Didn't anybody read the Book of the Month?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm about 80 pages in and I am kind of bored.

So far I could have gotten the main points in two pages.

"A lot of errors occurred during transcription over the 1500 years after they were written."

I'm hoping that there is going to be some intrigue and mystery later on.

You didn't like the John Mill/Bentley stuff?

[creekster]

I am only about 65 pages into the book. SO far, the book is a little frustrating becasue it promises much but delivers in only a very conclusory way. It is also very repetitive. I think the probolem is that, like many LDS, I fall in between Ehrman's two typical audiences. Becasue LDS tend to be very familiar with scripture, and with the idea that the bible texts are not original, the thought that thye may be corrupted is just not that intriguing nor is it somethign we need to get used to. He seems to spend a lot of time getting the reader used to this idea. This makes it a little bland for me and, I suspect, most LDS. OTOH, neither I nor most LDS typically study the bible in a scholarly way and so my guess is Ehrmann's more scholarly treatisies would go right over my head.

I did enjoy the explanation of the curses put at the end of texts to discourage scribes from varying the writtem word when copying.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am only about 65 pages into the book. SO far, the book is a little frustrating becasue it promises much but delivers in only a very conclusory way. It is also very repetitive. I think the probolem is that, like many LDS, I fall in between Ehrman's two typical audiences. Becasue LDS tend to be very familiar with scripture, and with the idea that the bible texts are not original, the thought that thye may be corrupted is just not that intriguing nor is it somethign we need to get used to. He seems to spend a lot of time getting the reader used to this idea. This makes it a little bland for me and, I suspect, most LDS. OTOH, neither I nor most LDS typically study the bible in a scholarly way and so my guess is Ehrmann's more scholarly treatisies would go right over my head.

I did enjoy the explanation of the curses put at the end of texts to discourage scribes from varying the writtem word when copying.

That was a nice touch.

The discussion of Erasmus is nice as well. I'm awaiting my order of Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, but my Greek grammar book just arrived. They failed to deliver my dictionary though.

It is a quick read, but he spends too much time rehearsing the summary of the data. I have bigger expectations for Orthodox Corruption.

[BarbaraGordon]

Based on the comments, maybe we should have gone straight to Orthodox Corruption.

I bought his books Lost Christianities and Lost Scriptures (they're intended to be read together), and I'm enjoying those.
I hope I make it to the end. I tend to read half of a book and then get distracted with another, but I'd really like to make it through both of these.

[Archaea]

Well, CHC and pelagius didn't warn us it was so dumbed down. It's their fault.

I agree we should have gone with Orthodox Corruption. Do you as a former librarian get any discounts that can be passed on?

[BigFatMeanie]

Mrs. Meanie checked it out for me at the library today. I just read the introdcution before bed.

I find his personal story in the introduction interesting; however, like Creekster already said, most Mormons don't really believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God anyway so that's nothing really new.

I had to look up the word exegesis in the dictionary:

exegesis: exposition; explanation; especially, a critical explanation of a text.

I'm interested to learn more about textual criticism because I don't know much about that topic at all.

As a side thought, why is it that Misquoting Jesus would generally be considered interesting and scholarly by your typical Mormon but something along the lines of "Misquoting Moroni" would be considered "anti" and to be avoided?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

As a side thought, why is it that Misquoting Jesus would generally be considered interesting and scholarly by your typical Mormon but something along the lines of "Misquoting Moroni" would be considered "anti" and to be avoided?

Good question. Perhaps the persecution complex rearing it's head?

To be honest, I don't think your run-of-the-mill Mormon would even read Misquoting Jesus. Folks here for the most part are a bit more open to ideas not in the mainstream.

I plan on getting a copy of it soon. Is there a CliffsNotes version of it?

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Good question. Perhaps the persecution complex rearing it's head?

To be honest, I don't think your run-of-the-mill Mormon would even read Misquoting Jesus. Folks here for the most part are a bit more open to ideas not in the mainstream.

I plan on getting a copy of it soon. Is there a CliffsNotes version of it?

It is the CilffsNotes version of his earlier scholarly works.

[UtahDan]

Just got mine two days ago. Hopefully I will be ready to talk about it Monday.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Got my paperback version yesterday in the mail.