Toto

Bart Ehrman will be Jon Stewart's guest on the Daily Show Tues, Mar 14. Presumably this is a book talk about Misquoting Jesus.

Amaleq13

Two of my favorites coming together.

Julian

Two of my favorites, as well. I will actually be scheduling a TV event tonight, it would seem. This will be so kickass.

Diogenes the Cynic

Very cool. Thanks for the heads up.

dongiovanni1976x

Just bought the book - Thanks!

Thomas II

My favorite too

JoeWallack

JW:
It's clear to me that "Mark" is Separationist. That's why Jesus' human Father is unimportant to "Mark". The Spirit comes from God at the Baptism and Jesus becomes a Son of God. At the Crucifixion the Spirit leaves by the same Heavenly Highway. Kelber doesn't use this Terminology but his book clearly Demonstrates that in "Mark's" world it's Good Spirit/Sons of God vs. Bad Spirit/Sons of Satan. It also explains why "Mark's" Jesus' resurrection is anti-climatic. It's the Passion/Humiliation that's important and not the Resurrection/Glory. Gibson's Jesus was "Mark's" Jesus.

If you don't already know, Ehrman is helping to Publicize this:

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol05/Ehrman2000b.html

"12. This would not be the only verse that was altered out of anti-gnostic concerns. Just to take one other similar example before moving on to other kinds of scribal changes, we might consider the cry of dereliction that I've just mentioned from Mark 15:34, where Jesus breaks the silence he has maintained throughout the entire crucifixion scene by crying out, in Aramaic: elwi elwi lema sabaxqani, a quotation of Ps 22:2, for which the author supplies the Greek translation of the LXX, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

13. As I've already intimated, at stake in the Gnostic controversy was the meaning of the Greek verb in this verse, e)gkate/lipej, literally, "left behind." The proto-orthodox took it to mean "forsake" and argued that because Christ had taken the sins of the world upon himself, he felt forsaken by God; the Gnostics, on the other hand, understood the word in its more literal sense, so that for them, Jesus was lamenting the departure of the divine Christ: "My God, my God, why have you left me behind?"

14. This is clearly the interpretation given by the gnostic Gospel of Philip, which quotes the verse before explaining that "It was on the cross that Jesus said these words, for it was there that he was divided." The words appear to be construed similarly in their reformulation in the Gospel of Peter, where on the cross Jesus cries out, "My power, O power, you have left me."

15. Until recently, scholars have failed to recognize how this controversy over the meaning of Jesus' last words in Mark relates to a famous textual problem of the verse. For in some manuscripts, rather than crying out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" the dying Jesus cries "My God, my God, why have you reviled me?"

16. The witnesses that support this reading indicate that it was in wide circulation already in the second century. But it has proved very difficult for scholars to imagine that it was the original reading of Mark, for lots of reasons that I don't need to go into here. Assuming that Mark's Jesus cried out "why have you forsaken me," why would some scribes have changed it to "why have you reviled me"? Surely it's not unrelated to fact that Gnostics were using the verse to support their separationist christology. For them, Jesus' despair at being "left behind" by God demonstrated that the Christ had separated from him and returned into the Pleroma, leaving him to die alone. The change, then, may have been made to circumvent the "misuse" of the text, and naturally suggested itself from the context. Just as Jesus was reviled by his opponents, those for whom he died, so too he bore the reproach of God himself, for whose sake he went to the cross in the first place.

17. Variations such as this, that relate in one way or another to the early christological controversies, have been studied at some length in recent years. The same cannot be said about variants that relate to other kinds of issues confronting Christian scribes of the second and third centuries. There are a number of fruitful avenues of exploration, just begging for intelligent attention. We can begin by looking at variants involving the apologetic concerns of early Christianity."


JW:
What Ehrman is referring to is this from his mentor:

"15.34 ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι
The reading ηλει ηλει of D Θ (059 ελει) 0192 (131 ηλι) 565 al represents the Hebrew *אֵלִי‬ (“my God”), and has been assimilated to the parallel in Matthew (27.46). The great majority of uncials and minuscule manuscripts read ελωι ελωι, which represents the Aramaic *אֱלָהִי‬ (“my God”), the ω for the a sound being due to the influence of the Hebrew *אֱלֹהַי‬.
The spelling λεμα (א C L Δ Ψ 72 495 517 579 1342 1675 al) represents the Aramaic *לְמָא‬ (“why?”), which is also probably to be understood as lying behind λιμα (A K M P U X Γ �* f 13 33 106 118 131 209 543 697 700 1270 al), whereas λαμα (B D N Θ Σ 1 22 565 1295 1582 al) represents the Hebrew *לָֽמָּה‬ (“why?”).
All Greek manuscripts except codex Bezae read σαβαχθανι or something similar (σιβακθανει, A; ζαβαφθανει, B; σαβαχθανει, C al), which represents the Aramaic *שְׁבַקְתַּ�*ִי‬ (“thou hast forsaken me”). The reading ζαφθανι of D (itd reads zapthani; itk zaphani; itff2 sapthani; iti* izpthani) is a scholarly correction representing the Hebrew of Ps 22.1 *עֲזַבְתַּ�*ִי‬ (“thou hast forsaken me”).1
Thus, in the text preferred by the Committee the entire saying represents an Aramaic original, whereas the Matthean parallel is partly Hebrew and partly Aramaic (see the comment on Mt 27.46).

15.34 ἐγκατ�*λιπ�*ς με {B}
It is perhaps more likely that copyists should have altered ἐγκατ�*λιπ�*ς με to agree with the Matthean reading με ἐγκατ�*λιπες (Mt 27.46), than that they should have changed με ἐγκατ�*λιπες to ἐγκατ�*λιπ�*ς με to agree with the Septuagint of Ps 22.2.
The reading of Dgr (supported by a few other Western witnesses2) �*νείδισάς με (“[Why] hast thou reproached [or, taunted] me?”) may have been substituted for the usual reading by someone who could not understand how God would have forsaken Jesus on the cross."

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York


JW:
My God, what I would have forsaken to have been there when Ehrman realized that the Gnostics were right and the Orthodox lied!

Really only a matter of time though. The highest Attribute is Intellectualism which will always ultimately Triumph over Emotionalism.

I Am looking forward to The Show tonight.



Joseph

"You've Been Wikied!" - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Thomas II

They did not have much time to get into anything seriously...
I'll read the book,which was the point of the show...

Talking about the relationship of Jesus with his "father", I found significant that during Jesus' baptism it is said that a great voice could be heard "This is my son, of whom I am very proud and yadayadayada..."
But then during Jesus' last minutes before his death, the "father" is nowhere to be seen...
What, no "loud voice" there?...

Steven Avery

He spoke.. with darkness over the land, an earthquake, and the veil of the Temple was rent. And the resurrection !

Thomas II

But why not a loud voice from Heaven like the time by the river Jordan?
Just a simple voice, loud for all to hear "Hey,that is my son you are killing!", or something like that...
Instead a veil was rent, a passing storm brought some clouds, and there was a small tremor like the ones California has all the time...

The resurrection?...That is another thread altogether...Mythological event.