-Jay-

It isn't obscurantism at all.

Roger makes the claim (rightly so, in my opinion) that the reasons for stating that we can't state with certainty what the books of the Bible originally said, necessarily raise the same issues with any other ancient text.

I personally don't find that conclusion interesting, or even remarkable. The works, as we have them today, have whatever value they have (socially, intellectually, theologically, whatever) in the form that we have them. They are what they are. Because we don't have the original doesn't mean that what we do have is worthless.

Ehrman, in my opinion, is pretty clear on how far one can extend his conclusions. So far as I know he doesn't state anywhere that we can't get a reasonable idea of what the earliest manuscripts might have said. What he does say is that we can't know exactly. He also points out observable differences in extant texts that indicate both inadvertent alterations and deliberate tampering, that cement the case against the notion of unaltered transmission of the texts. While I suppose that someone could read Ehrman and overstate his position on things, I've not personally met anyone who has read his works and failed to miss the obvious limitations he places on his conclusions.

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

He freely states that the vast majority of discrepancies observed between mss are trivial, but some represent significant alterations. I suppose how significant those alterations are depends largely on how central the issues in question are to one's personal orthodoxy. That's probably a discussion for a different thread, though.

regards,

NinJay

Roger Pearse

I think he means the philosophical works, and of course such things tend to be timeless. But it wouldn't apply to most of his works.

To take one work which I much like, the Ad familiares letters discussing the aftermath of the murder of Caesar would lose all value and interest, were they not authentic. The portrait of relationships between the men of the late Republic likewise.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

perfectidius

[QUOTE=Roger Pearse;5397330]
Might there be a difference between establishing the degree of authority a book has as an original transcription, and regarding it as "unknowable" on another. For this particular book--the small library of letters and gospels in the NT, is for many a source of authority on many levels. I know of people who think God not only inspired the original, but also the KJV, and that the KJV is the truest testament to God's intent.

We know that many ancient texts are to a degree unreliable. The Bible is one of them.

Daniel

Roger Pearse

I'm trying to find something which makes the point explicit. I have an idea that the "we don't know what the original said" contains an insinuation. As stated, it obviously false. But if you reject my rephrasing, can you tell me how, in practical terms, the two differ?

Obscurantism is the purpose of all this; to dispose of one ancient text, by arguments that, if true, would dispose of them all.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

If he is right about biblical mss, no doubt all the other texts are even more corrupt. I wonder if the classicists agree? Somehow I think they would boot Dr E. into next week.

From what you say, it seems clear that Ehrman is constructing his position with a *theological* purpose; to undermine the authority of the bible, by insinuating various theological propositions. But I'm afraid that I don't believe that textual criticism can be used to demonstrate theological propositions. It's supposed to be about *texts*, their corruptions and how to heal them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

thedistillers

The difference between "ancient texts are unknowable" and "we can't know with certainty what the originals said" is important enough that I don't need to explain how the two differs. The first one is a disputable assertion, the second one is a trivial fact.

And why would a trivial fact about ancient texts would lead us to dispose them? Why would we have to burn them metaphorically? Why would we have to throw them away? I'm not following you. :huh: It seems for you either we have to fully trust whatever ancient texts we've got (that they fully report what the originals said), or we have to throw all ancient texts away.

DrZoidberg

Christianity isn't one thing. It's a whole host of beliefs and practices. They make scientific claims. Things like God, heaven and angels. Since nobody has ever argued for any of this, it has to be accepted blindly. Sure, it's an idea. But it's not rational ideas. We can't go, "ok, now I get it". We either accept it whole-sale or it's just nonsense. I'd argue that the original words and formulations are critical.

The philosophical discussions of, "love your enemy", and "he without sin throw the first stone" is a second debate. But these ideas are irrelevant if we don't first accept the scientific claims.

The only argument Christianity makes for following Gods law is getting into heaven. Its never for its own sake, which would be the type of discussions Cicero and Plato was leading. Which brings us back to my first argument in this post.

-Jay-

Roger:

Please provide your rationale for this statement, particularly the "more" part, and then please provide your explanation for the variety of the biblical mss that we see, and your assessment of their significance.

Your position looks like nothing so much as erudite special pleading.

regards,

NinJay

2-J

I was thinking mainly of the philosophy (but not exclusively the philosophical works, as I'll explain) for this reason: Roger made the claim that the foundations of western civilisation depend on holding certain things we find in Cicero, and by other ancient authors, to be true.

I agree to the extent that the philosophical / ethical / political theoretical notions that find their root in such text do in a certain sense form the basis for the modern world. But I completely reject the idea that the foundations of the modern world require considering particular historical facts to be true. to the extent that the Ad familiares letters touch on general themes that is to the extent to which they may have informed the outlook of the modern world. Thus, the issue of the corruption of the texts is not critical.

In other words, it doesn't *really* matter if classical texts are corrupt. But it does *really* matter to Christians, if biblical texts are corrupt.