Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Certainty
- Very true, and I can see that as being more likely, simply because people figure "what's the harm" if a particular reading is in another passage of scripture anyway.----- Original Message -----From: xt7rtSent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:01 AMSubject: [textualcriticism] Re: Certainty--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jovial" <jovial@c...>
> Ehrman too often turns mere possibility into probability, and
probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for
> I definitely agree. For example, on pp197-200, Bart alleges
>there's a verse added by Orthodox believers describing blood
>atonement, but the original didn't have it. Well, even if you
>accepts Bart's argument on the variant, there's no proof the
>motivation was to bring the Gospel in line with blood atonement
>theology. In fact, there's evidence against that, because there
>are SO MANY other verses describing blood atonement that HAVE NO
>VARIANTS and trace back to the oldest of manuscripts that there was
>no reason for someone to add verses to prove a theological point
>already supported by other verses who's validity is not challenged.
> At the core of this argument is that a missing verse from an early
>reading supports the likelyhood, because, as said on page 218, "it
>is difficult to explain, an excision." I disagree. I've
>transcribed several manuscripts and accidentally skipped over a few
>words, few lines, etc before. It's an EASY mistake to make - one
>of the easiest to make at all.
> The ideal that the shorter text is likely to be the more original
>just sets us up for EXPECTING corruption all over the place. In
>reality, if you put 40 people in a room and ask them to copy a text
>and watch and observe for an hour, you'll find different people
>dropped different words, phrases or sentences. Personally I think
>we should approach TC from a standpoint that makes no assumption as
>to whether the shorter or longer version of a text is more
>original. We should look at all things in combination and decide,
>not make a blanket assumption.
> Or for another example, Why add "Son of God" to Mark 1:1 (which
>he discussed on page 72) when you could add something more
>forceful? "Son of God" could be interpreted multiple ways.
It seems to me we need to distinguish between how a variant gets
into the textual stream and how a variant gets a foothold in the
textual stream. "Son of God" (if not original) probably got into the
manuscripts before the divine/not divine argument even came to be
expressed in such stark terms. It only takes one scribe with unknown
motivations to make a change. However once the variant exists, THEN
the world has two choices, with or without the variant. And much of
the world would have chosen theologically, rather than on text
critical principles. Then there is the theological motivation that
Son of God is at least more forceful than saying nothing at all.
It's a bit like the pierced/like a lion variant in the old
testament. It probably didn't come about purposely, but I suspect
the Jews had a theological pre-disposition to avoid the pro-
Christian pierced option.
Won't anybody comment on Ehrman an the western non-interpolations?
That seems to be his most interesting case.
>someone was trying to ADD something to the scriptures to prove our
>Messiah was Divine, surely they would have added something clearer
>than a phrase used in Job and Genesis 6 to refer to non-Divine
>beings! The likelyhood someone did that due to theological
>motivation just doesn't seem logical to me. I would suspect that
>if someone was theologically motivated, they would have called
>Him "God in the flesh" somewhere or used some term more forceful
>than "Son of God".
> I think most of the variants Bart mentioned in his book were
innocent variants. I found the biggest problem with the book's
approach was that when discussing a variant, the book failed to
establish whether the variant in question was out of the ordinary in
comparison with the number and nature of other variants. We have a
LOT of them, and most are NOT theologically significant. So if
there's one that IS theologically significant out of hundreds more
that are not, I don't think we can make the immediate assumption it
was theologically motivated. We need some additional evidence
before supporting that allegation in my assessment.
> I think if the only evidence one can dig up that the Scriptures
were corrupted by Orthodox thinking is that some manuscripts omit
verses who's content is found elsewhere, it's actually pretty good
evidence that no significant corruption occurred.
> Well, that's my 2 shekels.
> J Viel
> LaVergne, TN