FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-10-2012, 07:26 AM   #1
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default Ehrman on interpolations and mythicists

Ben Witherington has been interviewing Bart Ehrman, in a six-part (and counting) series published on the web. In the sixth part, Witherington asks Ehrman about mythicist's dependence on interpolations.
[Ben Witherington] Q. Mythicists seems to often uses the interpolation theory to explain away NT texts that are inconvenient to their agendas. Yet it is also true that some NT scholars use interpolation theories to the very same end, even when there is apparently no textual basis for the interpolation theory. Explain how the mythicists appeal to interpolation is special pleading, whereas it is not when some NT scholars resort to such a theory (take for example the case of 1 Cor. 14.33b-36, which is displaced in some manuscripts but to my knowledge there are no manuscripts that omit it altogether).

[Bart Ehrman] A. A theory of interpolation argues that there are passages in the New Testament that were not originally there, even though they are still found in all the surviving manuscripts. When a passage (whether several verses, a single verse, or part of a verse) is not found in one or more manuscripts, then the decision whether it was originally in the NT is based on textual criticism. Scholars have to decide then which manuscript(s) more likely presents the oldest form of the text. But when all the manuscripts agree, and one wants to claim that they are all wrong with respect to the oldest form of the text, that involves arguing that at a very, very early stage of the transmission of the text (when it was being copied), someone inserted a verse (or verses, or part of a verse) that came to be found in all our surviving manuscripts. That would be what we mean by an interpolation.

In my opinion, there is no reason, in theory, to deny that there could be interpolations in the New Testament – that is, places where all our manuscripts include a passage (a verse, part of a verse, several verses) that was not originally put there by the authors. This is especially the case in light of the fact that we don’t start getting relatively complete manuscripts of the New Testament until well over a century after the books of the NT were written. At the same time, I think that if someone thinks a passage was an interpolation, there needs to be very, very, very compelling reasons for thinking so.

In almost every instance in which scholars have suggested that there are interpolations, I think the evidence is not compelling. The one instance that I think is compelling is 1 Cor. 14:34-35. I don’t need to give the evidence here. But I find it completely convincing. I should say that whether the verses are original or interpolated does not matter much to me personally. And that’s precisely the problem with many instances of alleged interpolation: it often happens that the scholar who proposes an interpolation has a vested interest in the matter, because if the verses are in fact original, then his or her particular view of things/interpretation is more or less destroyed.

That happens to be the case with the mythicists, as I repeatedly show in my book. Whenever there is a passage that contradicts their views, they invariably claim that the passage is an interpolation. This is what I have called “interpretation by convenience.” If a passage contradicts your view, then the most convenient way to deal with it is by claiming that “originally” in fact it supported your view, but someone came along and changed it. And so, for example, some mythicists “take out” the references to Jesus in Paul, claiming they were not original. And on what grounds? Because Paul doesn’t mention Jesus! That, obviously, is circular reasoning. In any event, I cite a number of instances of this kind of proceeding Did Jesus Exist.

Here let me just say that every case of alleged interpolation needs to be considered carefully and on its own merits. In principle, none should be excluded. But to be accepted, there needs to be a LOT of compelling arguments.
"...if someone thinks a passage was an interpolation, there needs to be very, very, very compelling reasons for thinking so."

Do you agree or disagree with Ehrman?
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 06-10-2012, 07:49 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Ben Witherington has been interviewing Bart Ehrman, in a six-part (and counting) series published on the web. In the sixth part, Witherington asks Ehrman about mythicist's dependence on interpolations.
[Ben Witherington] Q. Mythicists seems to often uses the interpolation theory to explain away NT texts that are inconvenient to their agendas. Yet it is also true that some NT scholars use interpolation theories to the very same end, even when there is apparently no textual basis for the interpolation theory. Explain how the mythicists appeal to interpolation is special pleading, whereas it is not when some NT scholars resort to such a theory (take for example the case of 1 Cor. 14.33b-36, which is displaced in some manuscripts but to my knowledge there are no manuscripts that omit it altogether).

[Bart Ehrman] A. A theory of interpolation argues that there are passages in the New Testament that were not originally there, even though they are still found in all the surviving manuscripts. When a passage (whether several verses, a single verse, or part of a verse) is not found in one or more manuscripts, then the decision whether it was originally in the NT is based on textual criticism. Scholars have to decide then which manuscript(s) more likely presents the oldest form of the text. But when all the manuscripts agree, and one wants to claim that they are all wrong with respect to the oldest form of the text, that involves arguing that at a very, very early stage of the transmission of the text (when it was being copied), someone inserted a verse (or verses, or part of a verse) that came to be found in all our surviving manuscripts. That would be what we mean by an interpolation.

In my opinion, there is no reason, in theory, to deny that there could be interpolations in the New Testament – that is, places where all our manuscripts include a passage (a verse, part of a verse, several verses) that was not originally put there by the authors. This is especially the case in light of the fact that we don’t start getting relatively complete manuscripts of the New Testament until well over a century after the books of the NT were written. At the same time, I think that if someone thinks a passage was an interpolation, there needs to be very, very, very compelling reasons for thinking so.

In almost every instance in which scholars have suggested that there are interpolations, I think the evidence is not compelling. The one instance that I think is compelling is 1 Cor. 14:34-35. I don’t need to give the evidence here. But I find it completely convincing. I should say that whether the verses are original or interpolated does not matter much to me personally. And that’s precisely the problem with many instances of alleged interpolation: it often happens that the scholar who proposes an interpolation has a vested interest in the matter, because if the verses are in fact original, then his or her particular view of things/interpretation is more or less destroyed.

That happens to be the case with the mythicists, as I repeatedly show in my book. Whenever there is a passage that contradicts their views, they invariably claim that the passage is an interpolation. This is what I have called “interpretation by convenience.” If a passage contradicts your view, then the most convenient way to deal with it is by claiming that “originally” in fact it supported your view, but someone came along and changed it. And so, for example, some mythicists “take out” the references to Jesus in Paul, claiming they were not original. And on what grounds? Because Paul doesn’t mention Jesus! That, obviously, is circular reasoning. In any event, I cite a number of instances of this kind of proceeding Did Jesus Exist.

Here let me just say that every case of alleged interpolation needs to be considered carefully and on its own merits. In principle, none should be excluded. But to be accepted, there needs to be a LOT of compelling arguments.
"...if someone thinks a passage was an interpolation, there needs to be very, very, very compelling reasons for thinking so."

Do you agree or disagree with Ehrman?
Agree with him on which part?

BW begins with this:
"Mythicists seems to often uses the interpolation theory to explain away NT texts that are inconvenient to their agendas."

Can this premise for the whole discussion be supported? I read Doherty as claiming very few interpolations. What are the common interpolations that mythicists use?

If you mean this:

BE: "...if someone thinks a passage was an interpolation, there needs to be very, very, very compelling reasons for thinking so."

Yes, I agree.

Notice Ehrman's language:

BE: "that happens to be the case with the mythicists, as I repeatedly show in my book. Whenever there is a passage that contradicts their views, they invariably claim that the passage is an interpolation. This is what I have called “interpretation by convenience.”

Whenever, invariably

Really? I don't think so. Let's just say at the outset: NT texts contain passages that contradict both historicist and mythicist views. It's in the handling of those contradictions that we determine the strength of the arguments. I will note that one solution that has been put forth by scholars for Romans 13 is that it is an interpolation. These are the same kind of statements that got Ehrman in trouble in the first place.

BE then says: "And so, for example, some mythicists “take out” the references to Jesus in Paul, claiming they were not original."

So "whenever" and "invariably" turns into "some mythicists." Shouldn't this be "all" mythicists?

There are obvious traces of tampering in the writings of Paul (for example the Cephas/Petros problem in Galatians). Even so, I don't see mythicists such as Doherty relying on interpolation theories to explain away inconvenient passage. No more so than bible scholars.

But let's look at this in reverse. Let's look at how bible scholars attempt to salvage convenient, but arguably interpolated passages. Examples: 1 Thes 2:13-16 (Ehrman himself does this) and Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3.
Grog is offline  
Old 06-10-2012, 08:53 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abe
"...if someone thinks a passage was an interpolation, there needs to be very, very, very compelling reasons for thinking so."

Do you agree or disagree with Ehrman?
I disagree with the "very, very, very". "Compelling reasons" was sufficient.

I think the lady doth protest too much. Once again, he is unreasonably loading the case against mythicist use of interpolation. (My use is extremely limited, and always with very, very, very clear reasons.)

Earl Doherty
EarlDoherty is offline  
Old 06-10-2012, 09:00 AM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
...
[Bart Ehrman] ...
That happens to be the case with the mythicists, as I repeatedly show in my book. Whenever there is a passage that contradicts their views, they invariably claim that the passage is an interpolation. This is what I have called “interpretation by convenience.” If a passage contradicts your view, then the most convenient way to deal with it is by claiming that “originally” in fact it supported your view, but someone came along and changed it. And so, for example, some mythicists “take out” the references to Jesus in Paul, claiming they were not original. And on what grounds? Because Paul doesn’t mention Jesus! That, obviously, is circular reasoning. In any event, I cite a number of instances of this kind of proceeding Did Jesus Exist.
1. "Invariably" is an outright misstatement. Doherty does not rely on interpolations. I don't know of Wells' use of interpolations. I think some other mythicists treat the text as essentially fictional and late, so there is no need for them to rely on interpolations.

2. Which mythicists "take out" the references to Jesus in Paul? Tyson (Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk)) argues for anti-Marcionite interpolations in Paul, but I don't think that Tyson is a mythicist.

William O. Walker, also not a mythicist, provides extensive arguments for interpolations in Paul in Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (or via: amazon.co.uk).

3. I have the Kindle version of Ehrman's DJE and searching for "interpolation" gets 3 hits. Where are the "number of instances of this kind"? Is Ehrman referring to an argument that he thought he could make, but didn't find evidence to support?
Toto is offline  
Old 06-10-2012, 09:07 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 1,848
Default

Its a smear.
A sign of desperation.
yalla is offline  
Old 06-10-2012, 09:23 AM   #6
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: ohio
Posts: 112
Default

Has anyone here ever entertained the possibility that the entire question can be reduced to the approximation of dems vs reps in America? These are people who do not think like each other at all. Trump for example, confronted with absolutely emperical evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii refuses to accept it as valid. Noone in the "acedemia" is going to accept anything that contradicts their worldview. Spin is imo correct in the agnostic approach to this question but his quioxtic(sic) attempt to engage the other side is tantamount to Obama trying to get abill through Congress.
anethema is offline  
Old 06-10-2012, 09:38 AM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anethema View Post
Has anyone here ever entertained the possibility that the entire question can be reduced to the approximation of dems vs reps in America? These are people who do not think like each other at all. Trump for example, confronted with absolutely emperical evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii refuses to accept it as valid. Noone in the "acedemia" is going to accept anything that contradicts their worldview. Spin is imo correct in the agnostic approach to this question but his quioxtic(sic) attempt to engage the other side is tantamount to Obama trying to get abill through Congress.
Most of the participants claim to be relying on standard scholarly methodology.

Comparing the other side to birthers is not helpful here.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-10-2012, 10:15 AM   #8
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: ohio
Posts: 112
Default

Excuse me Toto i didnt mean to be "unhelpfull". Im just an "unwashed" student of ancient history. Please explain to me why AA's template is any more ludicrous than whatever the Hoffmann conglomerate has proposed? I understand their basis is the existing dichtomy. The existing dichtomy is that Alexander the great Thought he was a god and had sex with his best friend hephastius, using the same "ancient documents say so" assertion. Building an historical case for something needs different parameters. IMO looking for Christian origens in the sense that a 21st cen person would find relevent cant go further back than Origen. And he was a heretic to the "hegemony" , or correct thinking people at the end of his life. This is though a great conversation.
anethema is offline  
Old 06-10-2012, 10:27 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

EHRMAN
The one instance that I think is compelling is 1 Cor. 14:34-35.

CARR
And a lot of people find the case for 1 Thess 2 having interpolations is also compelling.

Bart doesn't think so.

But doesn't the passage contradict his view that the Romans killed Jesus?

Well, yes, but as he doesn't want to say it is an interpolation, he simply denies that it says that the Jews killed Jesus.

Apparently, you are allowed to deny the plain meaning of the words in the text, but if you follow a lot of perfectly orthodox scholars who are puzzled that Paul says the Jews killed Jesus, you are simply dishonest.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 06-10-2012, 10:30 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

EHRMAN
Can we trust that the copies of Galatians we have are the original copies. No. We don’t know. How could we possibly know? Our earliest copy of Galatians is p46 which dates from the year 200. Paul wrote this letter in the 50’s. The first copy that we have is 150 years later. Changes were made all along the line before this first copy was made. How can we possibly know that in fact it is exactly as Paul wrote it. Is it possible that somebody along the line inserted a verse? Yes. Is it possible that someone took out a verse? Yes. Is it possible that somebody changed a lot of the words? Yes. Is it possible that the later copies were made from one of the worst of the early copies? Yes. It’s possible. We don’t know.....

We can’t know for certain that the text is reliable. You might want to think it is. You might want to hope it is. You might want to say there are intelligent people who say it is so probably it is. But think about it. There are people copying these texts year after year, decade after decade.

CARR
Of course, Ehrman says this in debates with Christians who want to claim the text we have today is a very excellent copy of the original.

Ehrman would never dream of saying such things when writing about mythicists.

Let us hope that Ehrman is not in the same room at the same time as a mythicist and an inerrantist, or else he might forget what to say to whom.
Steven Carr is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:53 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.