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

Re: Does anyone know anything about....

Expand Messages
  • malcolm robertson
    Countach inquired: I ve been reading these various Ehrman comments. Would anyone care to refute Ehrman in any actual examples? Gie Vleugels wrote: Here is
    Message 1 of 28 , May 17 7:26 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Countach inquired:
       
      "I've been reading these various Ehrman comments. Would anyone care to refute Ehrman in any actual examples?"
       
      Gie Vleugels wrote:
       
      "Here is one example.
      In his discussion of Luke 3:22 Ehrman argues that the (adoptionist)
      reading of Codex Bezae (D05) is correct: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." On p. 62 Ehrman writes: "Here I should stress that except for the third-century manuscript P4, there is no certain
      attestation of the other reading, the reading of our later manuscripts, in this early period." This is a misleading remark, as P4 is the only 3rd century manuscript containing the verse."
       
      The major problem with the thesis of Ehrman is that he more or less assumes that theological conceptualization is something beyond the biblical authors as truthful propositions (including Jesus' own self awareness/Messianic consciousness) and thereby denies that the biblical textual dicta are capable of containing the theological reflexion that was standardized at Nicea and beyond. Consequently he tries to make the scribes responsible for the theological understandings of the various biblical authors as something posterior; and to combat heresies the orthodox scribes altered their texts to produce and or defend their own orthodox faith.
       
      The Apostolic Father Ignatius however makes it rather plain by such statements as 'en haimati theou' and 'en thelhmati tou patrou kai Ihsou Xristou tou theou hmwn' that the deity of Jesus and the Trnitas was already the exegetical orthodox understanding of the biblical texts in the first century and Clement of Rome also affirms this fact at a time when the biblical text had not yet evolved into text-types as we see did subsequently happen.
       
      If there exists any textual variant - however remote and ill attested - produced either by a scribe's attempt to clarify or explain by his own modification of the textual dicta or not, Ehrman is quick to seize upon this anomaly and shift the theological reflexion inherent in the biblical text to that of what he terms the orthodox scribes. 
       
      Doubtless, even today (as then) we see people with various conceptualizations of Jesus, but this fact is not produced by the biblical text itself but by their own truncated understanding.
       
      As Gie has illustrated above, the method of Mr. Ehrman has departed from sound text-critical principles and lost itself in a swamp of non historical programatic arbitrariness.
       
      Cordially in Christ,
       
      Malcolm


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

    • sarban
      ... From: Countach To: Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:06 AM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Does
      Message 2 of 28 , May 19 1:16 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Countach" <yahoo@...>
        To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:06 AM
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Does anyone know anything about....


        >
        > > sarban wrote:
        > > is first attested in the writings of Origen who may
        > > > have originated it.
        >
        >
        > BTW, why do so many people want to blame Origen for "originating"
        > readings? Is there any evidence he was in the habit of doing that?
        >
        Gergesenes in Mark 5 and parallels and Bethabara in John 1:28
        both are probably early conjectural emendations and both are
        associated with Origen.

        Andrew Criddle
      • malcolm robertson
        Countach wrote: ...If we find variants in the text there are basically three possibilities. Either they were made without any theological motivation, they
        Message 3 of 28 , May 19 1:31 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Countach wrote:
           
          "...If we find variants in the text there are basically three possibilities. Either they were made without any theological motivation, they were made motivated by the orthodox, or they were made motivated by the heterodox. Ehrman seems to do a good job of showing that the first explanation is inadequate..."
           
          INDEED any one category would be inadequate. According to Metzger, Text, pp. 186-206 the following observed reasons are the categories for scribe producted corruptions:
           
          I. Unintentional Changes
          1. Errors arising from faulty eyesight.
          2. Errors arising from faulty hearing.
          3. Errors of the mind.
          4. Errors of judgement.
           
          II. Intentional Changes
          1. Changes involving spelling and grammar
          2. Harmonistic corruptions
          3. Addition of natural complements amd similar adjuncts
          4. Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties
          5. Conflation of readings
          6. Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations
          7. Addition of miscellaneous details
           
          Only II.6 is the basis for Mr. Ehrman's thesis throughout his book.
           
          Please reconsider the remarks offered in posts 891 and 898.
           
          Cordially in Christ,
           
          Malcolm 



          Discover Yahoo!
          Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!
        • Countach
          ... Just because Origen discusses the question doesn t mean he originated one of the readings. Is there any evidence he ever originated a reading?
          Message 4 of 28 , May 20 12:48 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            sarban wrote:

            > > > sarban wrote:
            > > > is first attested in the writings of Origen who may
            > > > > have originated it.
            > >
            > >
            > > BTW, why do so many people want to blame Origen for "originating"
            > > readings? Is there any evidence he was in the habit of doing that?
            > >
            > Gergesenes in Mark 5 and parallels and Bethabara in John 1:28
            > both are probably early conjectural emendations and both are
            > associated with Origen.


            Just because Origen discusses the question doesn't mean he originated
            one of the readings. Is there any evidence he ever originated a reading?
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... From: malcolm robertson To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 1:10 PM Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Does anyone know anything
            Message 5 of 28 , May 21 12:00 PM
            • 0 Attachment
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 1:10 PM
              Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Does anyone know anything about....

              [Resubmitted - Corrected]
               
              Countach inquired:
               
              "I've been reading these various Ehrman comments. Would anyone care to refute Ehrman in any actual examples?"
               
              Gie Vleugels wrote:
               
              "Here is one example.
              In his discussion of Luke 3:22 Ehrman argues that the (adoptionist)
              reading of Codex Bezae (D05) is correct: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." On p. 62 Ehrman writes: "Here I should stress that except for the third-century manuscript P4, there is no certain
              attestation of the other reading, the reading of our later manuscripts, in this early period." This is a misleading remark, as P4 is the only 3rd century manuscript containing the verse."
               
               
               
              The Gospel of the Hebrews was an Aramaic Gospel that predated the Synoptics and was used by the Nazarenes.  It was also called, bt the Nazarenes, the "Gospel of Matthew."  Codex Bezae often appears to preserve readings from the Aramaic/Syriac stemma.
               
              The ORIGINAL Nazarenes taught that Jesus was born in the usual manner and
              "adopted" by God on his baptism by John.  This is supported by a quote from the
              Gospel of the Hebrews by Epiphanius Pan 30 13,7-8

              "After the people had been baptised Jesus also came and was baptised by
              John.  And when he ascended from the water the heavens opened and he saw the
              Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descending and coming to him. And a voice
              from heaven said: Thou art my beloved son, in thee I am well pleased. THIS
              DAY I HAVE GENERATED THEE."
               
              Jack Kilmon
              San Marcos, Texas

            • sarban
              ... From: Jack Kilmon To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Does anyone know anything
              Message 6 of 28 , May 22 5:21 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 8:00 PM
                Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Does anyone know anything about....

                 
                 
                 
                The Gospel of the Hebrews was an Aramaic Gospel that predated the Synoptics and was used by the Nazarenes.  It was also called, bt the Nazarenes, the "Gospel of Matthew."  Codex Bezae often appears to preserve readings from the Aramaic/Syriac stemma.
                 
                The ORIGINAL Nazarenes taught that Jesus was born in the usual manner and
                "adopted" by God on his baptism by John.  This is supported by a quote from the
                Gospel of the Hebrews by Epiphanius Pan 30 13,7-8

                "After the people had been baptised Jesus also came and was baptised by
                John.  And when he ascended from the water the heavens opened and he saw the
                Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descending and coming to him. And a voice
                from heaven said: Thou art my beloved son, in thee I am well pleased. THIS
                DAY I HAVE GENERATED THEE."
                 
                Jack Kilmon
                San Marcos, Texas

              • malcolm robertson
                Dear Jack, With all due respect I can not see the Ebionites, Nazarenes or their Hebrew/Aramaic Gospels or for that matter even a Hebrew composition by Matthew
                Message 7 of 28 , May 22 10:54 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Jack,
                   
                  With all due respect I can not see the Ebionites, Nazarenes or their Hebrew/Aramaic Gospels or for that matter even a Hebrew composition by Matthew (re: Papias' remarks) as ever predating, and for that matter being the "sufficient cause" to produce such an effect as the incarnate Jesus and his apostles have consequently produced. The four Greek canonical Gospels are the historical "first cause" from which the others have departed and poorly imitated.
                   
                  The fact of the matter is that these sects are aberrent developments from the early Christian faith - not vice versa. In fact, if the progressive theological development scheme had been in any way, shape or form of the nature that you are suggesting, the whole naturalistic scheme of things (re: the so called Quest(s) for Jesus) as alledged would have puttered out long ago. 
                   
                  This fact is also supported by the incredibly inept and derived nature of the Gnostic scriptures.  No, in fact, the historical data does not support any other understanding (other than academic and theoretical hedging) than the mere reality that God in fact became man and was punished on the tree and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.  The objective historical data and early Church testimony both reveals and accounts for it.
                   
                  Cordially in Christ,
                   
                  Malcolm
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                  The Gospel of the Hebrews was an Aramaic Gospel that predated the Synoptics and was used by the Nazarenes.  It was also called, bt the Nazarenes, the "Gospel of Matthew."  Codex Bezae often appears to preserve readings from the Aramaic/Syriac stemma.
                   
                  The ORIGINAL Nazarenes taught that Jesus was born in the usual manner and
                  "adopted" by God on his baptism by John.  This is supported by a quote from the
                  Gospel of the Hebrews by Epiphanius Pan 30 13,7-8

                  "After the people had been baptised Jesus also came and was baptised by
                  John.  And when he ascended from the water the heavens opened and he saw the
                  Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descending and coming to him. And a voice
                  from heaven said: Thou art my beloved son, in thee I am well pleased. THIS
                  DAY I HAVE GENERATED THEE."
                   
                  Jack Kilmon
                  San Marcos, Texas


                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                • C. Stirling Bartholomew
                  Andrew Criddle, ... That s right. Jack Kilmon s translation does not represent the text from Epiphanius: ... KAI FWNH EK TOU OURANOU LEGOUSA: SU MOU EI hO
                  Message 8 of 28 , May 22 1:10 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Andrew Criddle,

                    > In any case the Gospel quoted by Epiphanius seems to be a
                    > harmony of Matthew and Luke (and possibly Mark) which from the
                    > change of akris (locust) to enkris (cake) in the diet of John the
                    > Baptist was presumably (at least originally) written in Greek.
                    >

                    >
                    > Andrew Criddle

                    That's right. Jack Kilmon's translation does not represent the text from
                    Epiphanius:

                    Kilmon:
                    >> And a voice
                    >> from heaven said: Thou art my beloved son, in thee I am well pleased. THIS
                    >> DAY I HAVE GENERATED THEE."

                    KAI FWNH EK TOU OURANOU LEGOUSA: SU MOU EI hO hUIOS hO AGAPHTOS, EN SOI
                    HUDOKHSA, KAI PALIN: EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE. KAI EUQUS PERIELAMYE TON
                    TOPON FWS MEGA. hO IDWN, FHSIN, hO IWANNHS LEGEI AUTWi: SU TIS EI, KURIE;
                    KAI PALIN FWNH EX OURANOU PROS AUTON: hOUTOS ESTIN hO hUIOS MOU hO AGAPHTOS,
                    EF' hON HUDOKHSA.

                    And a voice from Heaven said:
                    "You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased. "
                    And again: " Today I have begotten you".
                    And immediately a great light shone round about the place.
                    When John saw this, it is said, he said to him :
                    "Who are you, Lord?"
                    And again a voice from Heaven [said] to him:
                    "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."


                    The Gospel Of The Ebionites postdates the canonical gospels, it was written
                    prior to the late second century when it was mentioned by Irenæus.



                    Clay Bartholomew
                  • C. Stirling Bartholomew
                    What is my beef with J.Kilmon s rendering? The EMPHASIS on ... which isn t in the original. EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE follows KAI PALIN, making it sort of an
                    Message 9 of 28 , May 22 2:03 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      What is my beef with J.Kilmon's rendering? The EMPHASIS on
                      >>> THIS DAY I HAVE GENERATED THEE
                      which isn't in the original. EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE follows KAI PALIN,
                      making it sort of an after thought. Also Kilmon stopped short, omitting the
                      second quote hOUTOS ESTIN hO hUIOS MOU hO AGAPHTOS, EF' hON HUDOKHSA which
                      does not seem helpful to the B.Ehrman hypothesis.

                      As for the quoted statement about dating:

                      >> The Gospel of the Hebrews was an Aramaic Gospel that predated the Synoptics
                      >> and was used by the Nazarenes.

                      I will let someone else go after that one.

                      Clay Bartholomew

                      On 5/22/05 1:10 PM, "C. Stirling Bartholomew" <threetreepoint@...>
                      wrote:

                      > That's right. Jack Kilmon's translation does not represent the text from
                      > Epiphanius:
                      >
                      > Kilmon:
                      >>> And a voice
                      >>> from heaven said: Thou art my beloved son, in thee I am well pleased. THIS
                      >>> DAY I HAVE GENERATED THEE."
                      >
                      > KAI FWNH EK TOU OURANOU LEGOUSA: SU MOU EI hO hUIOS hO AGAPHTOS, EN SOI
                      > HUDOKHSA, KAI PALIN: EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE. KAI EUQUS PERIELAMYE TON TOPON
                      > FWS MEGA. hO IDWN, FHSIN, hO IWANNHS LEGEI AUTWi: SU TIS EI, KURIE; KAI PALIN
                      > FWNH EX OURANOU PROS AUTON: hOUTOS ESTIN hO hUIOS MOU hO AGAPHTOS, EF' hON
                      > HUDOKHSA.
                      >
                      > And a voice from Heaven said:
                      > "You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased. "
                      > And again: " Today I have begotten you".
                      > And immediately a great light shone round about the place.
                      > When John saw this, it is said, he said to him :
                      > "Who are you, Lord?"
                      > And again a voice from Heaven [said] to him:
                      > "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."
                    • Countach
                      ... It seems to me we should give the heretics some credit. If there was not even the slightest sliver of a reason for seeing in the scriptures these other
                      Message 10 of 28 , May 22 9:12 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        malcolm robertson wrote:

                        > This fact is also supported by the incredibly inept and derived nature
                        > of the Gnostic scriptures. No, in fact, the historical data does not
                        > support any other understanding (other than academic and theoretical
                        > hedging) than the mere reality that God in fact became man and was
                        > punished on the tree and rose again the third day according to the
                        > Scriptures. The objective historical data and early Church testimony
                        > both reveals and accounts for it.


                        It seems to me we should give the heretics some credit. If there was not
                        even the slightest sliver of a reason for seeing in the scriptures these
                        other views, there would be no reason for anyone other than the most
                        duplicitous people to try and change the bible to say something else.

                        Now people are criticising Ehrman for Luke 3:22 "You are my Son, today I
                        have begotten you", and presumably they are uncomfortable that this is
                        "adoptionist". Also, some see "this man is the Chosen One of God" at Jn
                        1:34 as adoptionist because it mentions "choosing", and yet it is
                        adopted by the NET, TNIV N-NLT. Then again, even the TR reading at 1Pe
                        2:4 says Jesus is chosen of God.


                        It seems to me if someone wants to refute Ehrman they should start with
                        the Western non-interpolations, which is I think the centrepiece of his
                        claims. Here we have a cluster of readings that are poorly attested, and
                        yet Ehrman seems to show that they are related. And if they are related
                        they must have been altered one way or the other for deliberate
                        theological reasons. And Ehrman gives a bunch of reasons why he thinks
                        they are foreign to Luke. Would anyone care to refute these?
                      • Countach
                        ... Even if a variant arose unintentionally, it still wouldn t make Ehrman s contentions irrelevant. It would only mean we are discussing the motivation for
                        Message 11 of 28 , May 22 9:17 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          malcolm robertson wrote:

                          > INDEED any one category would be inadequate. According to Metzger,
                          > Text, pp. 186-206 the following observed reasons are the categories
                          > for scribe producted corruptions:
                          >
                          > I. Unintentional Changes
                          > 1. Errors arising from faulty eyesight.
                          > 2. Errors arising from faulty hearing.
                          > 3. Errors of the mind.
                          > 4. Errors of judgement.
                          >
                          > II. Intentional Changes
                          > 1. Changes involving spelling and grammar
                          > 2. Harmonistic corruptions
                          > 3. Addition of natural complements amd similar adjuncts
                          > 4. Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties
                          > 5. Conflation of readings
                          > 6. Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations
                          > 7. Addition of miscellaneous details
                          >
                          > Only II.6 is the basis for Mr. Ehrman's thesis throughout his book.


                          Even if a variant arose unintentionally, it still wouldn't make Ehrman's
                          contentions irrelevant. It would only mean we are discussing the
                          motivation for choosing one reading or the other versus the origin of
                          the variant itself. The former is much more interesting anyway, since
                          only one person creates a reading, but the whole community is
                          responsible for which one is propogated. For example, the variant at Jn
                          1:18 could quite easily be unintentional. But once the variant enters
                          the transmission stream, whether it survives or not has to do with its
                          orthodoxy.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.