrection on the visions, and I also think you said that even in the text the empty tomb doesn’t convince anyone anyway. So do you think that apologists have over-stated the import of the empty tomb as being something vital? Did you ever think, since becoming a scholar, that the visions plus an empty tomb was a good argument, or is it better (for the apologist) to put more emphasis on the group appearances, and not “make hay” over the empty tomb?
Yes, that’s pretty much my point. The empty tomb is overplayed by apologists, as even the New Testament shows.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree with this quote specifically on the topic of hallucination by expectation?:
“The evidence that we have from the New Testament does not support any picture of Jesus’ followers excitedly expecting to meet him risen from the dead. Instead of persuading themselves into thinking that they saw him, they had to be persuaded that he was gloriously alive again. Among other things, Jesus’ arrest and disgraceful death left them crushed. Only by ignoring the evidence can we picture them anxiously awaiting his return from the dead and out of their imaginations hallucinating his appearances.”
Yup.
Dr. Ehrman:
Who are/have been some of your favorite scholars past/present?
In what area? NT generally? In teh past generation there were amazing scholars, very different from each other: Raymond Brown, Lou Martyn, Bruce Metzger, Chris Beker, Paul Meyer, E. P. Sanders, Wayne Meeks, and on and on and on.
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you think there are different layers to the 1 Cor. 15:3-7 tradition, or is it impossible to tell?
The new layer appeard to be Paul adding himself to the list.
Ok, then you take 1 Cor. 15:3-7 to be one unit?
Yup.
I have the 6th edition, and I am not sure if your discussion of adoptionists, Marcionites, Gnostis, and Proto-Orthodoxists should also include Judaizers (Galatians, e.g.)? I’m not recommending; I’m actually asking. You also don’t mention this in your book Lost Christianities, so I’m wondering really *why* to not include them. Is it because they were only in the first generation? Obviously they lost out quickly.
Because I was talking about second century heretical groups, not opponents of Paul a century earlier.
When re-editing your textbook, how in the world do you keep track of what you want to change, remove and add? And how to you guard against redundancy or omissions?
I simply take a printed copy of the earlier edition and mark it up in pen, as a permanent record. Is that what you’re asking?
I was asking more about your mental process but I can see how your simple (ink) solution is an enormous help. You must have Herculean recall.
My advisor Bruce Metzger loved the Chinese proverb: The weakest ink is stronger than the strongest memory.
Dr. Ehrman,
On pgs. 5-7 of “Forged” you write about how Christianity is unique because it is/was concerned with objective Truth unlike other religions. Do you think that’s part of the reason why Paul presented the orderly list of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus?
Really? Do I talk about Paul and others being in objective truth?? How weird. I don’t think the rest of the world was subjectivist and Paul was objectivist at all! (Our notion of objectivism has come down to us form the Enlightenment)
…Last paragraph on pg. 5 of “Forged”
Nope. I don’t say anything about objectivity.
Then please help me understand what you meant here: “One could argue that the obsession with truth in parts of evangelical Christianity today was matched by the commitment to truth in the earliest years of Christianity. This is one of the features of Christianity that made it distinctive among the religions of antiquity.” You also go on to talk about how to the Christians there was an actual “right” and “wrong” (p. 7) “Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are” by Bart D. Ehrman, HarperOne, 2011 page 5
The idea of “objective” truth, as opposed to some other kind of truth — e.g., “subjective” — is a post-Enlightenment distinction. It completely means what you mean by “objective.” “I love my wife” or “I can’t stand beets” or “God is love” are not the same kind of “truths” as “the square root of 9 is 3.” If you want to pursue the idea further, a good introductoin is Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction.
Dr. Ehrman,
I was reading a book by the Jesus Seminar which included a section on interpolations, but they didn’t say anything about 1 Thess. 2:13-16, which is sometimes considered to be one. Do you think it is an interpolation?
No, I definitely don’t.
Dr Ehrman
Is the New edition of The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings the sixth or seventh edition?
The 7th edition is coming out in September.
7th Ed. in Sept – Praise be! I’ve not had this much trouble awaiting the arrival of something since I was a kid at Xmas.
What does it say about me that I feel this way about a textbook?…
I’m enjoying edition #5!
Chapter 15 so far!!
I would love to take one of your tests that you give your students. Is this possible?
I also valued your Mormon Stories interview with Dr John Dehlin!
Maybe I should post the test on the blog! (Think I did once, but it was long ago)
Dr. Ehrman,
I just downloaded the Kindle version of your book, The New Testament 7th edition. Unfortunately, it is technically unreadable. Then I found lots of reviews complaining about the same problem. Did you know that? What a regret if people cannot read this book on kindle!
No, that’s the first I heard of it! So sorry to know. An 8th edition is in the works. Maybe they’ll do better this time.