Both you and Hanania are wrong and right about reading books. He's wrong about old books not being better, because they rarely have the same "write 100 unnecessary pages to pad my CV" aspect, and you're wrong because the only reason to cut back from reading 100's of books per year is if you read the same mass produced pop science that you seem to read.
Bart Ehrman 😂 He is not a good historian, and his books are notorious for making claims that are way more milquetoast than the titles given by the publisher. He's kind of a dishonest pussy, like most academics. The history of early Christianity is better attested than any other ancient religion. The canon books are from the first century which he almost says, and no, a bunch of random books that stick out like a sore thumb from the others didn't almost make it in. Presumably his bias about how it was established and Church authority in general is because of his fundamentalist background. No Christian's except maybe the most fundamentalist kinds really care that books have been revised or written in a different style by a secondary author/secretary. You don't have to believe in the supernatural to acknowledge the actual history especially when some of the apostles and their followers lived so long
I found Forged fascinating. Seems like quite the blow to Christianity, because as Ehrman mentions, the authorship issue is acknowledged among Biblical scholars. It is baffling to think the word of God could be an assembly of forgeries. And some respond that it was not a forgery because it was common practice, but he dismantles that idea. It puts the mutually contradictory ideas and writing styles into perspective.
Similar problem with the old testament. Supposed to start with 5 books written by Moses. But scholarship shows they are written from different sources and authors into a mix.
Moses? As I actually know some Christians: The halfway educated do neither believe in Moses nor Adam nor Santa Claus as historic personalities. Nor assume to "know" the identities of Luke/Mark etc. . Hamlet was written by a guy called W.S. or so. Or maybe not. Why care? Watch the play. Some "letters" were not by Paul. None by Peter. So what? They were of importance to the church and still are important (some only because of that, some still just for the content). At times even the popes say stuff like: "St. Christophoros or the three wise kings are not historical." Catholics shrug. They may cheer for the pope, but why listen to any? None gave up the St. C. charms on the car key:. https://www.motorcycledaily.com/2009/04/29april09icononabike/
See Slate Star codex THE IDEOLOGY IS NOT THE MOVEMENT
Both you and Hanania are wrong and right about reading books. He's wrong about old books not being better, because they rarely have the same "write 100 unnecessary pages to pad my CV" aspect, and you're wrong because the only reason to cut back from reading 100's of books per year is if you read the same mass produced pop science that you seem to read.
With the U.S. court system, still better than Canada's
Bart Ehrman 😂 He is not a good historian, and his books are notorious for making claims that are way more milquetoast than the titles given by the publisher. He's kind of a dishonest pussy, like most academics. The history of early Christianity is better attested than any other ancient religion. The canon books are from the first century which he almost says, and no, a bunch of random books that stick out like a sore thumb from the others didn't almost make it in. Presumably his bias about how it was established and Church authority in general is because of his fundamentalist background. No Christian's except maybe the most fundamentalist kinds really care that books have been revised or written in a different style by a secondary author/secretary. You don't have to believe in the supernatural to acknowledge the actual history especially when some of the apostles and their followers lived so long
I think I read about as many books as you this year. But most books are still not worth it.
You think that libertarian book from Charles Murray is his most radical work? More radical than the Bell Curve?
I found Forged fascinating. Seems like quite the blow to Christianity, because as Ehrman mentions, the authorship issue is acknowledged among Biblical scholars. It is baffling to think the word of God could be an assembly of forgeries. And some respond that it was not a forgery because it was common practice, but he dismantles that idea. It puts the mutually contradictory ideas and writing styles into perspective.
Similar problem with the old testament. Supposed to start with 5 books written by Moses. But scholarship shows they are written from different sources and authors into a mix.
Moses? As I actually know some Christians: The halfway educated do neither believe in Moses nor Adam nor Santa Claus as historic personalities. Nor assume to "know" the identities of Luke/Mark etc. . Hamlet was written by a guy called W.S. or so. Or maybe not. Why care? Watch the play. Some "letters" were not by Paul. None by Peter. So what? They were of importance to the church and still are important (some only because of that, some still just for the content). At times even the popes say stuff like: "St. Christophoros or the three wise kings are not historical." Catholics shrug. They may cheer for the pope, but why listen to any? None gave up the St. C. charms on the car key:. https://www.motorcycledaily.com/2009/04/29april09icononabike/
See Slate Star codex THE IDEOLOGY IS NOT THE MOVEMENT