judge

Interesting. Are you able to tell me which manuscripts have "God why do you mock me"?

Thanks.

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.

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.

As examples of *books*, the bible and the classics are indistinguishable. If the argument is that Christians require a different manner of transmission from every other text, then that is not so. Bibles are printed normally, for instance.

Underlying all this are some ideas about inspiration of the text; these are *theological*, and it is a great mistake to confuse this with issues of transmission. Since the ancients knew very well of the problems of transmission, but did not consider this a barrier for theological purposes, the whole argument is certainly misconceived, and probably involves a squad of straw men.

I'd like people to stop finding theological reasons to pretend that we don't have what ancient authors wrote. It's a bit pointless at best, and obscurantist at worst. We certainly have what L. Ron Hubbard wrote. No doubt Bart Ehrman would doubtless disagree, pointing to typos etc! But much as we miss L. Ron -- well, *I* miss such a palpable crook as L. Ron! -- we have no doubts as to what he wanted to say to us. (Something along the lines of "all your money belongs to me.") So it is with the ancients... all of the ancients.

Those precious words that have survived, let us not pretend that they have not. Let's not pretend that "we don't know what the original looked like" as the weasel wording was.

An example; Tertullian's Ad Nationes exists only in a single 9th century manuscript, the codex Agobardinus (codex Parisinus Latinus 1622). But this is badly damaged; the back half is lost, and several of his works with it, and the margins of the parchment rotted, and it and part of the text were cut off in the portion where Ad Nationes is. Look at a Latin text, and you will see lots of dots printed, where letters are missing. But look at an English translation, and there are no such spaces. Why? Because the letters form part of words, words part of sentences, sentences part of paragraphs, and all of it part of a chain of thought.

That is, we have the text, we have what Tertullian wanted to say, even though it exists only in a single damaged 9th century ms, even though parts of it do not physically exist for us to read! Surely only a fool would find excuses to throw it back into the darkness? By comparison we have some little man at a US university, bitching for personal religious reasons about a text preserved in 5,000 (!) mss, including many ancient codices, more than for any other text in the world?

I hope this explains why I find, as someone not specially interested in biblical texts, the whole position surreal at best and obscurantist at worst.

It's a false argument for atheists to make. Whether or not Christianity is true, it is not false on the grounds that "history is bunk." And that is very like the position being advanced, with ever so many qualifications, here. To advance such an argument merely discredits him advancing it. IMHO, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

2-J

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.

thedistillers

Your last message shows once again its all-or-nothing for you. :huh: I guess for some people, seeing the world in black & white is comforting and shades of gray are threatening.

This is just pathetic. I see insecurity behind that kind of comment.

Huon

Luke 23,46. And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT." Having said this, He breathed His last.

Psalms 31,5. Into Your hand I commit my spirit;

Another version.

andrewcriddle

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

mens_sana

That's more than a little shrill, Roger. And outside the deliberate changes in the text, as elaborated in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Ehrman has few (if any) objections to the eclectic text we work with generally. I should point out that while the 1st edition of The Text of the New Testament is by Bruce Metzger, the 2nd edition (or via: amazon.co.uk) is by Metzger AND Ehrman — and is very unlikely to have been published without Metzger's "blessing."

Agreed!

I hope "the position being advanced [here]" is what you meant. Ehrman at no point advances that argument. Regarding the "IMHO": nice touch, but I don't believe a letter of it.

Roger Pearse

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

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I do not pretend to know his motives, and the title of his book might seem deliberately provocative, but is Ehrman not writing of known textual variants in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, trying to assess the reasons for their being there?

Do you think he wishes to throw the entire NT back into the darkness? (Great phrase, BTW.)

Ben.