Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-08-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

So I can safely ignore any plea to consensus opinion?

No. Toto is introducing the "biased" concept without any hard facts. He says that you shouldn't trust the establishment because of its politically and religiously charged environment, but ignores how almost none of recent Biblical scholarship "validates" the faith. His appeal yet again is that fundies this or fundies that, forgetting that the vast Christian faith is not "fundamentalistic" (Riverwind's objection aside) nor is 99% of the establishment, with the ones most "fundamentalistic" generally being outcast by the larger, secular society. In the greatest Biblical establishment, the SBL, members have on more than one occasion questioned the Christian's place in the academic environment, lambasting their using faith in place of scholarship. That even Baptist preachers like Jim West can agree to such a thing is telling - Toto's remarks are indicative of one paranoid of the establishment, for whatever reason, and shows that there is some tie still to Christianity, which should tell you that Toto is not to be trusted with what he says, and that his objection to the establishment should be ignored.

Whew, chill out man. When did I ever mention the establishment? I am specifically talking about how people use or misuse the idea of a consensus opinion in arguments on this Board and in debates about the Bible. Oftentimes the consensus is right.

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-08-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

So I can safely ignore any plea to consensus opinion?

...almost none of recent Biblical scholarship "validates" the faith.

And consensus would back up this opinion? Is that just opinion or is it a fact of the landscape that “none of recent Biblical scholarship "validates" the faith”?

Chris Weimer · 06-08-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Whew, chill out man. When did I ever mention the establishment? I am specifically talking about how people use or misuse the idea of a consensus opinion in arguments on this Board and in debates about the Bible. Oftentimes the consensus is right.

"I don't think that you are going to find a real consensus in a field as politically and ideologically charged, or as volatile as New Testament studies."

Politics and idealogies prevent a real consensus in New Testament studies. You yourself have even stated: "The historical Jesus believers might just have more in common with ID proponents."

Chris Weimer · 06-08-2007, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

...almost none of recent Biblical scholarship "validates" the faith.

And consensus would back up this opinion? Is that just opinion or is it a fact of the landscape that “none of recent Biblical scholarship "validates" the faith”?

That is my personal understanding of recent scholarship that it doesn't "validate faith". This is also part of my own bias - I'm an atheist, and thus require that any "miracles" must needs have extraordinary evidence. Some within the faith have stated that they would believe unless there was something explicitly destroying their case.

Ben C Smith · 06-08-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The problem with the Catholic Epistles, of which 2 Peter is a part, is that the usual text-types except for the Byzantine fall apart. There's no real Western type and the Alexandrians are so divergent. Moreover, the number of early witnesses is scant. The poor textual attestation of them may be a result of their relatively late canonization.

Thanks for explaining that. It seems you are talking about the overall textual picture for an epistle like 2 Peter rather than a mere tally of individual textual issues.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson · 06-08-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Thanks for explaining that. It seems you are talking about the overall textual picture for an epistle like 2 Peter rather than a mere tally of individual textual issues.

Yep. Generally, the more popular the text (i.e. the more it's copied), the better the textual picture. Matthew's text is more stable than Mark's, for example.

Gamera · 06-08-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Two thoughts:

1. The concept of a "majority consensus" (in addition to its gramatical problems) is a combination of the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority with an ipse dixit thrown in for good measure. Different commentators have different opinions on the quantity and quality of the variations of the text families.

2. I think Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (or via: amazon.co.uk) describes some of the errors in the OP's assertion. It is irrelevant if 200 theologians say that we have 2,000 copies very similar to an old text, when a few researchers point out a dozen critical, foundational variations between families.

I think there is little doubt that creedal Christianity edited the epistles, more or less. The case for alterations of the gospel narratives is much weaker. While creedal Christianity may have added doctrine to the gospel narratives, there is no good reason to believe that the structure of the narrative itself was altered. Changing speeches and adding various incidents is one thing. Changing the basic storyline of Jesus' life would have been a big deal and probably would have been impossible given the wide dispersion of the oral gospel narrative.

Assuming one posits (as I do) that the essence of Christianity is the gospel narrative (not the commentaries on it), then in that sense the gospels we have are pretty close to the original, at least in the basic structure.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-08-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

I never made the claim that the majority of manuscripts are in "exact correlation" to the originals.

But I never said that you did. What evidence do you have that the story of Adam and Eve appeared in the originals in any form, with or without errors? I am willing to consider any evidence that you have regarding scholars who believe that the story of Adam and Eve was in the originals in some form that is reasonably close to what the copies say. Or, does your belief that the Bible is inerrant really have anything to do with what scholars say? I suspect that it doesn't.

In addition to the issue of what the originals said, what would have prevented people from adding to and/or changing the originals?

Of what value are supposedly inerrant originals, or copies for that matter, to people who do not have access to them? Hundreds of millions of people died without hearing the Gospel message because God refused to tell them about it.

Chris Weimer · 06-08-2007, 09:20 PM

Johnny Skeptic,

Logic 101 would indicate that you bear the burden. The Adam and Eve story is already in Genesis - what evidence do you have that it wasn't originally in? Our oldest copies have the stories, early Jewish commentators remark on the story, what evidence do you have that it wasn't there? If you don't have any, then you don't have a case, but you bear the burden.

Doug Shaver · 06-08-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Is this at all true regarding the consensus opinion?

So far as I have seen, it is true only among fundamentalists and others committed to inerrancy or something close to inerrancy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-08-2007, 09:20 PM	#49
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Johnny Skeptic, Logic 101 would indicate that you bear the burden. The Adam and Eve story is already in Genesis - what evidence do you have that it wasn't originally in? Our oldest copies have the stories, early Jewish commentators remark on the story, what evidence do you have that it wasn't there? If you don't have any, then you don't have a case, but you bear the burden.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.