Loading...
Here now is the sixth and final video post by Kurt Jaros, connected to my views of Textual Criticism. As you know, Kurt is a conservative evangelical apologist who, unlike some others, is openminded about issues of biblical scholarship. May his tribe increase. Here he argues that the fact we have different manuscripts of the NT with different wording does not necessarily have to lead to a deeply skeptical view of the Bible.
******************************
Misquoting Ehrman – Part Six: Reject Radical Skepticism
How does radical skepticism creep into some people’s minds when they think about textual criticism? In this last episode of Misquoting Ehrman, I provide an important distinction which demonstrates how radical skepticism does not follow from the manuscript evidence we have. Then, I recap the series. Thanks for viewing!
The trick may be the use of the words “radical” and “deeply”
When faced with variants in a ancient text there is nothing particularly radical about considering the possibility that there were variants that did not survive. It seems to me the real issue here is whether or not we approach the Biblical text with the same critical apparatus we would use on any ancient text. Interesting how controversial this idea still is.
Global skepticism or
radical skepticism asserts that it is possible that all the beliefs that we have and that we think
constitute knowledge do not do so and are false (for they does not correspond to reality). That is, we are told that, considering
the beliefs we have about the external world, it could happen that all of them
had the content they have and, however, did not maintain with the world the
proper relation, that is, that of being true about it.
The fact that all of someone’s or everyone’s beliefs can be false is a
possibility that follows from the fact that the belief can be true or false
Organized skepticism does not have degrees of radicalism: scientific claims should be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and institutional codes of conduct
Perhaps Kurt could explain the connection between textual criticism and whether or not the text of the gospels were preserved (VPP) or inspired (VPI). In my view, the position that textual criticism can determine whether the earliest available texts are very likely to be the original texts (though not to 100% certainty) tells us absolutely nothing about whether the texts were divinely inspired in any sense of the word. Divine inspiration (or dictation) is a faith position.
Hi TTHorne56,
Fully agreed with how you parsed that out. Textual criticism can get us reliably back to the original writings of the New Testament, but that does not mean the documents were inspired (or even an accurate historical document(s)).
Seems to me, after Mark and Mathew, The Story starts going in strange directions which till everyone who could read had their own Bible and did their own interpretation was not a problem as the monks knew enough to keep most under the desk. Suddenly you have Fifth Monarchists, Levelers and others of the English Civil war and Wars of Religion preaching much the same as fundamentalists today. A critic, believer or not has the job of sorting out over 4 thousand years of religious, social, moral, legal and history all in one big book. Departments like Law look at the changes in Roman Law with Justinian adding in christian thinking.
Thank you for a good post!
A guy came forward and argued that Katie Melua was wrong when she sang in her “Nine Million Bicycle” song ,,, “There are nine million bikes in Beijing. It’s a fact, there’s one thing we can not deny” .
He was a literalist, and he even had the original text.
Bob Dyland wrote in “Positively 4th Street” ,,,, “you could stand inside my shoe”.
I’m wondering what size shoes he’s wearing, and I have the original text and the man is still alive to prove it.
I really can not understand that some biblical circles are so focused on translating all text into a literal meaning, knowing that the biblical books were written in many genres and literally styles. Books come out as poetry, songs, meditative literature, letters, history, non-fiction of various kinds. And within these styles, there are many archetypal characters who seem to pretend or emphasize a particular message in such narratives, metaphors used to evoke emotions and fantasies, etc etc etc.
One thing is to eagerly look for the original source ,,, which means what was first written, about doctrines, sayings, what happened to for example Jesus among people who definitely did not write a word of what he said, did and thought while it happened . Even Paul, who is probably the first and earliest source who does not say much about Jesus and his life, was written long after his death.
Moreover, we do not seem to care enough about the tradition from which the source of the original texts came, but we rather place it on our “pagan” european style, literalistic 2-dimensional platform, often disconnected from the environment in which it originated.
Perhaps Bishop John Shelby Spong was right when he wrote that biblical literalism is a modern-day pagan heresy.
Dr. Ehrman
I just watched your recent debate with
Jimmy Akin on whether the gospels
are historically reliable. I admit that I
have been heavily influenced by your
books,talks,etc, and I therefore have
a bias but there were moments your
opponent was obviously grasping at
straws so much that it was almost
embarrassing. One such a moment was
when you asked him why Joseph and
Mary intended to relocate to Bethlehem
after fleeing to Egypt if they were
originally from Nazareth.His answer was
that because Joseph owned two
properties, one in Bethlehem and one in
Nazareth. Not only it is very far-fetched
(almost comic) to suggest that Joseph
owned two houses so far apart, but it
actually raises more questions than
answers. Why would Joseph and Mary
try to get a room at an overcrowded inn
in Bethlehem if they owned a house in
Bethlehem? One also wonders if they
felt unsafe in Bethlehem and they had
a home in Nazareth,why walk all the
way to Egypt?
Yeah, it was a real stunner of a claim!
While Kurt makes a fair argument that some particular forms of skepticism about original texts may be unwarranted, the concern that people may be caught in “the throes of radical skepticism” is, frankly, silly.
The world has far more to fear from those who are caught in the “throes” of radical belief.