Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mens_sana · 06-18-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

That's more than a little ...

I'm afraid your post doesn't seem to relate to mine in any way.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I can understand why its relevance escaped you.

Solitary Man · 06-18-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

and the title of his book might seem deliberately provocative

Actually, if I recall correctly, the titles of his books were selected by the publishers. Well, at least for Misquoting Jesus.

Toto · 06-18-2008, 02:28 PM

Roger Pearse may not appreciate the mindset of certain American fundamentalists who worship the text of the Bible and ground their faith and their being in a requirement that it be completely inspired and accurate.

-Jay- · 06-18-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Roger Pearse may not appreciate the mindset of certain American fundamentalists who worship the text of the Bible and ground their faith and their being in a requirement that it be completely inspired and accurate.

Quite.

Roger tries to divorce the text from the theology, which I tend to agree with, but the fact of the matter remains that for certain groups of American fundamentalists, the text is the theology.

regards,

NinJay

Solitary Man · 06-18-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

That's more than a little ...

I'm afraid your post doesn't seem to relate to mine in any way.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I think he was saying that the position presented here is not, in fact, Bart Erhman's position.

Ben C Smith · 06-18-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Actually, if I recall correctly, the titles of his books were selected by the publishers. Well, at least for Misquoting Jesus.

That certainly happens often enough.

Ben.

patcleaver · 06-18-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Actually I meant that the way we think was shaped by the recovery of ancient texts and the ways of thinking and looking at things thereby rediscovered. This isn't theology; it's not a creed of some sort! I hate to say this, but this has very little to do with how the humanists actually used the texts of Cicero, tho. They were enthusiasts, rediscovering a world. Think of Star Trek fans! They did not read Cicero particularly for his philosophical content. When Petrarch found the letters of Cicero at Verona, and was so excited that he sat down and wrote a letter to Cicero to 'tell him' how much they meant, he was not concerned with such matters. The orations were just as valuable.

It may be true that Petrarch and others were interested in certain texts primarily because they thought they described events which had actually occurred.

But that does not entail that their influence on western culture, their contribution to it, includes the necessity of believing particular things happened in the past.

All it proves is, at the very most, is that that belief motivated them to study the texts and incorporate ideas from them in their own writings, which would eventually go on to influence western culture.

But the values of western culture themselves, whether they are influenced by Petrarch et al or not, stand or fall regardless of whether Cicero really existed, or whether he is a fictional creation by a later writer. If (unlikely as it is) startling new evidence emerged that Cicero was a complete fiction tomorrow, the importance and relevance of western culture would not diminish one iota.

Let's contrast that with the case of Christianity. If it was convincingly shown that the gospels were fiction, that there was no historical core to them whatsoever, then this would be important for Christianity... it would be shown to be untrue and it would lose all relevance and importance. Because part of Christian belief is that Jesus actually existed, actually died, and actually rose again - and these facts are all crucial.

And I don't understand what you're saying about people trying to make this a theological issue. It seems to me that a 'theological issue' indeed arises inevitably from extended study of the new testament; that faith is absolutely essential to believe in just about all its contents.

The changes that were made to ancient documents were more likely to improve them then not. Jesus' original sayings were probably too Jewish to be accepted. "love your enemy", and "he without sin throw the first stone" were some of my favorite sayings when I was a Christian. I doubt Christianity would have survived and grown without all the improvements made to the bible texts in the early centuries. Petrarch might not have even liked the letters of Cicero if they hadn't been revised.

The more we learn about how the ancient documents were created and revised the more interested we are in them.

Equinox · 06-19-2008, 03:58 AM

I see several main points that most posters seem to recognize, which Roger seems to be blind to (intentionally or unintentionally of course is impossible to say). Some of these are:

1. There is a large difference in the accuracy expectation between many ancient text and that of the NT due to their nature. In other words, if those performing a play by Euripides find out that it was actually written by Critias, and was significantly altered in the middle ages, adding 3 acts and taking out 5 acts, it’s no big deal. It’s still a good play – perhaps better, and the play goes on. However, compare that to telling a fundamentalist that 1Tim (or say, the entire NT) is actually a forgery to which parts have since been added and subtracted, and you better run for cover. That’s because in one case the work has always been the work of humans, and in the other case it radically changes from being the supreme God’s divine word into being the simple writings of humans. This applies espeically to the small changes that can change meaning - like changing one word out of 100, so that Jesus is not just a servant of God but is equal to God. That massive difference cannot be overestimated, yet Roger seems to pretend it doesn’t exist. Toto and others have pointed this out.

2. Roger seems to think that pointing out the likelihood of some changes is the same as saying a text is completely unlike it’s original, and hence worthless. This appears to be playing a shell game with problem #1. Saying a text has been significantly changed by humans does make it nearly worthless as a source of the supreme God’s divine word, but is much less important for other ancient texts. Thus Roger assumes the fundamentalist position that the NT is God’s word, sees that the recognition of the changes destroys that position for a perfect God, and then switches this destruction over to the other shell of ancient texts, and claims that they too must be destroyed. Thus he misses the fact that in either case only the claim that the ancient text is God’s word is destroyed (which never existed in modern times for most ancient texts anyway), and claims obscurantism.

3. Roger ignores the fact that some texts have a much greater motive for changes than others. If an ancient person is copying a text of a play by Euripedes, and suspects that a line may have been previously changed, he may guess at what it used to say and attempt to correct it, or he may like the new version better, or not care either way, and leave it. This is as different as can be imagined from the case of divine doctrine, where an error could result in your own writing agony in Hell for the next 50 billion years. If you are copying that, and you see a difference between that and what your preacher is saying (which agrees with a separate letter you’ve copied), you will be powerfully motivated to harmonize them by “correcting” the previous “mistake”. That’s why there is such a huge motivation to change the texts of the Bible by copyists. They may suspect that the letter they have has been corrupted by heretical Christian copyists, and “correct” the mistake, inadvertently adding another change.

4. Roger seems to ignore the massive difference in how the copies that are kept and thus persevered for us to modern times were chosen by history to survive. This is similar to #3. If we start with 95 plays by Euripides, and only 18 survive to modern times, those could well be a representative sample, since there weren’t incredibly strong motivations to preserve some plays and not others. However, contrast this with starting with 20 gospels, all claimed to be written by people in an apostolic succession, and today there are only 4 in our Bibles. These four all happen to agree (likely after changes) with the dominant church that ruled matters of doctrine for over 1000 years. Anyone who thinks that is a coincidence, and that these four are a representative sample of the gospels written by people who were (later) assigned apostolic positions, isn’t looking at the whole picture.

I’m sure there are other issues too, but those seem to be some of the main ones.

Does anyone see major points I’ve missed?

Have fun day-

Equinox

-Jay- · 06-19-2008, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

I’m sure there are other issues too, but those seem to be some of the main ones.

Does anyone see major points I’ve missed?

Good thoughts, Equinox. These points go way beyond just Roger, of course - he just happens to be the voice of them here.

regards,

NinJay

JoeWallack · 06-19-2008, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

I gave my copy back to the guy I borrowed it from. So this was all from memory. The original thread creation was simply regarding whether or not this guy is kosher. Which he seems to be.

But there was quite a long section on just this. In which Christian areas the various formulations were found. It was just an example. There was plenty discrepancies between them due to different sects had different views on what Jesus was, and they changed their Bibles to match, (over time should be added).

But he was clear on that "God why have you forsaken me" is quite a clear Gnostic reference.

Codex Bezae and some Old Latin have mock me instead of forsake me in Mark (not Matthew).

However it is quite clear from Professor Ehrman's discussion on pages 224-225 of Lost Christianities that Ehrman regards forsaken me as the original. His point is that the change in a few later manuscripts from forsake to mock may well be an orthodox response to the way in which Gnostics interpreted the idea of Jesus being forsaken on the cross.

Andrew Criddle

JW:
Why the hell do I always have to do this and as always where the hell is Jeffrey Gibson when you really need him?

The above completely misses Ehrman's point. Even on the referenced "224-225 of Lost Christianities" it misses Ehrman's point, which is best illustrated here:

Lecture Two: Text and Transmission: The Historical Significance of the "Altered" Text

Quote:

"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:
The same Separationist controversy exists at the other end when original "Mark" of 1:10 says the Spirit came "into" Jesus, likewise supporting the Gnostics just as 15:34 does. Proto-orthodox subsequently either mistranslated or Forged "onto" to avoid the original meaning. If "Mark" is theology it clearly is Separationist although the Ironic Contrasting style that all in "Mark" are subject to including Jesus indicates that Vorkosigan is probably right. "Mark" is primarily Literary art, a Greek tragedy, and not primarily Theology or a Greco-Roman biography.

Joseph

SORCERY, n.
The ancient prototype and forerunner of political influence. It was, however, deemed less respectable and sometimes was punished by torture and death. Augustine Nicholas relates that a poor peasant who had been accused of sorcery was put to the torture to compel a confession. After enduring a few gentle agonies the suffering simpleton admitted his guilt, but naively asked his tormentors if it were not possible to be a sorcerer without knowing it.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

06-19-2008, 03:58 AM	#58
Equinox Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 897	Are these some of Roger's main blindspots? I see several main points that most posters seem to recognize, which Roger seems to be blind to (intentionally or unintentionally of course is impossible to say). Some of these are: 1. There is a large difference in the accuracy expectation between many ancient text and that of the NT due to their nature. In other words, if those performing a play by Euripides find out that it was actually written by Critias, and was significantly altered in the middle ages, adding 3 acts and taking out 5 acts, it’s no big deal. It’s still a good play – perhaps better, and the play goes on. However, compare that to telling a fundamentalist that 1Tim (or say, the entire NT) is actually a forgery to which parts have since been added and subtracted, and you better run for cover. That’s because in one case the work has always been the work of humans, and in the other case it radically changes from being the supreme God’s divine word into being the simple writings of humans. This applies espeically to the small changes that can change meaning - like changing one word out of 100, so that Jesus is not just a servant of God but is equal to God. That massive difference cannot be overestimated, yet Roger seems to pretend it doesn’t exist. Toto and others have pointed this out. 2. Roger seems to think that pointing out the likelihood of some changes is the same as saying a text is completely unlike it’s original, and hence worthless. This appears to be playing a shell game with problem #1. Saying a text has been significantly changed by humans does make it nearly worthless as a source of the supreme God’s divine word, but is much less important for other ancient texts. Thus Roger assumes the fundamentalist position that the NT is God’s word, sees that the recognition of the changes destroys that position for a perfect God, and then switches this destruction over to the other shell of ancient texts, and claims that they too must be destroyed. Thus he misses the fact that in either case only the claim that the ancient text is God’s word is destroyed (which never existed in modern times for most ancient texts anyway), and claims obscurantism. 3. Roger ignores the fact that some texts have a much greater motive for changes than others. If an ancient person is copying a text of a play by Euripedes, and suspects that a line may have been previously changed, he may guess at what it used to say and attempt to correct it, or he may like the new version better, or not care either way, and leave it. This is as different as can be imagined from the case of divine doctrine, where an error could result in your own writing agony in Hell for the next 50 billion years. If you are copying that, and you see a difference between that and what your preacher is saying (which agrees with a separate letter you’ve copied), you will be powerfully motivated to harmonize them by “correcting” the previous “mistake”. That’s why there is such a huge motivation to change the texts of the Bible by copyists. They may suspect that the letter they have has been corrupted by heretical Christian copyists, and “correct” the mistake, inadvertently adding another change. 4. Roger seems to ignore the massive difference in how the copies that are kept and thus persevered for us to modern times were chosen by history to survive. This is similar to #3. If we start with 95 plays by Euripides, and only 18 survive to modern times, those could well be a representative sample, since there weren’t incredibly strong motivations to preserve some plays and not others. However, contrast this with starting with 20 gospels, all claimed to be written by people in an apostolic succession, and today there are only 4 in our Bibles. These four all happen to agree (likely after changes) with the dominant church that ruled matters of doctrine for over 1000 years. Anyone who thinks that is a coincidence, and that these four are a representative sample of the gospels written by people who were (later) assigned apostolic positions, isn’t looking at the whole picture. I’m sure there are other issues too, but those seem to be some of the main ones. Does anyone see major points I’ve missed? Have fun day- Equinox

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

06-18-2008, 02:28 PM	#53
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Roger Pearse may not appreciate the mindset of certain American fundamentalists who worship the text of the Bible and ground their faith and their being in a requirement that it be completely inspired and accurate.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.