Dogfish

[QUOTE=Roger Pearse;4899150]Whether or not you're a believer, I still think the criticism has value. We are constantly told that the bible is the inspired word of god, that he loves us and wants us to follow his will. But, if that were true, one would think that he might have helped make it a little clearer if he was interseted in keeping us from damnation. I hear wildy inconsistant and contradicting ideas of god and his will from believers, so I don't think any such reasoning should be said to have little value (unless you mean it would have little value to believers).

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm trying to remember where I read it. I think it might have actually been in Misquoting Jesus but I'm not positive and I can't seem to find my copy at the moment. I don't remember a specific figure but I do remember a couple of pages about how a lot of small towns and villages had scribes who were minimally literate but were basically just paid to sight-copy manuscripts. This made them particularly susceptable not only to spelling mistake but dropped words or lines because they couldn't really proof read.

I think my Ehrman book is in my car but I won't be able to look for it until this afternoon. I'll check back in if I can find the relevant pages. (If it wasn't Misquoting jesus, it might have been another one of Ehrman's books. I've read several of them)

Ray Moscow

Yes, there is a chapter in Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) on this, with some references.

It was really interesting to see what counted as "literate" during that period -- it could just mean someone who could write his name.

Roger Pearse

I'm sure that you're right, after looking at how the thread is evolving.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

sky4it

I listened to his 10 part speech which is at Youtube. You, obviously are more familiar with Ehrman than I am. Noteworthy, (during that speech only) was that he did not equate intellegent work with any scribe.

If you are reffering to the lawyers and doctors of that era, I think it is a little unfair to characterise them this way. Regarding lawyers and doctors today, I have met some that are quite brilliant, but I think you would agree side by side comparisons of today's blend is useless.

Wouldn't it be a fair assessment to say that copies having no are almost no spelling or transpositional error would have been done by someone with a great deal of more care? I think so.

My point is based upon what I think is an Ehrman supposition. The supposition is that if Ehrman were to find several people modifying scripture based upon religious views, that all are doing it. For example, I like to have a few drinks of the bubbly every couple of weeks. It would be like someone seeing that and saying about me, Well, hes a raging alcholic. I think Julian, that inferences that are drawn like this are common in many theatres. For example, remember when Nick Nolte had a DUI and the media pasted his photo on TV over and over again for years and years. The point is, the fact that Nolte had one DUI, does not make a life full of careless or reckless behavior. Same thing about scribes or copiers, some shabby work doesnt make all work (even by the same scribe or copier) all bad.

I really dont have the background to comment on these studies and disciplines. I do believe I have sufficient background to comment on the general tone and inferences made by Ehrman.

Anyway Julian, thank you for a thoughtful and good discussion. I appreciate it.

regards,

Sky4it

sky4it

You are correct my knowledge of Ehrman is limited to that. If one reads the sermon on the mount one can learn a lot about Jesus. I think I heard enough to have an understanding in which direction Ehrman was heading. Objectivity ought to present both sides of a meaningful arrangement of a matter. I do not think Ehrman attempted at all to do that.


Roger Pearse, seems to have a better handle on the historical aspects of the matter, and I salute him for that. I refer you to his comments which I think better address the technicalities of the issue than I do.

Roger Pearse

I thought that I would add a comment on this one, in view of what Julian wrote as a response.

I'm not entirely certain what you mean, particularly when you talk about 'credible work', so I suspect that you've written a bit more briefly than you might have. I would guess that perhaps you suggest that Ehrman should be highlighting the copies that do not contain a given textual error, rather than concentrating on those which do?

If so, firstly, I agree to some degree. If a layman reads a work by someone who earns his salary from textual criticism, he will hear about nothing but errors, and he will infallibly infer (wrongly) that this means that texts are not transmitted; that they are all errors. Ehrman's readers do indeed seem to have made this inference; being the deeply cynical soul that I am, I suspect that Ehrman places no barrier in their way in doing this, for religious reasons.

But there is a legitimate reason to write purely about errors, albeit a trivial one. If we have two copies of a text, both written around 1430, these will often be pretty much identical in almost every respect but one; the copyist/scribal errors. So if we want to know which of those two manuscripts was copied from the other, we have only a single piece of data to use, which is the errors. The vast percentage which is identical is irrelevant to this enquiry.

What we are looking for is mistakes which the two have in common, but other manuscripts don't (which shows that the two are in the same family), and mistakes made in one copy which are faithfully reproduced in the other (e.g. a missing page in one, and the same block of text thus silently missing from the middle of the page in the other). Once we know which is the copy, we can ignore it for purposes of establishing the original text, since it will only contain either mistakes or (if we are lucky) conjectures based on the other. Reducing the number of mss (eliminatio codicum) is essential whenever we have more than a few manuscripts of a work.

Thus a text critic will always focus on the scribal errors. But this is rather like a glass-maker who sees imperfections. It's a necessary role; but for most of us, we look through the glass to look out into the garden beyond. Historians use the text to look out into the past. It has to be a very severe error to block the view! But it is the trivia that interest the text critic, in order to prune the list of manuscripts down to the essential ones.

Actually I can tell you that text critics are deeply interested in who the scribe is, when we're dealing with renaissance copies of Greek texts. It makes quite a bit of difference if we're dealing with one, whose accuracy we can establish, rather than another. This is because we actually know quite a lot about scribal activity in that period, and all these Greek refugees, and the copying going on in Venice in the 16th century.

But of course as a rule we don't possess this information, for older mss. I'm a little nervous, tho, about this appeal to the 'rules of textual criticism'. These are aids, not rules, surely? And don't these questions of yours apply equally to you?

Are you sure that you want to commit to this proposition?

Let's not use polysyllablic terms here, by the way -- I'm not certain what you're trying to say, and I don't want to guess.

I can't tell if you're right, since, with 10 years interest in manuscript studies, I can't understand you. Try again in good English, please, and without the bogus Greek. ('periblepsical'?! Whatever does that mean?! And why say 'homoteleuton' rather than 'scribal eye skipping a line', unless we wish to intimidate rather than inform?)

Surely bad scholarship should be exposed? It isn't necessary to know lots of Latin to see if a scholar is pulling a fast one by the good old-fashioned methods of selection, omission and misrepresentation. The idea implicit in this (to my eyes) that people in the humanities should be above criticism by laymen seems curious to me, given the low reputation they enjoy for objectivity among scientists.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Magdlyn

Originally Posted by capnkirk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sky4it View Post
....Scribes of that day, were listed in the same breath as lawyers and doctors....

Actually, for the first century at least, that statement did not apply to those transcribing Xtian documents. Early on, the copying was done by whichever member of the young church at "fill in the blank" who could write Greek and was ardent enough in his beliefs to commit the time and effort. In other words, amateurs with strong convictions of their own. The age of professional scribes for Xtian documents did not become the norm until after the conversion of Constantine and the establishment of the State Church. It was at this critical early stage that the quality of the copywork was at its weakest.

On what ancient data do these interesting statements rest?

On what we know of the history of Christianity. Ehrman explains how, since the "Church" was not legal or organized, it was conducted in private homes. There was no money to pay professional scribes to spend their days copying texts. Everyone had day jobs and the copying would be done in secret, in areas not necessarily well lit, by people who were not necessarily fully literate.

It was only after Constantine legalized Xtianity, and monasteries were established and endowed, that transcribing the scriptures became somewhat more reliable.

Isn't it unsound to argue that a text must have changed most just when we have no exemplars from it?

I hope I cleared that up.



Quote:
From your post, it would appear that your direct exposure to Ehrman's work is limited to the video linked at the start of this thread. If you had read any of his works ... (panegyric, argument by book, snipped)

I can only speak as someone committed to encouraging the study of ancient literature and its textual tradition, but I have not felt the need to read Ehrman's book either. What I see is that the book is producing obscurantism in those who endorse it. This is not a good sign.

I believe you ingore Ehrman at your own peril. You could learn something.

Quote:
Just think about the number of known 'holy' books that were rejected by the faction that ultimately became the 'orthodox'.

Such as?

Shepherd of Hermas. Enoch. Gospels of Judas, Thomas, Mary (Magdalene) and dozens of others.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/



Quote:
The path of Xtianity from its origins to the founding of the RCC is anything but a straight-line path, and it is very difficult to maintain that what survived was inspired by God.

Neither of these statements appears to be based on fact.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Au contraire, Roger. You show ignorance of your own religion. I suggest reading Ehrman, Price, Maccoby, Armstrong and Pagels.

Roger Pearse

Thank you for the link, which was most interesting. Since you seem to know more about early Christianity than I do, can you direct me to a collection of English translations of the Fathers which I thought that I saw at that site but couldn't find. Would you recommend that?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

sky4it

Roger Pearse:

Thank you Roger, I enjoyed your post.

Nice job getting through the " periblepsical, homeoteleutonical" lingo too.
We used to have a saying in some work I partook of, when in doubt, baffle em with your BS, (no not your Bachelors of Sceince)

Anyway some of your comments are well strung together. My principal problem with Ehrman you are correct about,it is the inferences, generalizations and such that are drawn, seem to be solidly built on the premise that copiers/scribes etc. where people of 'low repute." (dingalings, derilects and the unemployed who produce hysterical geneologies) Niether you or I or Erhman can postively make that conjecture.

While some people who wanted there copy may have gone on to a Madaams house to secure a cheap price, some also might have said, Hey, I want the guy who charges a little more and always gets it right. For events that happened centuries ago, I doubt there is any historical record of that.