From: Jay Rogers <jrogers@forerunner.com>
Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Initial and Archetype (A few questions to Dr. Ehrman from a layman)
To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:27 PM

A few questions to Dr. Ehrman from a layman concerning the following
statement:

> * Unrelated, more or less, to this list: it is not "speculative" to
> say that the NT Gospels were written anonymously; so far as I know,
it is a
> *fact* that they were written anonymously (none of them tells us
his name:

I post these questions understanding that you have written and spoken
on these issues exhaustively. If these questions are too austere for
you, I won't be offended if you ignore them.

Why is it a "fact" that the autographs of the NT Gospels were
anonyomous?

Is there a single early manuscript or fragment that we know
conclusively to be untitled or anonymous lacking either a
superscription or subscription?

If we do not have autographs, why would we assume that the autograph
did not have a title and an author?

Why would an early Christian church leader (presumably a Jew) write a
document with purported authority that did not include this
information?

External vs. internal evidence aside, isn't it unusual for any author
to identify himself by anything other than the traditional "title"
and "author."

--- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, "Bart Ehrman" <behrman@... >
wrote:
>
> Several comments.
>
> * On "original" and "archetype." Is it only evangelical
scholars
> who think that the archetype is original? If so, why would a
theological
> persuasion lead to a historical conclusion? But moreover, I don't
> understand what evidence is, or could be, cited to show that we
must have
> the originals. The very earliest copies we have are notoriously
> error-prone. Are we to think that the copies made earlier than our
earliest
> copies were error-free? Surely the surviving early copies were
copied from
> earlier copies which, like them, were filled with mistakes. So on
what
> grounds would one argue that the original was never changed? Or
that if it
> was changed, only later (not earlier) manuscripts attest it?
What's the
> historical logic? If professional scribes of later times made lots
of
> mistakes, are we to think that the non-professionals of the
earliest stages
> some how were so highly accurate that they never changed anything --
in the
> decades (in some cases centuries) before our earliest copies?
>
> * On evangelicals vs. Ehrman. I should point out that my
views are
> not at all on the fringe: they appear to be the view of the most
actively
> publishing scholars in the world (Parker, Epp, the Muenster
crowd). That
> doesn't make them right, but it also means that these are not some
aberrant
> views of one critic. I, in fact, am more inclined to talk about a
heuristic
> concept of an original than most.
>
> * Unrelated, more or less, to this list: it is
not "speculative" to
> say that the NT Gospels were written anonymously; so far as I know,
it is a
> *fact* that they were written anonymously (none of them tells us
his name:
> that's what an anonymous writing *is* -- a book whose author doesn't
> disclose his or her name). Whether or not we know their names from
other
> sources or on other grounds is a different question.
>
> Best to all,
>
> -- Bart Ehrman
>
> Bart D. Ehrman
> James A. Gray Professor
> Department of Religious Studies
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>
>
> _____
>
> From: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Eddie Mishoe
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:19 AM
> To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Initial and Archetype
>
>
>
> Bob:
>
> The vast majority of evangelical scholars do not agree with Ehrman
on his
> assumptions about the differences between the Original and
Archetype.
>
> Add to this the pioneering work by Dr. Thomas showing no literary
> interdependence among the synopitc gospel writers, where he
concludes:
> "Based on observational facts regarding all fifty-eight sections of
> triple-tradition, this study has found that only sixteen percent of
the
> words in those sections
> are identical in all three Gospels. That is far fewer than would
have been
> identical if the writers had engaged in copying from one another or
had
> functioned as copyists
> of each other's Gospels. That in itself is sufficient to conclude
that they
> worked independently of each other's writings."
>
> Only 16 percent agreement! And yet, some still hold today some form
of
> literary interdependence. Read his article; he actually lists all
these
> 'triple-traditions' (places where Matt, Mark, and Luke have the
same event).
> And the 16 percent is compared against a very important benchmark:
OT
> quotations.
>
> When two Gospel writers quote the same LXX passage, they agree
closer to 70
> percent. SO, in places where we know the gospel writes are quoting
the same
> passage/material, their agreement is around 70 percent. When they
are
> quoting from the same event in the life of Christ, oddly enough,
they agree
> with each other closer to 15 to 20 percent. This huge gap is
difficult to
> explain.
>
> Thomas has shown mathematically that the gospel writers were not
> plagiarizing each others' work, but I still think they were using
common
> sources. Even though they don't use the same wording in common
pericopes,
> the order of pericopes seems to imply common sources from which each
> slightly departed. This data also, as far as I can tell, does away
with
> Marcan priority, or anyone's priority. There is just no measurable
> dependence on each other.
>
> Finally, I think it is overly speculative to say that the gospels
were
> anonymous. I find it near impossible that Matthew, for example,
wrote this
> gospel and then secretly put it in circulation. I think first
century
> contemporaries knew that he wrote this gospel. As it was being
delivered, I
> suspect the deliverers were bringing these gospels to important
Christian
> hubs with the statement that "This account of Jesus was written by
Matthew."
> Would not someone first ask who wrote this when being handed an
anonymous
> scroll of such import. I keep arguing that people were the same
then and
> now.
>
> Eddie Mishoe
> Pastor
>