Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-08-2007, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

As long as you understand multiple compositional theory, aka the documentary hypothesis, and the late dating for the texts, Jewish or Christian, then you can rest assured that you have reasonably the same as the "originals", but that in itself is understanding what scholars mean by "originals".

What specifically are you worrying about?

Me? I'm not worried about too much in the Bible.

However Johnny Skeptic kept raising, imo, ridiculous objections about not having certainty about any passage of the Bible because we don't have the original autographs anymore.

He was asking me to prove the Adam and Eve story was in the "original" text. Then when I started using Bible passages to support my arguments about the Christian God all of a sudden I couldn't use Bible passages because I couldn't prove they were part of the originals.

But that didn't stop him from using Biblical passages to condemn God.

But there you go.

Admitedly, if that is what he was doing then I think it was unfair. I've not paid close enough attention to his arguments so I don't know one way or another, but my curiosity was peaked when you made the statement about the consensus.

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-08-2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

2. I think Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture describes some of the errors in the OP's assertion.

I'm reading that book currently and that is one reason the OP sounded a little off to me.

Riverwind · 06-08-2007, 06:49 AM

Ehrman has broken with "consensus". He has been heavily criticized by fellow scholars for mischaracterizing textual criticism for laymen.

I have no problem with others reading Ehrman, but I suggest that the criticisms of his work also be read so that one does not have a lop-sided view of textual criticism.

Chris Weimer · 06-08-2007, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

However Johnny Skeptic kept raising, imo, ridiculous objections about not having certainty about any passage of the Bible because we don't have the original autographs anymore.

It would help to point out that we don't have the original autographs for any ancient text.

Quote:

He was asking me to prove the Adam and Eve story was in the "original" text. Then when I started using Bible passages to support my arguments about the Christian God all of a sudden I couldn't use Bible passages because I couldn't prove they were part of the originals.

But that didn't stop him from using Biblical passages to condemn God.

But there you go.

Yes, that is a sad hypocrisy.

Now, admittedly, we don't have the original-original texts, the proto-texts, that came before our current canon. But even Erhman's objection, if I understand him correctly, is that while minimal parts of the NT canon are dubious in origin, overall the text's understanding is mostly secure.

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-08-2007, 07:04 AM

Well ksen, perhaps I will learn something new in this thread as well.

ksen · 06-08-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Well ksen, perhaps I will learn something new in this thread as well.

That'll make two of us.

I'm glad you started this thread.

ksen · 06-08-2007, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

2. I think Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture describes some of the errors in the OP's assertion.

I'm reading that book currently and that is one reason the OP sounded a little off to me.

I read the first couple of chapters of that book and I couldn't stomach it.

Admittedly though that was during my seminary studies and I was in a different place back then.

Currently I'm in the midst of shedding my Baptist "clothing" and reexaming a bunch of things so maybe Ehrman wouldn't make me physically ill any longer to read him.

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-08-2007, 08:37 AM

So am I hearing correctly that one can have assurance that the text that we have today is reasonably close to what the original authors wrote?

Chris Weimer · 06-08-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

So am I hearing correctly that one can have assurance that the text that we have today is reasonably close to what the original authors wrote?

It also depends on which book as well. We're more secure of the contents of 2 Peter than of Romans. Much of it is conjectural, but perhaps the objection is that the text we have is a 2nd century text, not the "original" Paul. It'd be easier to look at specific examples than hypotheticals.

Toto · 06-08-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Ehrman has broken with "consensus". He has been heavily criticized by fellow scholars for mischaracterizing textual criticism for laymen.

I have no problem with others reading Ehrman, but I suggest that the criticisms of his work also be read so that one does not have a lop-sided view of textual criticism.

AFAIK, these criticisms come from evangelicals who object to any attempt to discredit the authority of scripture, not secular or liberal Christians.

But feel free to link to some of these criticisms.

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

06-08-2007, 06:49 AM	#13
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	Ehrman has broken with "consensus". He has been heavily criticized by fellow scholars for mischaracterizing textual criticism for laymen. I have no problem with others reading Ehrman, but I suggest that the criticisms of his work also be read so that one does not have a lop-sided view of textual criticism.

06-08-2007, 07:04 AM	#15
Jedi Mind Trick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianaplolis Posts: 4,998	Well ksen, perhaps I will learn something new in this thread as well.

06-08-2007, 08:37 AM	#18
Jedi Mind Trick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianaplolis Posts: 4,998	So am I hearing correctly that one can have assurance that the text that we have today is reasonably close to what the original authors wrote?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.