Bart Ehrman mentions Epicurus and the forged letters

    Start At 25:16

    Bart Ehrman mentions the forged letters of "Epicurus" that tried to slander him.

    Dr. Ehrman mentions earlier in the podcast that the biblical book of Ecclesiastes relied on Epicurean philosophy! I think DeWitt claims the same thing. I may have to dig into that a little more now.

    Full disclaimer: I'm a big fan of Bart Ehrman's from way back.

    Here's the person Ehrman references about the forged letters:

    Diotimus the Stoic - Wikipedia

    According to that report, Diotimus was put to death as a result of the lawsuit of Zeno the Epicurean. Ouch! Too bad there aren't more details on all that.

    PS

    Who Is Diotimus? An Introduction To The Man Who Made An Extraordinary Mistake
    INTRODUCTION Of the Ancient Stoics, we know the least about Diotimus. He lived sometime around the early-first-century BC, and he might have known the…
    dailystoic.com

    As you read the forum further you will see Don and I go back and forth on our views of that book. Both of us agree that DeWitt probably goes too far in the analogies that he draws, but depending on one's background one will find the book either super-interesting or unnecessarily speculative. It will be interesting to hear your thoughts as you read through it so if you have reactions worth posting, please do!

    Here's a thread dedicated to that book, and this would probably be the best place for new discussions of it:

    Post

    RE: DeWitt (Norman) - "St. Paul And Epicurus"

    Going through these Bible verses in St Paul and Epicurus reminds we why the book has good information, but is somewhat narrowly targeted to people who want to compare Epicurus to Christianity. Many of the cites in the table are to rather fine points of Christian theology. The ones I think are most useful are those where it seems clear that in complaining about "elements" and similar things, Paul is directly criticizing Epicurean philosophy. Those are worthwhile finding for future use.

    …
    Cassius
    April 6, 2019 at 12:43 PM
    Quote from Cassius

    Both of us agree that DeWitt probably goes too far in the analogies that he draws, but depending on one's background one will find the book either super-interesting or unnecessarily speculative.

    I tend to be part of the super-interesting wing, while I also agree the tone of his arguments sounds speculative. He claims there is a philological underpinning of his arguments and that his new translations are able to demystify passages he claims to be making no sense in a classical way of reading.

    It would be quite important to consult an expert on this issue to check some of his claims.

    What's still impressive to me is the fact that it seems DeWitt doesn't introduce any kind of new theological interpretation. Instead he sharpens Paul's profil. Indeed, Paul's message sounded more impressive and attractive to me than I did expect in the beginning.