No serious scholar outside the apologist and/or fundamentalist camp believe that the gospel writers wrote independently or that the names attached to them are authentic.
There is no way to know since we know nothing about the origin of christianity.
Talmid wrote:No serious scholar outside the apologist and/or fundamentalist camp believe that the gospel writers wrote independently or that the names attached to them are authentic.
Have you ever read the testimony of Eta Linnemann? She was a world-class, Bultmannian scholar and Professor of New Testament at Philipps University, Marburg, West Germany. She would disagree with your claim.
In addition, have you read the works of Papias, Augustine, or Eusebius? Were these not "serious scholars" in your estimation?
There is no way to know since we know nothing about the origin of christianity.
I do. Please limit your use of the first person pronoun to the singular, since you cannot rightfully include me as part of your use of "we." It is better for you to say "...since I know nothing about the origin of christianity."
Talmid and Geoff, who posted above, represent a fundamentalist/traditional view not supported by available evidence. It is a view supported by tradition, however.
Your first sentence is contradicted by the second.
Geoff wrote:No serious scholar outside the apologist and/or fundamentalist camp believe that the gospel writers wrote independently or that the names attached to them are authentic.
This is in fact an ad hominem and incidently not possible to be negated seeing it is a tautology. The unstated premises are that first if one believes the gospel writers worked independently they are not serious and second it places them in that camp and therefore none can exist outside that camp any more than a round square.
What is meant by independently is open for discussion. Few believe independence in the sense of being totally unaware of the other's existence and possibly works. However, they did not rely on another source.
There is no way to know since we know nothing about the origin of christianity.
The multitude of MSS testify to the origin's of Christianity better than many other historical movements. That is something.
Most people who reject the basic approach to the composition and transmission of the New Testament assert that it undermines the oral traditions and fails to account for their relevance. No one making that argument can deny that tradition is a type of evidence to be reckoned with. Tradition can come through time orally (subject to change without reference) or in a written form (possibly subject to change in a different way; i.e. through transmission, yet with reference for identification). A mixture of the two presents another discussion
![]()
I however am confident in inspiration as the chief reconciling factor.
JulianJ wrote: The fact is that we have no MSS even close to the time of their writing.
JulianJ wrote:The manuscript transmission show many signs of alteration. Although I agree that we can get close to the originals we will never know for sure what they said, especially considering the massive war of theologies that raged in the first centuries prompting numerous changes in the gospels.
JulianJ wrote:No serious scholar outside the apologist and/or fundamentalist camp believe that the gospel writers wrote independently or that the names attached to them are authentic.
Kopio wrote:If I might very respectfully disagree with you Julian, there are a few points I would like to discuss.
JulianJ wrote: The fact is that we have no MSS even close to the time of their writing.
This I believe not to be the case. Recent dating (by Kim) of p46 is pushing that document back into the 70-150(?)AD. You can read about it here. This is about as scientific as you can be with the actual documents themselves. Now while I might not fully concur with Kim, it is proof that there were documents very close to the inception of Christianity. Or are these documents not considered "even close?"
Of course, this is assuming that you will allow for the New Testament to be viewed as a historical document that is trustworthy and can be taken at face value. If we can't agree on that then problems will arise in our discussion. I don't beleive it to be a matter of faith to trust in the historicity of the NT, and to treat it exactly how we would any other historical document. Do we at least agree on this point? Or does that make me one of those horrid "Fundamentalists?"![]()
JulianJ wrote:The manuscript transmission show many signs of alteration. Although I agree that we can get close to the originals we will never know for sure what they said, especially considering the massive war of theologies that raged in the first centuries prompting numerous changes in the gospels.
There are most certainly alterations in the early manuscripts of the NT. Truly the problem is not that we don't have the whole text, rather it is that we have about 120% of it!
However, we can in many cases come to an agreement of what the text truly said. As for "theological wars" of the first century, I believe it that was not quite the case. There were certainly many early heresies, and we can see that some of the NT was written as a polemic against some of them (e.g. Gnosticism), but I don't believe it was a time rife with "theological wars".
Most certainly it was a time of theological progression, but I would limit it to that. Do you have any examples that you could share with me to enighten me on this point? If so, please post a link or share in the forum.
JulianJ wrote:No serious scholar outside the apologist and/or fundamentalist camp believe that the gospel writers wrote independently or that the names attached to them are authentic.
This most certainly sounds like an ad hominem, but I don't think you meant it to sound that way. I am assuming that you don't mean there aren't any "serious scholars" inside aforementioned camps. If that were the case I think you would be sorely mistaken.
Out of curiousity....when do you suppose the Gospels were written?
If you know of any evidence I would be glad to hear of it....If you think you know something that amounts to evidence, please present it....Tradition does not constitute evidence. Tradition is just that, tradition. Again, presented with evidence, I would be happy to change my mind on these issues, but an appeal to some ancient writings by people had much to gain by the apostolic tradition, and who present no evidence, I prefer to side with modern scholars and the scientific method.
No, they [Papias, Augustine, & Eusebius] certainly were not [serious scholars].... I just finished reading a book about the church fathers last night and the consensus is that Eusebius is tendentious and unreliable in matters of tradition.
Kopio wrote:Dear JulianJ,
Sorry, but i have not had the time to properly reply to your post.....I will pick it back up, but right now I am going into finals, and I just got a new computer that has to be loaded with a ton of software.
I have thinking about this conversation though, and I think there are still plenty of interesting areas to explore. My hope is not to "convert" you (for lack of a better word) to my point of view, it is merely to discuss our epistomological approaches to scripture.
Talmid wrote:If you know of any evidence I would be glad to hear of it....If you think you know something that amounts to evidence, please present it....Tradition does not constitute evidence. Tradition is just that, tradition. Again, presented with evidence, I would be happy to change my mind on these issues, but an appeal to some ancient writings by people had much to gain by the apostolic tradition, and who present no evidence, I prefer to side with modern scholars and the scientific method.
Julian -
Through the years, I have found that debating online to change an opponent's view is virtually inconceivable--I don't think I have anything to offer you which you will be satisfied with in this regard.
What exactly constitutes "evidence" to you? Do you need me to provide a video tape of Matthew writing his gospel for you to be happy? Do you want me to give you living eye-witnesses of what transpired?
If you do not settle for the criteria of ancient sources who stood in agreement on a matter, then I suppose you cannot even be sure that George Washington was the first President of the United States.
No, they [Papias, Augustine, & Eusebius] certainly were not [serious scholars].... I just finished reading a book about the church fathers last night and the consensus is that Eusebius is tendentious and unreliable in matters of tradition.
If Eusebius was not a serious scholar, then what were you doing reading a book about him? Certainly he must have sparked your interest for some reason? Your actions speak louder than words--his reputation, as evidendent by your attention to read about him, was of great repute. Nobody reads a book about somebody who was insignificant; it would be a waste of time and a logical absurdity.
Julian, thanks for taking part in this forum. I look forward to interacting with you again and to the fun we can experience together working on our Greek and Latin skills! This is a great website, wouldn't you agree?
Talmid
JulianJ wrote:Thank you for your reply.
JulianJ wrote:P46 could conceivably be 100 years after the fact. I would not consider that particularly close, although certainly better than most other MSS. That still leaves several generations in between, lots of time considering the turbulent times, more on this later.
JulianJ wrote:I do believe that we should treat the NT texts as we treat any other text from antiquity. That, of course, also means that we should not take it at face value. When Caesar tells his ridiculous story of the elk that has no knees so it has to sleep standing up against a tree, nobody believes that it is a true story as it conflicts with our current scientific knowledge of the elk. The same must hold true for the gospels, to avoid special pleading. That means that when Jesus makes many loaves out a few, we must reject the story as failing the criterion of analogy. Saying that it was possible for him is special pleading.
JulianJ wrote:I must, at this point, state my distrust of the UBS commitee. I believe that they are guilty of a bias that shows through far too often. I prefer Swanson's editions since he makes no decisions regarding the text.
JulianJ wrote:I suppose we have here a disagreement as to the degree of contention. In many places, Marcionites were the majority which would make the proto-orthodox the heretics. Most of the epistles in the NT deal with christianities that were not in line with the proto-orthodox. The gospels show tampering designed to counter alternative views, e.g. docetism. Why so much energy and writing directed at something which wasn't that big of a deal?
JulianJ wrote:Not sure what you are asking for here...
Good sources on the christian variations would be Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities and his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Since Bultman was mentioned ealier I guess I can also recommend a student of his student (Bultman-> Koester -> Pagels), Elaine Pagels who has written much on this topic.
JulianJ wrote:No serious scholar....Well, serious might be the wrong word here. What I am trying to say is that when doing science one must adhere to scientific principles. It is fine to read the gospels in the light of faith but that view is incompatible with science. Science says that a few loaves don't magically become many loaves. Now, faith can still comment upon the event and its meaning but science must reject it or, at least, refrain from commenting upon its veracity, although comment in terms of, say, form criticism might still be useful.
Faith is faith and science is science. Both have their places but those places are not mixed together. Faith may have value for the invidual but does not advance human knowledge, the other does just that but in turn cannot answer deeper questions as to the whys and wherefores...
JulianJ wrote:Anyways, I grow longwinded here so I shall curtail my efforts for now.
Kopio wrote:JulianJ wrote:P46 could conceivably be 100 years after the fact. I would not consider that particularly close, although certainly better than most other MSS. That still leaves several generations in between, lots of time considering the turbulent times, more on this later.
The fact that it is within 100 years (quite possibly that is) make this document tremendously close by most standards (i.e. textual and literary criticism) and is very close to when things actually happened. If we look back on our history of 100 years ago, we are quite certain that we have a fairly accurate picture, and that the documents coming from that time are reliable (especially when they are held up against other documents from the time). As far as several generation passing.....are you talking about a 20 year generation? That might be theoretically sound, but in praxis short generations don't work. What I mean is, although that is a lot of time to pass.....I can talk to my a good friend of mine, and he can give me a very accurate picture of what life was like almost a hundred years ago....he was alive! He's actually only 89 years old, but he fought in WWII, and is a living talking piece of history. If someone were to make up a story about the Marines taking Guadal Canal, he would jump and down and say it's a bunch of garbage....he was an Army soldier, and it was the Army boys who took Guadal Canal. I think this principle is applicable here when we look at a biblical document being so close to the actual time of it's writing.
JulianJ wrote:I do believe that we should treat the NT texts as we treat any other text from antiquity. That, of course, also means that we should not take it at face value. When Caesar tells his ridiculous story of the elk that has no knees so it has to sleep standing up against a tree, nobody believes that it is a true story as it conflicts with our current scientific knowledge of the elk. The same must hold true for the gospels, to avoid special pleading. That means that when Jesus makes many loaves out a few, we must reject the story as failing the criterion of analogy. Saying that it was possible for him is special pleading.
I guess that this is going to be one of our greatest points of contention. The NT doesn't claim to be a scientific book. It claims to be a book about faith and love. These two things cannot be properly quantified and analyzed scientifically. They are metaphysical by their very nature. We cannot expect to be able to fit all of the things portrayed in them to be able to be fully analyzed by means of science. Can you, by means of science, tell me why I love my wife, or dog? You can probably talk about chemical receptors and pheremones, but do you really think that these things capture the essence and reality of love?? So I guess my next question is....are there some things that science in itself is not sufficient to answer?
JulianJ wrote:I must, at this point, state my distrust of the UBS commitee. I believe that they are guilty of a bias that shows through far too often. I prefer Swanson's editions since he makes no decisions regarding the text.
I am not familiar with Swanson's Editions, but I don't see how it is possible for him to not make any decisions regarding the text....that is unless he has all of the textual differences of the text listed for each and every verse. I don't really agree with the UBS commitee either (I wouldn't say I distrust them though), and I think that in many instances they simplify their choices to "What does B and P46 say", if they find those two in agreement then they go with it.
JulianJ wrote:I suppose we have here a disagreement as to the degree of contention. In many places, Marcionites were the majority which would make the proto-orthodox the heretics. Most of the epistles in the NT deal with christianities that were not in line with the proto-orthodox. The gospels show tampering designed to counter alternative views, e.g. docetism. Why so much energy and writing directed at something which wasn't that big of a deal?
I must say that I am completely at a loss that you view this as that big of a deal! This was obviously a very big deal to the authors of the NT text, so much so that parts of their writings were a direct polemic against the heresies of the day (cf. I John and docetism). I also don't understand what you mean by the gospels showing tampering. What would you point to specifically as tampering within the gospels?
JulianJ wrote:Not sure what you are asking for here...
Good sources on the christian variations would be Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities and his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Since Bultman was mentioned ealier I guess I can also recommend a student of his student (Bultman-> Koester -> Pagels), Elaine Pagels who has written much on this topic.
These sound like good sources. I am familiar with some of Ehrman's work in Text Criticism, and he is very good in that field.
JulianJ wrote:No serious scholar....Well, serious might be the wrong word here. What I am trying to say is that when doing science one must adhere to scientific principles. It is fine to read the gospels in the light of faith but that view is incompatible with science. Science says that a few loaves don't magically become many loaves. Now, faith can still comment upon the event and its meaning but science must reject it or, at least, refrain from commenting upon its veracity, although comment in terms of, say, form criticism might still be useful.
Faith is faith and science is science. Both have their places but those places are not mixed together. Faith may have value for the invidual but does not advance human knowledge, the other does just that but in turn cannot answer deeper questions as to the whys and wherefores...
This really plays back into the point I made earlier. In some respects I think that your quest for finding the Scientific truth behind the gospels is a lost cause. It's sort of like trying to quantifiy Miles Davis' Kind of Blue with a seismograph. It is an venture in catagory mistake. If faith is faith and science is science and never the twain shall meet, then how can we then expect to discover faith by science? Do you see what I'm trying to say? I can appreciate the fact that you are looking into the historical Jesus, and that you are trying to discover what was really said and written and done, but to discount the supernatural in the gospels, is to nullify most of what the book is about....that is faith.
That being said....I have no desire to enter into a theological discussion in the open forum with you (a PM would be much more practical), but the question I am most curious about now is....why does this matter to you? Or perhaps the better question would be....why does this interest you?
JulianJ wrote:It is my love of further knowledge that tells me who I am as well as my behavior towards my fellow creatures. My lack of religion is a meaningless datum regarding who I am.
Talmid wrote:Are you aware that your use of "creatures" implies a "Creator"?
Anyway--I see you have quite a discussion on your hands with Kopio. Good luck--I'm glad I'm not caught in the middle of it!!
JulianJ wrote:No problem, real life comes first, of course. Good luck with your finals.
I love good and rational discussion of early christianity as there is always more to learn.
I will, as usual, check back here daily during weekdays.
Julian
Kopio wrote:Aha!!! I'm back!![]()
You'll be glad to note that today I just went down and bought a copy of Erhmans's Misquoting Jesus! Not too bad for a conservative-evangelical huh?
I am taking a class on Text and Canon this semster where we have to do a report on a theme or a book, and I asked my prof if I could write a paper on Ehrmans Orthodox Corruption, he said great....long story short....Misquoting was much easier to find, and is his more recent work, so I thought I'd give that a try. Plus it looks like a fairly unintimidating book, and since I have sooooo much reading to do this semester, I thought I'd take an easier softer way (because sometimes you can!)
So....I am really looking forward to interacting with you about this book and Ehrman's major premises. Are you familiar with this work? I do hope so.
Bart Ehrman wrote:I'd suggest you look at the full discussion in my book Orthodox
Corruption of Scripture, which was written for scholars, rather than the
brief overview in Misquoting Jesus, which is written for lay folk. I
discuss all of these variants at length there. And I deal with the
problem of "intention" and explain what I mean by it (in the first
chapter).
I am afraid that my interaction might still be a bit sporadic, owing to the heavy class load and 50-60 hours per week worked right now. But I really didn't want to let this thread die, because I have greatly enjoy the candid and friendly nature of our discussions. Hope to hear from you soon....I just put a dustjacket cover on my new book (I am hopelessly anal with my books, especially ones I value as reference materials) and I can't wait to get into it!
JulianJ wrote:I am very familiar with Orthodox Corruption of Scripture which is the scholarly version of Misquoting Jesus. I found OCS to be one of the best, if not the best, book in the biblical studies field that I have ever read. The scholarship is rock solid and his evidence compelling. As a result I probably consider Ehrman the finest biblical scholar around today.
Incidentally, that book was probably the single most important factor in getting me to switch from the lay-person biblical criticism type book to learn koine and start reading real scholarly works.
See, the first time I read OCS I didn't understand it. At all. I was very upset. So I studied for a few years. Read it again. Understood more but much still escaped me. So I studied more, including koine and textual criticism. And finally read it again, and this time I understood it. It was an excellent feeling...
So, yes, MJ is shorter and easier but do not judge his ideas too harshly, they are based on sound reasoning.
JulianJ wrote:Good luck with it. I check this board once a day, usually. If I see a reply in this thread I generally respond right away. If this gets more involved I may have to wait until I get home from work since I have none of my reference materials here.
Julian
Ehrman wrote:But the diverse manifestations of its first three hundred years--whether in terms of social structures, religious practices, or ideologies--have NEVER (emphasis mine) been replicated.
Ehrman wrote:Did the scribes' polemical contexts influence the way they transcribed their sacred Scriptures?
Kopio wrote:Ok JulianJ,
I broke down and bought OCS. I couldn't help myself! After such a glowing review, I just had to add it to my book collection. I have had a chance to start reading it, but I'm afraid one thing became all to apparent as I started reading it....there's no way I can read this for my class....it's way too think and would take me far to long to get through it. That being said, I have been very thoughtfully engaging the text in the few spare minutes here and there that I have. I will read MJ for my school project, but this summer break OCS, along will a book on Atheism suggested by William are tops on my reading lists.
Ok....so far I have only read a little bit, but I do have a few things to comment on....(FWIW all references refer to the paperback edition, I don't know if the pagination is different for the hardback).
Page 3 Paragraph 1:
Ehrman wrote:But the diverse manifestations of its first three hundred years--whether in terms of social structures, religious practices, or ideologies--have NEVER (emphasis mine) been replicated.
uh oh....he used the N word. I would have to kindly beg to differ. Surely the first three hundred years of the church was a very tumultuous time, however I believe we can easily point to other times being very like the first three hundred years of the church. For instance....the Reformation and the period following. Take a look at why we crossed the pond and came to America...religious (primarily that of Christian denominational) freedom. We could look at the Mormons and the Jehovah's witnesses, which are both groups that have grown to enormous sizes and are considered by the bulk of "Orthodox" (hereafter OX for ease of typing)Christians as "heretical" (hereafter HL for ease of typing). I think it is reasonable to call in to doubt his use of the word never here...that is my point.
I DO like how he talks about "orthodox" and "heresy" being merely labels. I would concur with him, but for the ease of argument they will be terms I will continue to use.
Page 3 Paragraph 3 :Ehrman wrote:Did the scribes' polemical contexts influence the way they transcribed their sacred Scriptures?
This seems to me to be an assumption that all scribes worked in a polemic environment. There are many, many MSS of the NT that were NOT written by religious scribes. Scriptoriums were fairly well established by that time, so to me this seems to be a bit of a stretch to use a blanket statement like this (if that is indeed what Dr. Ehrman intended to do) without qualification. There most certainly were scribes of OX backgrounds, but there also would be scribes of HL background as well, especially since as Ehrman contends, in some regions the OX were in the minority.
OK.....that's enough print for me for right now. So far I have covered the first page of Dr. Ehrman's MSSI do have to say that so far I am enjoying it (as well as his writing style) quite a bit. I am frustrated, however, at having to pick up the dictionary a bit more than I'd like to (for terms like "nascent" and "regnant" the last of which show how very little Latin I do know!)
I look forward to your reply.
JulianJ wrote:Out of curiosity, which book on atheism was recommended to you? Although I am an atheist, I have never read much on the subject and am wondering what someone might recommend.
JulianJ wrote:When you get a chance, no rush, I would be curious to hear your overall impression so far of MJ .
Kopio wrote:Hello Julian,
I have been swamped with school, work, an auto accident, and so many other things I don't have time to list them all! But I thought I'd respond in short to your last post.
JulianJ wrote:When you get a chance, no rush, I would be curious to hear your overall impression so far of MJ .
So far, I must admit, I have been enteratined. I like Ehrman's writing style, and he has seemed fairly even handed in his representation of the material. However, I have not found many of his arguments (nor his suppositions) very compelling. There are things that he attributes to scribes "intentionally" leaving out, that are in my opinion classic cases of homoioteleuton, or periblepsis. I haven't been really convinced of any of his points, but it has been interesting reading his arguments. I have been, in most cases pulling out my critical editions and consuting the apparatus' of said editions when he talks about a specific variant. In some cases I think he is trying to make mountains out of molehills. BUT, I am only halfway through the book, so I can't have a completly formed opinion of what he is trying to do, nor the methods he is using to accomplish them.
As I said, this is merely an initial impression. I look forward to digging deeper and interacting with the text some more. If all goes well, after I write my reaction to this work, we can toss around some of his conclusions and some of my conclusions.
JulianJ wrote:Critical editions are very useful when reading such books. Which ones do you use? I generally use UBS4, Swanson and Metzger's Commentary. I will be getting photos of many of the papyri sometime in the next few weeks and I look at the codices online.
I look forward to your conclusions. Until then...
Julian
Kopio wrote:Hello Juilian,JulianJ wrote:Critical editions are very useful when reading such books. Which ones do you use? I generally use UBS4, Swanson and Metzger's Commentary. I will be getting photos of many of the papyri sometime in the next few weeks and I look at the codices online.
I look forward to your conclusions. Until then...
Julian
I am using the NA27, the UBS4, and Metzger's Textual Commentary on the GNT. I have found that the best way to look at variants. The UBS usually has much more of the Fathers and Versions listed, whilst the NA27 usually focuses on the Greek MSS. The textual commentary is an interesting read (if you don't have it you really should) when looking at some of the more difficult variants. There are some variants that caused quite a bit of strife amongst the committee. I also have the Hodges and Farstad Majority Text, as well as the new Robinson Pierpoint Majority Text for reference as to whether or not when the NA27 says "Majority" whether it is a split Majority, or whether it differs from the TR (which is admittedly a fairly horrid collation of very late manuscripts) in places.
I am (admittedly) a pretty big TC geek. I find it something that completely fascinates me. I would consider myself an Eclectic, however, I am not necessarily an Alexandrian Priority proponent. I think that, in large, the Byzantine Text type is largely disregarded, even though it has many early readings in it supported by early papyri. I always find it interesting when papyri like P46 and the Maj are in agreement against B, Aleph, and the like. Overall my problem with Alexandrian priority is that I think the Byzanting should have more weight than it does. For the most part, it seems to me, it is treated as not holding much, if any, weight... But now I'm rambling on
JulianJ wrote:http://www.crownschoice.com/tc001/
annis wrote:Aren't these early majuscule manuscripts some of the most beautiful Greek documents ever produced?
Kopio wrote:annis wrote:Aren't these early majuscule manuscripts some of the most beautiful Greek documents ever produced?
They are indeed, however, some of the cursives are equally beautiful. They are attractive to me also, becasue they still hold some mystery. I have to really try hard to read a cursive...all of the abbrieviations and contracted forms. I can read uncials with little to no effort at all. I wonder....is there a site that lists all of the cursive letters and combonations??
Oh....and Julian.....I have finished Ehrman's book, and I will be posting about it in a bit. I had to write a paper on it, so more than likely I will be pulling snips from that. All in all, I really enjoyed it, but I find some of his textual choices to be questionable (for instance the angry Jesus variant). I will expoud at a later date.
Return to Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
Users browsing this forum: Isaac Newton and 30 guests