An Abridged Version of "The New Testament" Course

MAIN POINT: The content should've been more focused on the "making" of the canon as opposed to a quasi-survey of the canon. Ehrman's "The New Testament" course covers almost the same exact material with just a little more detail.
____________

Ehrman starts the second to last lecture reminding listeners that it was (I'm paraphrasing) a long and detailed history leading up to the selection and discrimination of books. Yes, Bart! That's why I bought your course. I wanted to learn about that part of Christian history in particular. Problem is, he spends an inordinate amount of time (75%) walking listeners through historical discrepancies in the gospels, pseudonymous Pauline epistles, scribal errors, orthodox corruption, conflicting theologies, et cetera. All interesting topics.. WHICH SHOULD BE AND WERE COVERED IN DETAIL DURING 'THE NEW TESTAMENT' COURSE! Direct listeners, if they would like to learn more about those areas, to purchase that course.

This course could've briefly touched on those issues to show there are prior questions one should be asking of the New Testament as well, but it should've focused primarily on particular arguments, detailed interactions with patristic fathers and other "heretics", from the second to fourth centuries, culminating in the Athanasian canon.

Ehrman is a fine scholar of the New Testament and a great expositor of tricky textual and interpretive issues. I've learned a lot from him. But he has particular pet project areas he focuses on, and it seems to dominate his lecturing style. I feel like he is constantly trying to prove the same things over and over again, even when what he's looking to prove doesn't exactly fit the course aim.

23 people found this helpful

buyer beware

Bart is an avowed Atheist and used this course to further his agenda. spent more time on early Christian sects than any book of the bible. completely skipped some books of the bible. offered a bunch of one sided arguments attacking authenticity of the books while not providing any of the supporting arguments. a waste of time and money. very dissappointed and Will avoid great courses in the future.

7 people found this helpful

Overlap beware

Any additional comments?

This book has too much overlap with other courses by this same lecturer. If you've already heard the others, it's not as good as his lectures on the early Christian church and the ones on the controversies of the Bible. I was hoping for new or more information than what I got in the other lectures.That being said, as a whole, good information. Ehrman is a good lecturer.

13 people found this helpful

The History of the Bible as Seen by a Pagan

This is Christian history as seen by a cynical secularist. Interesting but flawed. Unbalanced and unfair. Thel professor presents the story of the Bible from the perspective of a skeptic and cynic+certainly not orthodox nut rather a summary of what non-believing scholars speculate-which is the academic reality of post- modern theology schools, but disengenuous because the lecturer allows the neophyte to believe this is what Christians actually think. In this regard, the lectures are worse than flawed, they are deceptive.

4 people found this helpful

Very informative

I disagree a bit with the previous reviewer in that although there are iTunes U courses that are excellent, Prof. Ehrman is the top of his field. I very much enjoyed the lecture series, Prof. Ehrman is an excellent lecturer and presents information in a clear and interesting way. I enjoyed this course more than the books, but I prefer to hear history and science in lecture form.
I highly recommend this lecture series if you are interested in the subject. I feel prof. Ehrman presents the subject in a fair and objective light, he is only presenting his academic studies and is not teaching a sermon or ranting against religion.
Thank you

19 people found this helpful

Don’t Waste Your Time

This was the worst purchase ever. I did not read the whole book but what I did read was not what I expected based on the book’s description. I would not recommend this book to anyone.

2 people found this helpful

Unreliable

Listening to Ehrman on the canon would be like listening to a flat-earther teach the Copernican revolution.

2 people found this helpful

What we don’t know

I had heard that the myth that the Council of Nicaea involved voting which books to include was false but I hoped this lecture series would tell how it actually happened. It seems the answer is we just don’t know.

This series details many different views of early Christians and Ehrman depicts them very well. It seems that each competing group accepted books which seemed to agree with their understanding of Christ and rejected any others as heretical. Not surprisingly, the views of the dominant church in Rome won out. Our earliest list of books that matches the modern New Testament dates to several hundred years after the books were written.

So there it is, we found the list. But... how did it become official? If not at the Council of Nicaea, perhaps at another ecumenical council? Or decreed by some pope? Of course some things are just lost to history but this is so significant I had expected a more concrete resolution to the ultimate question of how the New Testament canon was made.

My only real criticism of Dr. Ehrman is that he made no comment on this. For all I know at the moment of finishing this lecture series, there may be an event where the canon was made official which Ehrman chose not to include here. Or perhaps there is no such recorded event in history. In either case I wish had addressed it.

1 person found this helpful

Objective Historical lecture on the New Testament

A scholarly and historical (not devotional) perspective on how the New testament came to exist in its present form. The course is a lecture series given by premier Bible Scholar Bartrand Ehrman. If you're looking for an objective view into the history of the Bible and Christianity, I highly recommend this series.

7 people found this helpful

Interesting, but not conclusive

What did you like best about The History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon? What did you like least?

I liked the historical context of the lectures and how they detailed the writing of the books in the New Testament.

What I didn't like was that there seemed to be an undertone of doubt about the validity of any of the books. Prof. Ehrman began the lectures by stating that any two texts that were virtually identical in subject, writing style, or account could almost certainly be considered copies of eachother. (he went into a very convincing example in his lecture) He references several corresponding accounts in the gospels that he supposes had to be copied from other resources. Later, though, Ehrman references discrepancies in accounts of the same events in different gospels and uses this as reason to doubt the validity of scripture. I think a reasonable doubt is healthy when digesting any information, but you can't have it both ways. Ehrman is suggesting that similarities in scripture are reason to doubt their validity, and again later suggesting that discrepancies are reason to discredit.

These lectures are written from a historical perspective, not a theologic one. That said, it still seems that the goal of the lectures isn't only to educate about the writing, assembly, and preservation of the New Testament.

Would you ever listen to anything by The Great Courses again?

Possibly

What three words best describe Professor Bart D. Ehrman’s performance?

Knowledgable, Informative, Biased

Do you think The History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon needs a follow-up book? Why or why not?

I would like to see a point by point rebuttal from a biblical historical perspective. After independently researching many points made in the lectures and finding that they weren't entirely based in fact, I would love to listen to lectures that are based on biblical explanations.

24 people found this helpful