All “solutions” are not created equal. Most conspiracy/mythicist explanations can be dismissed out of hand simply because they don’t even rise to the level of being a solution in the first place. They’re not even wrong. I give Richard Carrier props because of the mythicists he seems to be one of the few who at least understands the problem. I don’t buy his views but he has spent a great deal of energy addressing these issues to separate himself out from the general goofiness of the approach. One of the best things he has written is a caution to his fellow mythicists about the problems with the claim that Paul himself did not exist or didn’t write his letters. I recommend it highly.
Stephen said
All “solutions” are not created equal. . . .
Indeed so. This is actually the main value of official scholarship. Multiple voices evaluating the information tends to level out personal agendas and idiosyncratic interpretations. A body of pre-digested material an interpretation gets built up. That body forms some basis for evaluating new ideas. The body itself may be subject to reappraisal, but it requires special rigor in doing so. The main concept is that radical new ideas need radical support. Too often, radical new ideas simply come with radical assertions.
The deciphering of Mayan hieroglyphics makes an interesting case study in when this generally useful apparatus breaks down, and how it can legitimately be overturned. Generations of scholars, who taught new generations, were working based on assumptions that were the established scholarship. Some level of translation had even been produced based on these assumptions (and some useful aspects are actually still true), but really understanding the glyphs was problematic. Several scholars had attempted to correct what they saw as some of the errors of the official scholarship, and were generally rebuked by the established scholars, but their work remained and others continued to look at it, and try to resolve the remaining issues to see if there was more merit than originally appeared to be the case. Attention, accolades and other rewards tended to be awarded to those mostly working within the status quo. (It is important to realize here that the status of scholarship at that time was not fully having great success at what it was claiming it could do.) But there were other scholars who felt the nagging value of these other, not yet fully formed ideas. Eventually, a new scholar came along, building on these questions and adding his own discoveries, and he presented at a major conference. The result was a mix of shock, resistance and eventually acceptance, because he not only presented his ideas but actually made his case. And the result of his proposed ideas was that many text were able to be translated. And those views are now part of that body of scholarship.
Robert said
Steefen said
“That’s going too far, don’t you think? Longinus stabbed Julius Caesar.”
Longinus is the name given to the unnamed Roman soldier who pierced the side of Jesus with a lance and who in medieval and some modern Christian traditions is described as a convert to Christianity. His name first appeared in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Wikipedia
Do you think that the author(s) of the Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus were continuing the gospel writing Flavian conspiracy?
Steefen
I’m just trying to get through Saturday, just reading this thread with an open mind.
I just finished reading Bart D.E.’s repost about getting a book published.
This week, someone called me for a job opportunity and asked me if I were open to any job they found that they thought would match my resume.
Then, that person called me and told me I got the interview.
What I wasn’t told until later in the day was that the employer wanted to interview me not for my experience and skills as an analyst but as a writer for an internal corporate audience of 38,000.
I had already looked at jobs with the title technical writer. Yes, I’m a financial writer of an investment/trading course, but technical writers abound in the IT field.
Long story short: it’s been a week. So I’m just reading this thread with an open mind (before I begin working on completing my investment book).
What? Gospel of Nicodemus?
Apocryphal gospel.
Apocrypha: written between 200 BC and 400 CE.
Acts of Pilate derived from a Hebrew work by Nicodemus, not called Gospel of Nicodemus until medieval times.
Present form dates to around the 4th or 5th century.
QUESTION: were the author/s of Nicodemus/Pilate continuing the Gospel writing conspiracy of the Flavians?
When was the Woman Caught in Adultery added in the gospels?
ANSWER: The passage appears to have been included in some texts by the 4th century and became generally accepted by the 5th century.
Robert, your question is about Joseph Atwill, not Francesco Carotta. Still, we see the gospel getting inserts, getting an interpolation from leadership of the Roman Empire after the AD70 to AD95 time frame.
Bart,
Were there second century anti-Marcionite redactions of scripture?
You are known for deciphering and collecting changes to scripture. Anti-Marionite redactions would seem to be a major category of editorial changes.
= = =
Answer pending.
Anyone familiar with Ehrman’s work on changes to scripture should know if Ehrman went into this.
Books that probably should have this are:
Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
Robert said
Steefen said
Anyone familiar with Ehrman’s work on changes to scripture should know if Ehrman went into this.
If you’re thinking of ‘redaction’ in the sense of relatively minor scribal interventions (not whole new editions of a gospel, eg, a Proto- and Deutero-Luke), Bart covers this, especially in Ch 4 on the anti-docetic corruption of scripture in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
I am thinking about this thread, on topic: Jarek’s contribution, Vinzent.
Robert said
That’s because Bart’s text-critical and exegetical views are the same as mainstream scholars, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. Christians who embrace scholarship, embrace scholarship, not fundamentalism or apologetics.
Steefen
Bart’s text-critical and exegetical views have ZERO impact on Christian belief, just what fundamentalism and apologetics need.
As for staying on the main road of mainstream scholars…
Robert Frost
Two roads diverged in a wood
the one less traveled made all the difference.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Made all the difference in understanding better the historical accuracy of the bible and the historical Joseph, Moses, Exodus, Jericho, King Saul, King David, King Solomon, Son of Man, King of the Jews, Herod the Great, the Samaritan Redeemer, Jesus, Paul, Tribulation, and more.
Conclusions:
The Biblical Jesus did not leave behind writings.
The disciples of the Biblical Jesus did not leave behind writings.
This is generally acceptable unless the civic leader (Justus of Tiberius) in Galilee who studied Greek and wrote history is Jesus of Galilee who lost the Battle of Galilee.
Scholars: Paul’s authentic letters were written by him before he died AD 64
Jarek: Paul’s authentic letters were not written until after AD 100.
Steefen: They carry the authority of canonized scripture but they were not important and authoritative in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, AD 60-100?
This is a big issue.
Conclusion: Paul’s authentic letter may not have been written before AD 64.
Scholars: gospels were written AD 70 to AD 95.
Jarek: There is only Oral Tradition until AD 100
Conclusion: Final form of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and the authentic letters of Paul may not have existed in AD 95.
Steefen: Jarek’s position is a challenge to the notion of Paul’s Gospel of God vs other gospels.
a) If Marcion wrote the first gospel and there was no Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke in final form by the time the Evangelikon and Apostolikon were published by Marcion, standard scholarship on when the gospels were written is not reliable.
b) Anti-Marcion editing and creation of New Testament material after Marcion’s New Testament was rejected is quite the turn of events for understanding Christianity.
Another issue: Luke could not have known Paul if the Gospel of Luke is a second century document and if the completed Gospel of Luke is a result of Anti-Marcion redaction and if Acts of the Apostles, in that period of Anti-Marcion redaction, contains a revision of biographical information for Paul.
= = =
As author of Historical Accuracy, the scope of my book ended with
– the completion the Mark and Matthew gospels (73 CE and 85 CE)
– the completion of the Book of Revelation (96 CE)
– the death of Josephus (100 CE)
Historical Accuracy is a deep dive into Abrahamic sacred scripture, but there is significant case that the completion of Mark and Matthew did not happen until after 100 CE. The completion of Luke did not happen until after 100 CE. It is likely the case that Gospel of Luke was completed after Marcion’s Apostolikon.
AD 100 to AD 160 Marcion’s Gospel and Marcion’s collection of Pauline Letters
AD 160 to AD 500 Anti-Marcion Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the rest of canonical New Testament
Steefen said
Bart,Were there second century anti-Marcionite redactions of scripture?
You are known for deciphering and collecting changes to scripture. Anti-Marionite redactions would seem to be a major category of editorial changes.
= = =
Answer pending.
Anyone familiar with Ehrman’s work on changes to scripture should know if Ehrman went into this.
Books that probably should have this are:
Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
Bart D.E.
It is debated whether some scribes altered the text in places to oppose Marcion.
I think so. That’s part of what I discuss in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture; but, there was no major anti-Marcionite redaction/edition that we are aware of.
Evangelical Textual Criticism
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
We have analysed seventeen selected examples of orthodox corruption, brought forth by Bart Ehrman in his influential work on the orthodox corruption of Scripture. Ehrman’s optimism regarding the ability of modern textual criticism, not only to identify corruption, but to reconstruct the initial text in these passages may come as a surprise. As we have seen, Ehrman accepts the initial text as adopted in NA27 with very few exceptions (** you do not have permission to see this link **).75 My examination, however, has demonstrated several problems with his procedure as he identifies various variant readings as examples of “orthodox corruption.”
The first problem with Ehrman’s text-critical analysis is the mixed nature of the sample that he uses. It seems to me that he has harvested the entire textual tradition in order to find data to support his preconceived thesis, without crossexamining the possible tendencies of individual witnesses. It will become clear that, on the level of the individual witness, it is very difficult to detect any consistent theological tendency. On the contrary, individual witnesses will often reflect directly opposite tendencies (e.g., adoptionistic/anti-adoptionistic).
The second and more serious problem with Ehrman’s procedure is the mechanical character of his treatment of individual passages. Whenever there is textual variation in a passage that somehow relates to Christology, Ehrman too easily identifies one reading as the original and another as “orthodox corruption.” Ehrman’s philological and text-critical groundwork is unsatisfactory, in that he lacks a sensitivity to the particular context and nature of the variation in the individual passage.
In a classic essay on “The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism,” Alfred E. Housman proposed that “every problem which presents itself to the textual critic must be regarded as possibly unique.” This sound view of textual criticism excludes every mechanical application of a single canon of criticism to a passage, e.g., to prefer the least orthodox reading whenever there is a grain of suspicion that a passage may have been tampered with for doctrinal reasons. Instead, the textual critic should attempt at each point to seek the most plausible explanation for the textual variation, weighing external and internal evidence and utilizing whatever principles that may apply to the individual problem.
If the criteria are found to be in conflict, which is often the case, the textual critic has to decide when to give greater consideration to one criterion and less to another. As I have attempted to demonstrate in my treatment of these examples, a balanced judgment will often require knowledge of the pecularities of individual manuscripts and their scribe(s), the citation habits of church fathers, and a familiarity with the character of a particular version and its limitations in representing the Vorlage from which it was translated.
Indeed, this close examination of a significant number of passages has confirmed the judgment of Gordon Fee who in a review of Ehrman’s work points out that, “too often [Ehrman] turns mere possibility into probability, and probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for corruption exist.”
Steven Avery
Hi,
Interesting discussion.
Allow me to first note the fine paper from Tony Costa on this question of Bart Ehrman presupposition and inconsistency.
Was Adoptionism the Earliest Christology – A response to Bart Ehrman –
Tony Costa
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And Tommie Wasserman, it sounds like you addressed partly one major dubious idea of Ehrman, that the actual early church was adoptionist and ebionite. While going more into his techie aspects.
On the textualcriticism forum this was brought up to Bart Ehrman and he acknowledged that adoptionism was his belief/presupposition. And unsuccessfully tried to handwave the significance to his textual theories. See posts 6730, 6731 and 6737
[textualcriticism] Bart Ehrman’s textual theory foundational presupposition – adoptionism is the early Christianity – least orthodox reading
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** dance of Bart Ehrman has been worthy of special note.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
Verified Purchase Review of
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition) 4th Edition
by Bruce Metzger
= = =
Search: SBL and “Anti-Marcionite”
Results:
Schmithals’s framing of Acts as anti-Marcionite polemic
Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark
Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke
Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John
(Anti-Marcionite Prologues
the anti-Marcionite writers of the late second and early third century were in no position to ascertain
anti-Marcionite rhetoric
was the zombies episode in Matthew an anti-marcionite episode?
BEWARE of the part by Bart Ehrman called The Use of Textual Data for the Social History of Early Christianity. Pages 280-299. This is Bart as his agnostic, troublemaking self.
Now that’s funny. Obviously the proper response to views you find troubling is to pretend they don’t exist. Certainly you don’t read them and then critique them! What kind of goofball would actually do that?
But like Tom Cruise said in A Few Good Men, you may find yourself thinking “You Cant Handle The Truth.”
One can only marvel at the reviewer’s self-awareness!
Bart Ehrman
My view is that my book should have ZERO impact on intelligent, informed, Christian belief.
So if it did have an impact on someone’s Christian belief it was because their belief wasn’t intelligent or informed? I understand Prof Ehrman’s point of view but there are plenty of folks whose Christian belief did not survive an encounter with historical criticism of the Bible. And it wasn’t because they weren’t intelligent or were uninformed.
Stephen said
Bart Ehrman
My view is that my book should have ZERO impact on intelligent, informed, Christian belief.
So if it did have an impact on someone’s Christian belief it was because their belief wasn’t intelligent or informed? I understand Prof Ehrman’s point of view but there are plenty of folks whose Christian belief did not survive an encounter with historical criticism of the Bible. And it wasn’t because they weren’t intelligent or were uninformed.
But it may be that they are not thinkers of much agility or elegance. At some point, we all adopt views that may not fully be true, but that let us keep on living.
But it may be that they are not thinkers of much agility or elegance.
Or simply not creative enough to rationalize away an absurdity.
At some point, we all adopt views that may not fully be true, but that let us keep on living.
Perhaps but it seems to me any system of belief unable to withstand an encounter with the truth is not worth very many regrets.
Well there is no one that does not believe in something that someone else doesn’t find absurd. But there are absurdities and there are absurdities. My Uncle Edward believed that the Space Shuttle caused disturbances in the weather. Rather harmless. As opposed to millions of Americans who apparently believe that the slaughter of our children is just the price you pay to protect an imaginary right to own guns under any circumstance whatsoever. Not harmless at all.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)