Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ChristMyth · 04-13-2008, 11:11 AM

I have been looking through the library for the rebuttal of the argument that just because there is an abundance of ms compared to other ancient documents, that this makes the text reliable (i.e. there are x number of ms of the Illad, x number of Plato, and no one doubts there authorship, therefore the text of the NT are reliable). I know it was there at one time, but I cannot seem to find it. Can anybody give me a quick hand?

Thanks

Christmyth

ImaAtheistNow · 04-13-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

I have been looking through the library for the rebuttal of the argument that just because there is an abundance of ms compared to other ancient documents, that this makes the text reliable (i.e. there are x number of ms of the Illad, x number of Plato, and no one doubts there authorship, therefore the text of the NT are reliable). I know it was there at one time, but I cannot seem to find it. Can anybody give me a quick hand?

Thanks

Christmyth

Do you have Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005)?

If so, see if the "Our Current Situation", starting on page 88, helps.

Doug Shaver · 04-14-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

(i.e. there are x number of ms of the Illad, x number of Plato, and no one doubts there authorship

Bullcrap. Many historians think the true author of the Iliad is unknown. Some of them even doubt Homer's historicity. As for Plato, several documents attributed to him are considered doubtful.

general_koffi · 04-14-2008, 09:09 AM

Is the Iliad really a great document to point to? Isn't it a poem full of Greek mythology?

ChristMyth · 04-14-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

(i.e. there are x number of ms of the Illad, x number of Plato, and no one doubts there authorship

Bullcrap. Many historians think the true author of the Iliad is unknown. Some of them even doubt Homer's historicity. As for Plato, several documents attributed to him are considered doubtful.

I agree that its a really bad argument that doesn't reach the conclusion that it pretends to and I could probably come up with a rebuttal on my own. However, since I have no credentials to back up my arguments, I was looking for a source that might know more than I that could be quoted. As I stated, I believe I had once read something in the library about it but have been unable to find it again.

I will say that I am a little dismayed at the lack of help so far. Out of all the people on this board, only one person has offered any information. I'm not asking people to go and hunt it up for me, only if they remember where it might have been covered, if at all, and point me in the correct direction. If it hasn't been covered by an article in the library, then just letting me know would be of great help.

Christmyth

Toto · 04-14-2008, 07:25 PM

Perhaps you read it in a thread in the BCH forum, where people who know about this hang out?

Like this one?

-Jay- · 04-14-2008, 07:46 PM

It's been said, but Bart Ehrman's works are excellent resources for this sort if question.

The overarching problem is that copying fidelity (when your mode of copying is people hand copying a document on the table in front of them) is a dicey matter.

Essentially, every time a document is hand copied, errors are introduced. The next time the document is copied, that copy introduces errors on top of errors that are already there. Some of those errors may be attempted corrections.

Now, there are a variety of techniques that textual scholars can use to group the extant mss into families, but the fact remains that among our extant mss, there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of variations. Furthermore, since we don't have any extant mss older than around 150 CE (The Rylands Library Papyurs - P52), we don't have any way of saying with any certainty what the original documents said.

When you start to think about it, having many, many mss gives you good reasons to question the reliability of the extant material.

regards,

NinJay

-Jay- · 04-14-2008, 07:57 PM

Incidentally, a couple of months ago, in a discussion external to IIDB, the claim was made that the NT as we know it is "99.5%" accurate. The claimant made some vague attributions back to Bart Ehrman and/or the late Bruce Metzger. Seeing as how Dr. Metzger was in no position to address the issue, I made inquiry of Dr. Ehrman. His reply is below:

Quote:

Thanks for your note. No, to my *knowledge* I have never indicated that
we have been able to reconstruct the originals with 99.5% accuracy. That's
certainly not something I believe. I don't recall Prof. Metzger every
putting a statistic on our efforts either, though I haven't checked all his
writings (In the eight years I studied with him, I don't recall him ever
saying such a thing.)

The reason such statistical certainty is impossible is that one would
need to have the originals themselves to see whether our reconstruction is
99.5% correct in relation to them. Without the originals as a base text,
there is no way to know.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Paul writes his letter to the
Galatians. The first church (in the region of Galatia) that receives it
decides to have someone make a copy. That person is not a trained scribe,
just a literate Christian, and he doesn't do a very good job (remember, I'm
just speaking *hypothetically* here! But why *couldn't* this be possible?).
He leaves out some words, he adds some words, he corrects the grammar, he
adds a few thoughts of his own -- these things happen! Suppose, then, that
he changes something like 10% of the letter in one way or another. And
suppose the original was destroyed in a fire, so that all subsequent copies
are made from this one copy that is 10% different from the original. How
would we ever know that this is what happened? We'd have absolutely no way
to know -- all of our subsequent copies would go back to this one copy,
which was off by 10%. So even if we could reconstruct the exemplar from
which all surviving copies derive with 99.5% certainty (which I doubt), we
would be reconstructing an "original" that was in fact 10% removed from the
*real* original.

There are hundreds of such possibilities that could be imagined. We
simply don't know what the original looked like -- in some places that we
know we don't know (since scholars regularly debate dozens and dozens of
places) and probably in places where we don't know (since the oldest form of
the text may itself be a change of the original text). People who want to
put a statistic to it do so because they are afraid of the implications of
not knowing. But fear is not a historical criterion.

Yes, feel free to post my response as you wish. Thanks again for the
question. Best wishes,

-- Bart Ehrman

I add this just to head off the inevitable 99.5% claim that somebody will throw out at some point.

regards,

NinJay

-Jay- · 04-14-2008, 08:02 PM

This would probably get better exposure in BC&H. Hold on - going up...

regards,

NinJay
GRD Mod

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-14-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Bullcrap. Many historians think the true author of the Iliad is unknown. Some of them even doubt Homer's historicity. As for Plato, several documents attributed to him are considered doubtful.

I agree that its a really bad argument that doesn't reach the conclusion that it pretends to and I could probably come up with a rebuttal on my own. However, since I have no credentials to back up my arguments, I was looking for a source that might know more than I that could be quoted. As I stated, I believe I had once read something in the library about it but have been unable to find it again.

I will say that I am a little dismayed at the lack of help so far. Out of all the people on this board, only one person has offered any information. I'm not asking people to go and hunt it up for me, only if they remember where it might have been covered, if at all, and point me in the correct direction. If it hasn't been covered by an article in the library, then just letting me know would be of great help.

Christmyth

You all seem to be confusing a text critical argument that we can be fairly certain that we know what the NT writers actually said with an non text critical argument that claims that what they said is true.

No amount of MSS evidence can ever guarantee, let alone prove, the truth of what is said in the text that is established by it.

Jeffrey

04-13-2008, 11:11 AM	#1
ChristMyth Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: US Posts: 1,055	A bit of help - question about NT reliability I have been looking through the library for the rebuttal of the argument that just because there is an abundance of ms compared to other ancient documents, that this makes the text reliable (i.e. there are x number of ms of the Illad, x number of Plato, and no one doubts there authorship, therefore the text of the NT are reliable). I know it was there at one time, but I cannot seem to find it. Can anybody give me a quick hand? Thanks Christmyth

04-14-2008, 08:02 PM	#9
-Jay- Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Eastern U.S. Posts: 4,157	Mod Note This would probably get better exposure in BC&H. Hold on - going up... regards, NinJay GRD Mod

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

04-14-2008, 09:09 AM	#4
general_koffi Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa Posts: 10,887	Is the Iliad really a great document to point to? Isn't it a poem full of Greek mythology?

04-14-2008, 07:25 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Perhaps you read it in a thread in the BCH forum, where people who know about this hang out? Like this one?

04-14-2008, 07:46 PM	#7
-Jay- Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Eastern U.S. Posts: 4,157	It's been said, but Bart Ehrman's works are excellent resources for this sort if question. The overarching problem is that copying fidelity (when your mode of copying is people hand copying a document on the table in front of them) is a dicey matter. Essentially, every time a document is hand copied, errors are introduced. The next time the document is copied, that copy introduces errors on top of errors that are already there. Some of those errors may be attempted corrections. Now, there are a variety of techniques that textual scholars can use to group the extant mss into families, but the fact remains that among our extant mss, there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of variations. Furthermore, since we don't have any extant mss older than around 150 CE (The Rylands Library Papyurs - P52), we don't have any way of saying with any certainty what the original documents said. When you start to think about it, having many, many mss gives you good reasons to question the reliability of the extant material. regards, NinJay

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.