Have you read the latest Ehrman book?

[hagoth7]

Is he being hypocritical in any of his actions? Is he claiming to be something that he knows he isn't? Is he making a dishonest living?

Nope. Honest and ethical.

He has my respect - even if we disagree on a number of key issues.

[hagoth7]

What?!?!? You mean, they just do the "faith promoting" thing too, ya know, the kind the critics like to throw at us???

As Covey says:

We see the world not as it is, but as we are. :0)

[hagoth7]

This actually may demonstrate one of the problems with Ehrman's books. Though he states openly that the earliest Christian groups are difficult to track (if there could be anything like "groups" at all, etc.) readers may come away with an overinflated confidence in what Ehrman has brought to the table. One of the shortcomings of writing for us ignorant folk.

I think that's more of a growing flaw in Western society than it is in his writing.

Too often, our schools, families, and businesses teach kids to essentially swallow what they're taught, and to parrot it back.

Little or no critical thinking skills. Just do what you're told. "No Child Left Behind" doesn't leave any room for those higher cognitive skills in the curriculum.

Seriously ramps up the importance of the Founding Father's urgent statements about the need for a free people to be well informed.

If we haven't learned to examine claims critically and fairly, we're left to be tossed about by every sound byte or wind of doctrine.

I wish he was more apt to cite other perspectives, at least in footnotes, but that's not his bag and it doesn't suit the purposes of his target crowd.

Despite that, I think it would be accurate to say that he is being more open about differing perspectives than some in the evangelical camp are.

And in some cases I simply disagree with some conclusions.

[Honorentheos]

Even if the Pastoral Epistles were not authored by Paul, I'm not sure why we should think that they reflect a church organization that is "the product of the apostasy." If presbyters ("elders") weren't known to Paul, they were certainly known to other NT writers such as Luke (see, e.g., Acts 14:23; 20:17, 18).

Thank you for the response, Nevo. I appreciate your taking the time to look into this and provide counter evidence.

One thing to consider is that Paul is the person ordaining the Elders in the examples you cite. One has to ask, "Is this evidence of early church structure with Elders as we would call them or as inferred in Timothy? or is this something else?"

If you read the Ehrman book, he argues that Paul tells us what the structure is within the churches he established in the epistles to the Corinthians. These two epistles are considered authentically Pauls. In 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 we see three categories of members in the body of Christ - Apostles, prophets, and teachers. Ehrman offers us the position that Paul believes in a generally egalitarian community of believers where he counsels the use of order and mutual respect rather than hierarchy and structure. Ehrman's explanation is that Paul was apocalyptic in his views and expected a literal second coming of the Messiah, Jesus, in short order - before that generation had passed.

The idea of Ehrman's book is to discuss how the New Testament can give us insight into the evolution of the early church. If one accepts Ehrman's perspective, or one in between Ehrman and the traditional view of authentic authorship in every book of the New Testament, one can follow that the term Elder has varied meanings. In James (see chapters 3 and 5 for examples) there are elders mentioned.

The challenge one has is wanting to project backwards one's modern, personal understanding on these terms and see in them an LDS Elder.

So, keeping this in mind, is there evidence that the church Christ established resembles the church organization described in D&C 20, as an example? or is the modern LDS structure based more on a later form of Christianity that followed the death of the apostles when it was becoming apparent that Christ would not return soon so the church needed structure to survive?

[Nevo]

Is there evidence that the church Christ established resembles the church organization described in D&C 20, as an example? or is the modern LDS structure based more on a later form of Christianity that followed the death of the apostles when it was becoming apparent that Christ would not return soon so the church needed structure to survive?

No, I don't think the current church organization, or the organization described in D&C 20, is an exact copy of the NT church organization. The modern church organization was introduced in piecemeal fashion: the offices of teacher, priest, and elder (all found in the Book of Mormon) were instituted first, as early as August 1829. Bishops and deacons were added in early 1831, high priests in late 1831, patriarchs in 1833, and seventies and apostles in 1835. There have been other modifications since then. This suggests an evolution of sorts.

I expect the early Christian church underwent a similar step-by-step process of institutionalization. This process seems to have been well underway during Paul's lifetime. After all, his undisputed letters mention apostles, prophets, teachers, bishops, and deacons (1 Cor. 12:28; Phil. 1:1). His earliest letter, 1 Thessalonians, written around 51 CE, exhorts the Thessalonian saints "to respect those who labor among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you" (1 Thess. 5:12), so clearly some kind of leadership structure was in place. Whether Paul knew of a church organization as full-blown as we see in 1 Timothy remains an open question (for a recent defense of Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles see Philip Towner's NICNT commentary).

There are continuities as well as discontinuities between modern LDS Church offices and their New Testament counterparts. Deacons still serve, for example, but now they are 12- and 13-year-old boys rather than adult men and women. Bishops still oversee congregations. Apostles are still "sent ones" with a commission to testify of Christ. Since I envision the restoration as something of a reorganization of Christ's church, I'm not particularly troubled by any differences that might exist over against previous iterations.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The challenge one has is wanting to project backwards one's modern, personal understanding on these terms and see in them an LDS Elder.

So, keeping this in mind, is there evidence that the church Christ established resembles the church organization described in D&C 20, as an example? or is the modern LDS structure based more on a later form of Christianity that followed the death of the apostles when it was becoming apparent that Christ would not return soon so the church needed structure to survive?

Honor, I blogged about this general concept a while ago, you might find this interesting:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08/liken-with-care.html

Further, in regards to Witherington, his position is generally known to the folks who frequent his blog. Also, IMO he provides a useful and thoughtful corrective, or second opinion, on Ehrman. I'm not trying to get people to "avoid" Ehrman, but to consider shortcomings in his approach.

[Honorentheos]

Honor, I blogged about this general concept a while ago, you might find this interesting:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08/liken-with-care.html

Further, in regards to Witherington, his position is generally known to the folks who frequent his blog. Also, IMO he provides a useful and thoughtful corrective, or second opinion, on Ehrman. I'm not trying to get people to "avoid" Ehrman, but to consider shortcomings in his approach.

Thanks for the link to your blog, LOAP. It was interesting. I'm not sure that I can agree, as I think that the use of the terms used in 1 Timothy for modern LDS, as well as other, priesthood offices signals that somethings may be more of man than God. But I also can not see a fruitful manner to discuss this since we've had our say. If you have something more it would be interesting.

As to Witherington, I was actually disappointed in his critique of Ehrman. I don't think it serves as a "corrective" as much as an apologetic for those who may have heard about the book, may have been bothered by the subject material without having read it, and want something to suggest it is much ado about nothing. I don't think he fairly represents Ehrman's points, but rather creates a number of strawmen to take the place of what Ehrman actually said. Now it could be that he and I read Ehrman differently and what I see as strawmen are just his view of what Ehrman said, but I think a discussion between the two would result in a different result than his critique.

[cinepro]

If you are a fan of Ehrman, I highly recommend checking out his courses at The Teaching Company. They're not exactly cheap, but I've enjoyed the ones I've been able hear.

After the New Testament: The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

History Of the Bible

From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity

Historical Jesus (on sale)

The New Testament (on sale)

Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (on sale)