Roger Pearse

I suspect that Ehrman is much too wary to make such an assertion. The fathers, at any rate, tell us different.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

2-J

That is quite false.

The ideas in Cicero would not come crashing down if they were revealed to be a fabrication from the Middle Ages.

Most of the important ideas in the Bible would, on the other hand.

-Jay-

Yes, Roger. I'm pretty sure - I asked him the question myself and got a direct response from him. I've posted that response in another thread, which you acknowledged in the original thread.

Ehrman's position that, given material that was exclusively hand-copied for centuries, and given that hand-copying has known and understood issues vis-a-vis fidelity of transmission, the conclusion that absent the originals, we can't say with certainty what those originals said shouldn't be controversial in the least. It's certainly not "obscurantism".

regards,

NinJay

Yellum Notnef

To enjoy their vices? WTF? Is this a serious discussion or a sermon?

It's comments like this that Roger throws in that make it clear (to me at least) that Roger believes what he believes simply because he's afraid of the bogeyman.

thedistillers

I don't understand the obscurantism charge... It is a fact that we don't know with certainty what the original documents said. How is it obscurantism?

It seems it's all-or-nothing for Roger Pearse...

DrZoidberg

But the ideas of early philosophers are completely different than religious texts. They speak to our reason. We can think for ourselves whether or not its true or not. Powerful ideas.

The Bible on the other hand.... since its religion... doesn't have the same luxury. There's nothing we can work out. It's all stuff that we have to simply accept as is. So the original words become extremely important, in a way they aren't for Aristotle or Cicero. The same idea can be formulated in different ways. That just doesn't work for Christianity.

Roger Pearse

I had forgotten; but glad to see the back-up -- thank you. Not quite sure that Ehrman is adopting the position you have in mind, but the more limited one that we don't have photocopies of the originals, so to speak. Whether the originals said 'ac' or 'et' or 'atque' is a matter of little moment. But if he is saying that the content of the text has not reached us, in any important sense, I demur.

I'm afraid that obscurantism is definitely what is being peddled here, or at least received here. Any position that ancient texts are unknowable is ill-educated nonsense, and, if advanced by those paid to heal the damage of transmission, then those people bite the hand that feeds them.

Still, let the foolish folk burn the books, metaphorically, if they wish! -- The citizens of the Republic of Letters will do as they have always done; treasure what the classics have to say, and look through the eyes of the ancients onto a world not so different to our own in some ways.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

The content of the text transmitted isn't really important, because almost all ancient literary texts are transmitted the same way, by copying, and by the same people. What is written on those pages is not really important, and the process is the same.

Incidentally ancient philosophy included a great many things not considered philosophy today. Much of it was merely pop paganism.

I would hope so. The Penguin translation of Plato's Republic by Desmond Lee seems excellent to me. Cicero On duties has much to say. If we can think for ourselves, in a media-drenched age, they will help us do so.

This is to introduce a *theological* idea. It's a mistake to confuse the simple historical details of how books reach us with theological preconceptions of what 'must' happen.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

thedistillers

The position is that we can't know with certainty what the original said. Why are you dodging the issue by reformulating the position into something stronger? (Like that ancient texts are "unknowable".)

The accusation of obscurantism is unwarranted, as Ehrman only states facts. One of those facts is that we can't say with certainty what the originals said. If you disagree, then let us know what methodology you use to conclude that we can know with certainty what the originals said. I am eagerly waiting.

Solitary Man

Seriously? Have you read Cicero?