Toto

I think that most people here would like to apply the same standards to the NT as to other ancient texts, and these standards indicate that the NT has some special problems that make them even less reliable than other comparable documents. I suspect that the Christians here exaggerate the reliability of non-Biblical ancient documents.

-Jay-

Paul predating the Gospels, etc., and providing support for some of the themes (including the Twelve) only supports the claim that Paul was aware of some extant proto-Christian traditions. It does not indicate that he had primary knowledge of them. The Twelve in Mark look like literary fabrications - they're introduced as straight-men to illustrate points the author of GMk was trying to make. A perfectly reasonable alternative to your suggestion is that the Twelve were part of a tradition that Paul was aware of, he assumed it was correct, and passed it on.


No, canonization does not, in and of itself, destroy the veracity of the documents. However, and this is important, if books are included in a canon - any canon - in order to support an orthodox position, then we must consider the possibility that agreement among those books is not coincidental. They can no longer be considered totally independent sources.

You'll have to give me a good reason why.[/quote]

It all goes back to why books were included in the canon to begin with. Orthodoxy drives canon. Books within the canon are there precisely because they agree with the orthodoxy. There's nothing really special about them other than that. Unless you're prepared to argue that something other than agreement with the orthodoxy drove the canon...

It occurs to me that at the same time that you're asserting that I'm engaging in ad-hoc dismissal of Paul, you're asserting what amounts to ad-hoc accpetance of Paul. That's interesting.

regards,

NinJay

gurugeorge

Roger is suggesting that there's something original and authentic in the Christian documents that has been transmitted reasonably accurately, just as Cicero or whatever has been transmitted reasonably accurately.

But what Ehrman shows is that we have amendments (that have been transmitted reasonably accurately), and then amendments of those amendments, (that have in turn been transmitted reasonably accurately), and then amendments of those amendments (that have been transmitted reasonably accurately).

i.e. Ehrman's kind of argument is not a wholesale argument about the quality of our reception of texts, it actually depends on textual transmissions being pretty good.

What it shows is that the meaning of those texts is open to question, because we can see a trail of theologically motivated amendments (which have been transmitted reasonably accurately).

Typically masterful Roger Pearse misdirection.

-Jay-

That's a pretty good summary, gurugeorge, and a fairly subtle point. If Ehrman were arguing that we've got no freakin' idea whatsoever what the texts said, and that every single word in them is suspect, that would be a different matter. He's not. Essentially he's saying that the parts of the text that are reliably transmitted make those that aren't stand out that much more clearly.

regards,

NinJay

judge

Is it possible non christians exaggerate the counterview?

Solitary Man

Considering that Paul had first-hand experience with two people whom he grouped with the Twelve, I find it unlikely that the tradition would not have been correct, i.e. that there were the Twelve.

This is a false argument. You've provided no evidence that they were originated by the orthodox position rather than originated independently and canonized, which is the normal way of canonization in every other canon list we know. Also considering that the books disagree with each other greatly at some points, they can hardly appear as part of one unified thought.

I don't need to - you haven't provided any evidence for your assertions.

How is my acceptance of Paul ad hoc?

Toto

How do you parse this so that Peter/Cephas is one of the twelve? There is no indication here of who the twelve were.

Robert Price notes that a German scholar, "Weiss excised the reference to the Twelve as a scribal gloss to harmonize the list with the Gospels." [note 34]

Finding any indication here of the membership of the 12 is reading the gospels into Paul's letters.

Solitary Man

No, you misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't say he was part of the Twelve, but Paul names Cephas and James along with the Twelve. He had first-hand experience with the prior, so it makes it all the more likely that the latter would be historical as well.

Next question, how did you parse what I wrote to make it seem like I made Cephas one of the Twelve? I'm guessing on misreading "within the Twelve" instead of what I wrote "with the Twelve".

And nice way to try and weasel in Robert Price's reference to an early 1900's scholar.

Toto

I interpreted "grouped with" as meaning that Cephas and John were part of the 12. If they weren't, then "the twelve" would be a different group from the gospel tradition, and your argument about some sort of confirmation of any tradition would be shot. But it's your argument. You can clarify your conclusion.

Weasel? What is at all "treacherous or sneaky" about a direct citation that relates to your argument? How unfair of me to cite an academic authority who disagrees with you. :huh:

Solitary Man

How would the argument be shot?

Hardly. I can cite a number of authorities who disagree with Weiss. It's sneaky because you don't qualify it, you don't provide the evidence for it, you just drop it and leave it there so that others can see and say, "Oh, if Robert Price endorses it, it must be an interpolation." You didn't cite an academic that disagreed with me, you employed an argument from authority, and it's not the first time you've done that this thread. That was this:

"(Robert Price thinks this is a later interpolation, but I'll play along.)"

You might as well change Robert Price to the Pope for all I care - they both have about equal weight on the matter - none. Are fallacious arguments only OK when you use them?