Iz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In virtually every case, Ehrman confidently
> explains what the change was, what the earlier
> manuscript actually said, and what motivated the
> copyist.
This isn't exactly honest - Ehrman shows what EARLIER manuscripts said - not what the ORIGINAL manuscript said. You would be begging the question to assume that the earlier manuscripts were not similarly altered.
> This might explain why there are many textual
> critics who are committed Christians with an
> evangelical view of Scripture.
Not at all - it's the 'committed christian' part that explains it.
> We don't have the autograph, or original copy of
> any New Testament document. But then, we don't
> have the autographs of any significant ancient
> writings, such as the works of Aristotle, or
> Plato, or Greek historians such as Thucydides or
> Suetonius.
Right...?
I'm sorry, but the question isn't whether or not there were Christians. The question was about the trustworthiness of the documents. Let's suppose that the works of Aristotle were changed significantly - it wouldn't matter at all in regards to the treatment of the philosophy he subscribes to in those documents, since it's the philosophy itself that is what is important.
The same isn't true for the bible, ergo your comparison fails miserably.
> Furthermore, in the case of those last-mentioned
> authors, the gap between the date of writing and
> the earliest extant copy is quite large - 700 to
> 1300 years (see table here:
>
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.ht
> ml) - and the number of copies is small (less than
> 100, sometimes less than a dozen (
>
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/WHYIBE~1.pdf
> )).
>
> By comparison, the gap between the date of
> authorship of the New Testament manuscripts and
> the earliest extant copy is relatively small -
> about 250 years in the case of the Codex
> Sinaiticus (circa 350 AD) and the Codex Vaticanus
> (same), which are, respectively, complete and
> nearly complete copies of the NT.
This is an argument similar to Josh McDowell and it is equally irrelevant. If we had a million copies of the Illiad, does that mean that the gods actually intervened in the Trojan War?
Ie, number of copies and the time period of the earliest copy are largely irrelevant to whether the documents contain actual history.
> Importantly, significant portions of the New
> Testament are found in much earlier manuscripts,
> such as the Chester Beatty papyri, which dates to
> 200 AD (Pauline epistles), and 250 AD (the Gospels
> and Acts), thus narrowing the gap to some 100-150
> years.
"Significant" meaning scraps. Further, look at the legends that have sprung up about the Bunnyman - and that was within 30 years, in an age of modern technology, no less!
> Indeed, even Ehrman has gone so far as to say: "If
> you're asking are there passages where I am just
> virtually certain we know what the author wrote,
> then the answer is yes. Most passages we're
> pretty sure what the author wrote. We might be
> wrong, so I'd say the certainty is probably at
> 99%. But there are lots and lots of passages like
> that... In many cases, yes of course we know,
> even know pretty much exactly what the text said."
> (Jan. 10, 2006 interview with Bart Ehrman on
> Issues, Etc., hour 3 starting at @ 10:00;
> available for download here:
>
http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_01_10_06.htm).
I wasn't aware that anyone made the claim that every passage in the bible was copied wrong. Who made that claim?
I'm going to skip a lot of the Constantine stuff as I don't really disagree.
> Well, that depends on how you define "inerrant"
> for purposes of this theological question. It's
> not something that really interests me and so I
> haven't made a study of it, but I know that among
> those who take the subject of inerrancy seriously,
> many would exclude scribal errors, which most or
> all of Ehrman's objections can at least arguably
> be reduced to.
No, not most or all - that's ridiculous on the face of it, since you can't combine all four gospels to provide a coherent error free reading of what happened after Jesus was crucified (among other contradictory passages).
> On the other hand, perceived or actual
> contradictions in the text - such as the one
> pointed out by Mephisto in his first post - are a
> different matter. All inerrantists would say the
> Bible is without contradiction, and they would
> have different ways of tackling perceived
> contradictions such as the one Mephisto cites.
The tackling of those contradictions would result in mental gymnastics and most likely outright dishonesty - cognitive dissonance.
> Some of the extra-biblical evidence for Jesus'
> existence includes the writings of Pliny,
> Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus, the Talmud,
> second-century Christian texts, and early gnostic
> works such as The Gospel of Thomas.
None of those are contemporaneous, and most of those are about what Christians themselves believed.
> Of course in addition to this, there is the
> witness of the New Testament itself, about which,
> for example, the secular historian Will Durant
> (variously an atheist or agnostic during his adult
> life) had this to say:
The Gospels are not written as a history book, that is obvious. It is written as religious narrative was written back in those days. If you think it is supposed to be history, then explain how we know the 'private' moments of Jesus, of Pontious Pilate, of when he was on the cross and all that. As another example, take the story of "barabbas". There is no history of prisoners being released by Romans on passover. Check it out:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_Barabbas_in_the_bible
"Richard Carrier points out that Barabbas means "son of the father" and says that it is an obvious pun on Christ himself. The Jews chose the wrong "son of the father", one who represents the Old Covenant, as well as the scapegoat (the lamb) sent off, bearing the people's sins into the wilderness, while its twin is sacrificed (Lev. 16:8-10, 23:27-32, Heb. 8-9). "
For better source material, I suggest Carrier's work over the other two.
> Despite the prejudices and theological
> preconceptions of the evangelists, they record
> many incidents that mere inventors would have
> concealed: the competition of the apostles for
> high places in the Kingdom, their flight after
> Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of
> Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references
> of some auditors to his possible insanity, his
> early uncertainty as to his mission, his
> confessions of ignorance as to the future, his
> moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the
> cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the
> reality of the figure behind them.
As Richard Carrier states numerously, the Gospels were about the reversal of expectations. They were about showing the gap between man and the divine - which is why the disciples 'never got it'.
> That a few simple men should in one generation
> have invented so powerful and appealing a
> personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a
> vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle
> far more incredible than any recorded in the
> Gospel.
1. This didn't occur over 'one generation'. There were several decades for this to develop. The stories weren't really unique either (ex.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/preposterous.html#unique)
2. The earliest Christians (ie, Paul's ilk) didn't mention much of Jesus's life at all.
3. Dying and rising savior gods were common, as were Jewish apocalyptic cults.
4. Scientology was invented in less time then Christianity and it's followers feel pretty much the same way about it as you do about Christianity.
In other words, it's completely possible (and sadly common) for this new religion to take root.
> In sum, "the historicity of Jesus is accepted by
> almost all Biblical scholars and classical
> historians."
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#
> Jesus_as_a_historical_person
This is true, that most scholars think there was a historical core. Most scholars also believe that we cannot actually know much at all about this historical core due to the massive theological framework, allegory, myth, etc, that has been added to it.
> You're right about faith, and I hear where you're
> coming from. In brief, I think there are sound
> reasons to have faith -- and yet, you certainly
> can't "prove" Christianity like a mathematical
> proof.
What are these reasons?
> But on the other hand, in my view, it's
> not irrational to have faith (some reasons for why
> I think so are touched on above). And too, faith
> is a gift; facts, evidence, human reason (which
> is, I believe, also a gift from God) can provide a
> foundation, but to truly believe, with conviction,
> is a gift of God's grace -- for which you can
> indeed pray, even if it's a conditional prayer,
> i.e., even if you're not particularly sure there's
> a God out there to hear your prayer, you can still
> ask that God - who may or may not exist - to
> reveal himself to you. And I would encourage you
> to make that prayer.
Fair enough - but keep in mind what you consider a gift others consider an oppressive system to denigrate mankind. This, by the way, is not entirely the fault of the religious documents, as it is the unfortunate way of mankind...
> Regarding Paul, it's just my opinion, shared by
> some but certainly not all, that he was a genius.
> I don't put too many people in that category -
> Shakespeare, Mozart, Picasso, a handful of others
> (I'm more interested in the arts than the
> sciences). I trust Paul. That's obviously a
> highly subjective opinion. But he has a living,
> human voice that speaks to me - in the same way
> any great writer speaks to me - a voice that comes
> alive in my mind in an authentic and profound
> way.
Paul was a very smart man. I see him in the same way that I see Mohammad (sp?), L Ron Hubbard, and the like.
> I recall sitting in church in my early 20s, and
> looking at the crucifix above the altar with a
> sad, profound realization that Christianity was a
> myth. I was sad because I knew my loss of faith
> would make my parents sad. But there it was -- I
> knew it was false, a beautiful story, perhaps, but
> just a story, a myth. And yet, I made a
> conditional prayer, to the God whom I really
> wasn't sure existed -- reveal yourself to me, if
> you are out there. If Christianity is not a myth,
> let me see that, let me understand that. The
> response to this prayer: nothing.
I wonder what your opinions of it would have been had you grown up a Hindu.
> But it was much older than that. He tells us that
> he received it when he was converted, which was at
> least fifteen years earlier (see Galatians 1:18,
> 2:1). We are getting back perilously close to the
> resurrection itself if we are forced to place
> Paul's conversion somewhere in the mid-30s AD.
You are begging the question that 1 Corinthians 15 refers to a physical resurrection. There are good arguments to suggest that it was a spiritual one.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/friedman1.html
Further, no one doubts that Christianity (or I should say, very few doubt) started somewhere in the 20's-30's. The question regards the historical core.
> There's not much chance for legend and
> embellishment to have crept in here.
Why is this? This sort of legendary development is common in history and can happen quickly. Let's look at another Jewish Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi
He did miracles, claimed to be the messiah, was forced to convert and was still viewed by some rabid followers as the Messiah!
All within his lifetime. He still has followers today, BTW. Check out the Price-Boyd debate:
http://www.christianorigins.com/priceboyd.html
"If the apologists are right, then similar figures should be free of legendary development for a good forty years or so. Sabbatai Zevi figured in an apocalyptic fervor in the 1660s. The events are more accessible and documented because they are closer to our era, and thus we know that the "Messiah" renounced Judaism and converted to Islam. According to a tired quote from A. N. Sherwin-White, legend should wait two generations. But in the case of Sabbatai Zevi, thre was a "sudden and almost explosive" growth of miracle stories in a matter of weeks. Fiction far outweighed facts. In December 1665, Zevi commanded fire to appear and walked through fire unaffected. Zevi raised the dead and killed highwaymen with his words.
Moreover, it is not difficult to explain the growth of legends around the figure of Jesus. As Strauss pointed out long ago, the material in the New Testament is based on stories from the Old Testament. Materials were at hand.
Yahuda was made out to be a Messiah. Simon Ninkomba became a living legend against his wishes. He was called "God of the Blacks" but disavowed the role. A 1950s faith healer denied the wild claims made about him. Miracles were attributed to Charles Manson on his bus trip, including that Manson levitated a bus over a creek crag! "
> C.S. Lewis was, initially at least, a most
> reluctant convert to Christianity. A respected
> professor of literature at Oxford, when he became
> convinced of the existence of God in his early
> thirties he began an intensive study of various
> world religions. Of the New Testament he wrote: "I
> was by now too experienced in literary criticism
> to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the
> mythical taste."
Actually I thought the argument from morality is what convinced him of God.
> Admittedly, the historical record is such that it
> doesn't force anyone's hand; again, you can't
> prove Christianity in a mathematical sense. But
> that same historical record is sufficiently
> sturdy, in my opinion, to provide a rational
> foundation for the next step, of faith. My faith
> is centered on my belief in the Resurrection.
> Again, respectfully, I would ask you to consider
> that conditional prayer I mentioned; consider
> making it on your knees, with all due seriousness;
> and too, as a sign of good faith as it were,
> promise that you will put away any behavior which
> is shown or revealed to you, in your conscience,
> is wrong. Such a conditional prayer is not a
> magic formula -- but I do believe in a certain
> dynamic: as you draw closer, or try to draw closer
> to God, he will draw closer to you.
Prayer doesn't work, I've tried.
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The trouble with this is, of course, why is the
> > character of the Old Testament God (and the NT
> one
> > to some extent) depicted as an entity which
> seems
> > to torment mankind?
> >
> > Why believe any of it?
>
>
> The problem of evil. That's a rather big one, my
> friend.
Not exactly. I'm talking about the Joshua Challenge and the like. You know, God actively tormenting and encouraging the killing of children.