10 Comments

• 

  Marcus McElhaney

  August 8, 2011 at 3:01 am

  Thank You

  Hello, Dr Bock

  I enjoyed your exchange with Dr. Bart Ehrman very much. Thank you!  It was edifying and courteous from both of you! I am also glad you spent some time discussing Ephesians given that I am planning to preach from Ephesians 1 next Sunday. I hope one day you and/or Dr Wirtherington III will write a book long rebuttal to <i>Forged</i>
• 

  Ken Temple

  August 8, 2011 at 5:22 pm

  Thanks for commenting at Beggar’s All

  Dr. Bock,

  Thanks for commenting at my post at "Beggar's All Reformation and Apologetics" – I hope you see my comments and followup there.

   

  I appreciate your work and books, some of them I have and have benefitted from them.

  I should have also written that I ( like Rhology, who also commented) appreciated that you stood up to Ehrman and didn't let him just make assertions without presenting the other side.

   

  I hope you will write something that connects the point you made about the issue of "how secretaries / amanuenses are used, and I Peter 5:12 from an Inerrancy perspective.
• 

  Ken Temple

  August 8, 2011 at 7:22 pm

  more info on the Reynolds book, please

  I googled "Reynolds and secretaries" and "Reynolds and Secretaries in the Ancient World" (my guess) and haven't come up with anything; and I searched for it here at your blog.

   

  Dr. Bock,

  please give the full biographical info on the book about secretaries by Reynolds.

  Thanks again for commenting. 
• 

  Darrell L. Bock

  August 8, 2011 at 9:07 pm

  Book

  My bad. Wrong last name.

   

   

  Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection [Paperback]

  E. Randolph Richards
• 

  Ken Temple

  August 8, 2011 at 10:02 pm

  Thanks

  Thank you Dr. Bock,

  You are a scholar and a gentleman and thanks for  "contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints". 
• 

  Mick L.

  August 20, 2011 at 12:18 am

  Loved it

  Just listened to it on my 3-hour long weekly commute. Nice job, great topic. It's always refreshing to hear a voice of balance when discussing topics like these. I do love the idea you raised during the introductions of someone trying to publish one book with both views. It would an extremely helpful publication.

  Mick
• 

  Erlend

  August 20, 2011 at 1:58 pm

  I listened to the dialogue,

  I listened to the dialogue, and I was particularly interested in the point you raised that literacy was more widespread than Ehrman, and previous scholars have maintained. I know that Ehrman reacted quite increduloulsy to this assertion, and I wonder if you knew of Roger S. Bagnall new book entitled ''Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East', it would seem to offer some significant support to your claim.

  (Also, its nice to come across another Aberdeen alumni)
• 

  Darrell L. Bock

  August 20, 2011 at 4:53 pm

  Thanks

  Thanks for the feedback and book note. Quite helpful.
• 

  Donny

  November 27, 2011 at 12:40 am

  Letter Editing

  Hi, 

  I might be coming a bit late to this but I was reading P. Whites recent study "Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic" and thought of your debate. I seemed to recall that Ehrman dismissed the idea that classical letters went through a process of editing or interaction with other writers/associates, and in particular he dismissed the idea that one can cite Cicero to show any evidence for this. White's study though has an entire chapter (chapter 3) arguing, and showing, how just such a practice occurred in Cicero's process of letter writing.
• 

  Darrell L. Bock

  November 28, 2011 at 5:13 am

  Cicero and Letters

  Donny:

  Ehrman argued that the only evidence for such was from Cicero. In this way, he was trying to minimize what this shows. But studies like those you mention are important.