Mark 14:46-52

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
User avatar
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Mark 14:46-52

Post by jeidsath » Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:47 am

I was mistaken to bring Pagels into it. I blindly followed a Wikipedia description without closely reading the original source. That said, I've looked over a few of her interviews now and can understand why she sends some people up the wall. She implies in one interview that it's an accident of history that favored John over Thomas for the cannon. I don't believe that argument holds water -- though I do agree that with John we are stepping out of the relatively safe territory of the synoptics into a strange, sometimes wacky, land.

Bart Ehrmann does drive me up the wall. In specific, I recall him speaking once about all of the textual changes made by the early Church to protect orthodox doctrine. A member of the audience during question time asked him to name one example of this -- the thing that he had been speaking about for an hour -- his wheels spun for a few seconds, and he trotted out 1 John 5:7. Come on! I've given him one or two chances since, and haven't been impressed.

These are lightweights. If I want to wrestle with hard arguments, I turn to someone like Bultmann.

Friends from Palo Alto only count if they have taught you the secret (gnostic?) handshake.
Joel Eidsath --

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1248
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Mark 14:46-52

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:39 pm

I read Pagels for entertainment purposes. Just put her book on the Apocalypse on hold. I have read Orthodox Corruption, Bart Ehrman. I don't have any serious problem with the thesis that some scribes changed readings during the early christologial controversies. We didn't need any apologists disguised as a textual critics to defend us from Bart Ehrman. A close reading of his works will suffice for refuting his claims about the "diversity" of early christian dogma. Two very reputable NT scholars (Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtodo) have without even mentioning Ehrman undermined the Adolf Harnack history of dogma school of thought which Ehrman has recycled for a new millennium.

On the other hand how many NT textual critics take Ehrman's "we don't have the original text" theme seriously? Very conspicuously not-fundamentalist textual scholars like Kurt Aland[1] have made claims that are polar opposites of Ehrman. Bart plays on ignorance of his audience. He assumes you will not know enough to know where he is on thin ice. There is a group of self appointed defenders of the faith that regularly crank out refutations of Ehrman which just feeds the machine the keeps Ehrman popular.

[1] one of the five members of "the committee" for NA26/UBSGNT-3rd Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren; Carlo M. Martini take much more positive
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Post Reply