Amaleq13

I think it is more a case of discouraging notions of "inerrantism" or "literalism" (ie the opposite extreme) though, for those holding such views, there may not be much difference.

Surely the author should not be blamed for selective reading of his work?

Joan of Bark

The difference, Roger, is that no-one claims that all texts from antiquity are the inerrant word of God. This was the main point of Ehrman's book: what is the point of saying that the original manuscripts are inspired, if we don't have the originals? Historians are always sceptical of manuscripts, even those that are contemporary with the events they record. But Bible inerrantists tell us we can take the Bible at its word, without question!

See my point above. Which copy is the "inspired word of God"? (And keep in mind, less than ten of those copies are complete NT manuscripts. Some are the size of credit cards, containing a tiny sampling of the text. Yet there are an average of 35 errors in each manuscript [using the conservative figure of 200,000 discrepencies])

Roger Pearse

Certainly that is his motive; but the consequence seems to be obscurantism.

Well, I understand to some extent. But an author is responsible for the conclusions that are drawn from his work by ordinary people, if he takes no measures to ensure that they do not draw those conclusions, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

But doesn't this introduce an irrelevant theological motive into the discussion?

Surely the question is a simple one; do we, or do we not, have the books written in antiquity? The answer does not depend on their contents, but on how they are transmitted. The methods of transmission are more or less common, and the answer overwhelmingly is 'yes'.

Whether those books are inspired by God or not (or indeed whether any author was right in what he wrote) is a *separate* discussion, and involves statements about God, His action, abilities, motives etc. I have yet to see anyone discussing these things clearly work out what their theological presumptions are, or offer evidence that they are correct; mostly they simply presume things without discussion. If someone wants to talk about inspiration by God, I expect to see some evidence that they are correctly informed by God on these subjects. (I would, of course, accept the opinion of anyone able to miraculously deposit $2m in my bank account).

Unless I misunderstand, this confuses the idea of a manuscript (hand-written copy of a text) with what it contains (a text).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

-Jay-

When I read Ehrman's book, I felt it was quite clear. Have you read it? If you have, and felt it wasn't clear, that might make for an interesting discussion.

As it is, though, it looks like you may be drawing conclusions about a book you may not have read, based on Joan's comments.

Joan's comments were at a very high level, and she simply pointed out what was stated in Ehrman's book. I don't think most readers would base their opinion of Ehrman's position on Joan's brief comments alone.

regards,

NinJay

Roger Pearse

I'm sorry but we seem to be at cross-purposes. I merely commented on what the effect of Ehrman's book is -- to create obscurantism. This is evidenced by Joan's post.

In view of the effect that Ehrman's book has on those who read it, I have never felt any urge to do the same.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

-Jay-

In the interest of not derailing the thread further (which is a digression from a split, anyway...), I agree to disagree. Fair enough?

regards,

NinJay

Joan of Bark

I recommend you read it, Roger.

Ehrman got into textual criticism because he was a devout Christian who believed the Bible to be the inspired word of God. After studying at a couple of prestigious theological colleges, he became skeptical of the Bible's veracity, and then (for other reasons), became an agnostic. He concluded that the Bible(s) we have are too far removed from the original manuscripts to be accurate. Our copies have been altered as a result of honest mistakes and religious biases, which casts doubt on much of what Jesus taught. He never claims that we 'can't know anything', but in the case of scripture, the devil is in the details -- and they're murky at best.

Roger Pearse

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I don't feel that you engaged with what I wrote. As I said, if the above, then the same applies far more so to all classical literature. Such an argument is equivalent to obscurantism. Please, think about this for a moment. I'm not being rude here, but I don't get the impression that you've picked up what I'm saying.

Do we have any real interest in the curious spectacle of a man who is paid to restore old texts pretending in public that they're all rubbish (if that is what he is doing), for religious reasons?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Joan of Bark

HE DOES NOT SAY THEY ARE RUBBISH! Why are you using such extreme language? And why would you say he's pretending ... and doing so for religious reasons? Other posters on this board who are familiar with Ehrman claim that his statements are in line with other textual critics' views. Anyway, I'll refer you to Misquoting Jesus for all the details.

As for other old texts, I'm sure historians take them all with a grain of salt when they are far removed from the original manuscripts. The difference here is that while only historians and history buffs care about differences in secular texts (was Agamemnon really the king who stormed Troy? Most people would say, "who cares?"), believers in the Bible feel the words of Jesus should be followed in modern life ... which means we need to know exactly what he said. The devil is in the details. Did He say that divorce should never occur -- or that unchastity is the one exception? Different manuscripts have different texts; which one is correct?