Guys, I’m really mad at you right know and disappointed. Sorry for my English, I’m still learning, but I had to response to those claims of you. It’s so sad because I regularly visit this forum and I know that you are well educated in early Christian writing (at least Orthodox side) .
Father Anastasion is probably right, that Ehrman just repeat what was said earlier. But it is because of his purpose. He ain’t only write academic books but also those for regularly audience. Most of his book is just the entrance to scientific studies. But it is just an opinion, not an argument. Everybody has a right to say so. Lubeltri is Catholic, so he typically for Catholics offended Ehrman and said he is a whore. Ok, pretty understandable. Have no problem with that, just a matter of ethics.
Keble said that hardly anyone in the field agree with Ehrman. You probably meant that anyone who is also a hard believer and early Christian historian agree with Ehrman (so called confessional researcher). Most of secular historian who work on the textual criticism in fact agrees with Ehrman. Remember that he took some of the claims of other authors and serve them in more simple way for normal people to understand. Did you ever watch a debate between Ehrman and Craig Evans? It is on YT, you should check it, because it will show you the difference.
“He fails to realize that there are no "original" manuscripts to speak of from antiquity”. Could you provide me any quotation? I think quite opposite.
“I feel sorry for him for not discovering that even some ancient Christian fathers differentiated between spiritual infallibility and textual errancy and that some churches today, Catholic and Orthodox, recognize this.” Because he is historian, not theologian. He ain’t using categories like spiritual infallibility. And don’t say he do not know works of Origen (in fact you did not say that, I know, but some might get that wrong conclusion reading your whole post).
“To us, it doesn't really matter who really wrote the scriptures. They aren't inspired because of who wrote them, but because the Church recognized them as such.” Really like this kind of answer.
“One example is that a lot of HH Pope Shenouda's writings for instance aren't really "his writings" but his disciples who jot down his sermons and collect it together in one subject. I'm sure similar things happened in the past.” But Pope Shenouda wrote those things. Luke, Matthew, Mark and John did not. They did not dictate it to copy writers. And don’t say it is a common practice for students to write in the name of teacher in antiquity. Please read the “ Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are” first, then find an opposite argument and I will have no problem to say you were right.
“It's especially NOT dishonest if the Apostles instructed their disciples to do so.” It is not possible, same as above. Read first and give me an argument. Of course, remember it is a historian book, using historian methodology, you just can’t say it was because God suddenly make Peter or any other apostle to speak foreign languages and compose letter in Greek. No, my friend. It is a theological view, don’t have with problem with that, as far as you are in good terms with it.
Books written by Ehrman ain’t no for destroying peoples faith. His wife is a devout Episcopalian and she do not pay attention to his arguments, because those are historical fact. And she take her strength to believe from her faith.
What is contradiction for me is that people here use a lot of scientific book when those thesis in them fit to their claims. It is not a problem to find a scientific book that try to demonstrate that Peter could not die in Rome. Everybody happily jump on it and quote it, but when they find that some other thesis, contrary to those religious beliefs, appear they say it is all because of bad methodology.
Please, give me more.
I 100% agree with Paul Ricoeur that we can’t avoid paradigm, our theories are always in paradigm, so let secular historian be in their area. Maybe they give us something that might help our faith grow? You doubt? So stop read those books, and if you do that, don’t debate about them. You might give an opinion, but at least you are not familiar with them you can’t have any arguments.
P.S. In Plato case, he used Socrates name, but he never ever claimed that he is writing in the name of Plato. That is big difference. He used him as a figure but he did not claim he actually wrote any of those words.
“That's what atheism is, isn't it? “