Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [textualcriticism] The Relative Size of the Western Text of Acts: Witherington

Expand Messages
  • Daniel B. Wallace
    Bart, I wish I could say more about the Mark fragment but I m not allowed to at this time. So sorry! ... Sent: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:52:24 +0000 From: Ehrman,
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 23 2:44 PM
      Bart,

      I wish I could say more about the Mark fragment but I'm not allowed to at this time. So sorry!

      ----- Start Original Message -----
      Sent: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:52:24 +0000
      From: "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman@...>
      To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] The Relative Size of the Western Text of
      Acts: Witherington

      > Hey Dan, that’s a good one! Tell you what: if I want to learn about my alma mater or about what it means to be a liberal scholar, I’ll be sure to let you know. ☺
      >
      > But while I have you, and on something that actually is related to textual criticism: what can you tell us now about that first-century copy of Mark? And why can’t you tell us more? (i.e. what is stopping you?) Do you really think it’s as important as the discovery of a Dead Sea Scroll (as I think you said in an interview)? And that it is a game changer? If it is a game changer, could you tell us how? I.e., whose views of textual criticism will have to change now? Presumably it would change someone’s views if they thought Mark was written in 150 CE, and this ms is 90 CE +/- 25 years; but who else will have to change their views, and why?
      >
      >
      > - Bart
      >
      > Bart D. Ehrman
      > James A. Gray Professor
      > Department of Religious Studies
      > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
      >
      > Please Join My New Blog: Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
      > At www.ehrmanblog.org<http://www.ehrmanblog.org>
      >
      >
      >
      > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com]<mailto:[mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com]> On Behalf Of Daniel B. Wallace
      > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 4:00 PM
      > To: textualcriticism
      > Cc: textualcriticism
      > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] The Relative Size of the Western Text of Acts: Witherington
      >
      >
      >
      > Actually, it's not a rule, Bart. It's a belief. There's an important difference. A rule is something that I would have to knuckle under in order to stay at DTS. A belief is something I embrace willingly and if I decide that I can no longer embrace it, I leave. The former implies an external value imposed on a person, while the latter is an internal value that the person has. I presume you didn't mean this, but one thing that does trouble me about outsiders' views of evangelical professors is the assumption that they *have* to fall in line with the school's doctrinal statement and are therefore not free to think for themselves. This is hardly an accurate representation though. To be sure, some faculty are so scared that they can't land a job elsewhere that they refuse to wrestle with their school's confession. But those of us who believe in a sovereign God who cares for his children don't have such fears. We are free to wrestle with all positions. As I tell my students every year, Pursue truth instead of protecting your presuppositions. Otherwise, you'll never be free to truly serve the Lord.
      >
      > As for DTS's position on inerrancy (which is a rather minimalist statement, by the way, with virtually no definition to it), it has nothing to do with *my* statements at all. I'm far from inerrant. As you well know, I make mistakes all the time. But even regarding your implicit definition of inerrancy, there may be problems. It is indeed unfortunate that those who used to be evangelicals have sometimes canonized their education in a negative way: what they *thought* they learned in the evangelical world they still think is what is taught there. And they don't bother to keep up because of their lack of respect for evangelical thought. A true liberal scholar, however, needs to keep up with various views, including those to both the right and left of his or her own, and he or she needs to follow where the evidence leads, regardless of peer pressure or job security.
      >
      > dbw
      >
      > ----- Start Original Message -----
      > Sent: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:31:28 +0000
      > From: "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman@...<mailto:behrman%40email.unc.edu>>
      > To: "<textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>>" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>>
      > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] The Relative Size of the Western Text of
      > Acts: Witherington
      >
      > > Ah, 1/12. Maybe that's what I meant to say. But I'm sure Dan is right about it; they *do* have this rule about inerrancy at DTS. :-)
      > >
      > > Bart D. Ehrman
      > > James A. Gray Professor
      > > Department of Religious Studies
      > > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
      > >
      > > Please join me on my blog:
      > > <http://www.ehrmanblog.org> www.ehrmanblog.org<http://www.ehrmanblog.org>
      > >
      > >
      > > Sent from my iPad. Apologies for typpos.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:06 AM, "Daniel Buck" <bucksburg@...<mailto:bucksburg%40yahoo.com><mailto:bucksburg@...<mailto:bucksburg%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > From: Daniel B. Wallace
      > >
      > > I have a question for Bart Ehrman: Bart, you mentioned in our last debate (at UNC Chapel Hill) that the Western text was something like 12% longer than the Alexandrian text in Acts. I believe that J. K. Elliott has given an estimate higher than the 8.5%, too, but I wanted to know where you got your figures from.
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > From: "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman@...<mailto:behrman%40email.unc.edu><mailto:behrman@...<mailto:behrman%40email.unc.edu>>>
      > >
      > > If I said 12% it was simply a mistake (under pressure from being ground to pieces by my opponent!). It’s 8.5%.
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > This is an interesting error, inasmuch as 8.5% is very nearly one-twelfth (12.5% is exactly one-eighth).
      > > Numbers are a common source of scribal error in the transmission of the scriptural text, commonly due to a misreading of one of the alphabetic characters used to write each numeral. But sometimes other considerations seem to come into play: for instance, there may be numerological considerations behind variants in numbers associated with Goliath and The Mark of The Beast.
      > >
      > > I hadn't considered the possibility of inverted numbers also being a source of scribal errors until now. Thank you, Dr. Ehrman.
      > >
      > > Daniel Buck
      >
      > ----- End Original Message -----
      >

      ----- End Original Message -----
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.