dejuror wrote: ... See "Did Jesus Exist?"
page[s] 180, 1821 and 1842.
Ehrman claimed
the Gospels are among the best attested books of the ancient world and in the very same chapter admitted the Gospels and the New Testament are riddled with accounts of Jesus that most likely did not happen.
1, 2 (at bottom)
MS2 wrote:... we'd better look at what Ehrman actually said. ... here is the actual quote from the page dejuror refers to:
To begin with, even though the Gospels are among the best attested books from the ancient world, we are regrettably hindered in knowing what the authors of these books originally wrote. The problem is not that we are lacking manuscripts. We have thousands of manuscripts. The problem is that none of these manuscripts is the original copy produced by the author (this is true for all four Gospels—in fact, for every book of the New Testament). Moreover, most of these manuscripts were made over a thousand years after the original copies, none of them is close to the time of the originals—within, say, ten or twenty years—and all of them contain certifiable mistakes.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 180). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
My underlining. 'Twisting' possibly even understates it I'd say.
MS2 twists by not addressing the specific part (in blue) that dejuror actually quotes ...
As far as this passage ....
it is frequently argued by fundamentalist and conservative evangelical apologists for the Bible that since the New Testament is more frequently attested in ancient sources than any other book from antiquity, it can therefore be trusted. This argument, I’m afraid, contains a non sequitur. It is true that we have far more manuscripts for the books of the New Testament than for Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Euripides, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius—name your ancient author. But that has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether the New Testament books can be trusted. It is relevant only to the question of whether we can know what the New Testament books originally said.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 178). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
The last sentence
- "It is relevant only to the question of whether we can know what the New Testament books originally said"
- is also a non-sequitur and whether we can know what what the NT books originally said is negated by what is said on p180:
Moreover, most of these manuscripts were made over a thousand years after the original copies, none of them is close to the time of the originals—within, say, ten or twenty years—and all of them contain certifiable mistakes. p.180
Ehrman, in a round about way, addresses the key issue of
the lack of primary sources by saying that ....
most of these manuscripts were made over a thousand years after the original copies, none of them is close to the time of the originals p. 180
.
to fully address dejuror's points about what Bart says on pp.182 and 184
1 p. 182 of "
Did Jesus Exist?" includes
"It is absolutely true, in my judgment, the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions in matters both large and small."
2 p. 184 includes
"It is true that the Gospels are riddled with other kinds of historical problems and that they relate accounts that almost certainly did not happen..."
by 
