tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post560854258990316128..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Excerpt from Misquoting TruthP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-10121378487852925182007-06-05T15:31:00.000+01:002007-06-05T15:31:00.000+01:00By the way, my impression is also that Dr. Ehrman ...By the way, my impression is also that Dr. Ehrman did view the Bible as generally historically reliable---though not inerrant---between the Mark 2 incident and the semester at Rutgers.TimothyPaulJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006779457409650888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-64608159350386369832007-06-05T15:16:00.000+01:002007-06-05T15:16:00.000+01:00PJWilliams,You are correct about the harmonization...PJWilliams,<BR/><BR/>You are correct about the harmonization of Ehrman's two accounts. His loss of faith in the Bible's inerrancy---i.e., from his perspective, the specific form of inerrancy that he claims to have inherited from Moody Bible Institute---was triggered by the perceived error regarding Abiathar the high priest. His loss of faith occurred later, while teaching a class on the problem of suffering at Rutgers University.TimothyPaulJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006779457409650888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8624137024913097672007-06-05T09:47:00.000+01:002007-06-05T09:47:00.000+01:00Jim,I don't think the accounts are hard to harmoni...Jim,<BR/>I don't think the accounts are hard to harmonize: Mk 2:26 marked his break with biblical authority, evil, his break with Christian faith more generally.P.J. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-42157538137920534342007-06-05T04:03:00.000+01:002007-06-05T04:03:00.000+01:00Peter Head,Well, I'm happy to chime in to say once...Peter Head,<BR/><BR/>Well, I'm happy to chime in to say once again that Dr. Ehrman (and Vincent Taylor, and the NEB and TNIV) is incorrect about Mk. 1:41, as I explained in the section of my critique of "Misquoting Jesus" at<BR/>http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MisquotingTwo.html . <BR/><BR/>Thinking it over once again, I like more and more the idea that the "orgistheis" reading has its roots somewhere in the tendrils of the Diatessaron, in Syriac. A scribe heard "ethraham" but thought he heard "ethra'em," and the mistake trickled down from there into part of the "Western" transmission-stream that affected some Old Latin mss and Codex Bezae.<BR/><BR/>In other news:<BR/>I'm wondering about something.<BR/>In "Misquoting Jesus," I got the impression that Dr. Ehrman's departure from faith was the result of a professor's comment about Mark 2:26 -- "Maybe Mark just made a mistake," or something like that. This, it seemed to me as I was reading, is what caused the floodgates of agnosticism to open and overwhelm the author. <BR/>But in a recent interview in BAR, Dr. Ehrman relates that he lost faith because he could not deal with the problem of evil. So now I wonder how much impact the problem with Mk. 2:26 really had. <BR/><BR/>Yours in Christ,<BR/><BR/>James Snapp, Jr.<BR/>Minister, Curtisville Christian Church<BR/>Tipton, Indiana (USA)<BR/>www.textexcavation.com/marcanarchetypescans.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76126043338051522842007-06-04T16:15:00.000+01:002007-06-04T16:15:00.000+01:00I didn't say it was a bad strategy!I didn't say it was a bad strategy!Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55908001177155700272007-06-04T13:45:00.000+01:002007-06-04T13:45:00.000+01:00Peter,This is essentially how I responded to Ehrma...Peter,<BR/>This is essentially how I responded to Ehrman in my initial review of <I>MJ</I>. While I did not grant that his choice of readings was correct, I think I chose not to dispute any of them. After all, if his argument does not stand up even if he is correct in his choice of readings, <I>a fortiori</I> it does not stand up if he can be shown to be wrong on some.<BR/><BR/>I purposely chose the extract from <I>MT</I> that dealt with Mark 1:41 since I thought it raised interesting issues.P.J. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-29879531690271405182007-06-04T13:22:00.000+01:002007-06-04T13:22:00.000+01:00PMH said:"I wonder if this is the tone of the whol...PMH said:<BR/>"I wonder if this is the tone of the whole book: 'Oh, I agree with Dr Bart on this variant, but it surely is not so significant and theology-shattering as he implies.'"<BR/>TPJ said: <BR/>"The intentional pattern of argument in my book is to state, in essence, 'Okay, let's grant the areas where Ehrman may be correct. Even if these are granted, his evidence does not bear the weight of his implications and inferences."<BR/><BR/>So, PMH was right.<BR/><BR/>Also this is an interesting strategy. Basically it affirms Ehrman's basic method and approach (indeed supports it in various ways), and only challenges the exaggerated conclusions and implications.<BR/><BR/>Their are obvious risks to this strategy. It'll be interested to see how it works out.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57517504140581181282007-06-03T05:23:00.000+01:002007-06-03T05:23:00.000+01:00With reference to Mark 1 ...I do find Ehrman's cas...With reference to Mark 1 ...<BR/>I do find Ehrman's case for orgistheis to be more believable than other explanations for its appearance in Codex Bezae. The emergence of the variant orgistheis due to translations through Latin or a Semitic language strikes me as more strained than admitting that, in this case, Bezae may have preserved an authentic reading---especially in light of the ommissions of "anger" language in Matthew and Luke when working from Mark as a source. And it should probably be noted that this is hardly an "Ehrman-ism," as a cursory survey of commentaries and journal articles reveals. William Lane and R.T. France comment on orgistheis with approval, with Kirsopp Lake approving the less-attested reading but trying to apply it to the leper.<BR/><BR/>With reference to Luke 22 ...<BR/>I don't think Ehrman is correct in the omission of Luke 22:19b-20, but I do consider Codex Bezae to constitute a witness that should be taken seriously (hence "solid," though not "strong"---and my statements that I'm "open" to his point and that he "may" be correct). Though a somewhat freer text than others, Bezae is not a careless text (to give credit where it's due, I think I'm drawing there from some terminology in David Parker's book on the codex). The intentional pattern of argument in my book is to state, in essence, "Okay, let's grant the areas where Ehrman may be correct. Even if these are granted, his evidence does not bear the weight of his implications and inferences." This is a book for laypeople that neither pretends nor attempts to provide exhaustive text-critical evidences ... which, though admittedly important, the intended readership might find to be beyond their capacities. In short, this isn't aimed at text-critics but at the hundreds of thousands of ordinary folk who have read Ehrman's book and now feel unwarranted concern about the reliability of Scripture based on the gross overstatements found in Ehrman's text.<BR/><BR/>With reference to Luke's supposed lack of atonement theology ...<BR/>I'm afraid we simply differ on that point. Certainly, there are additional reasons that both of us could list for the different emphasis in Luke's Gospel---that I do not deny. Again, I neither pretended nor intended to have presented an exhaustive analysis of my knowledge or of the potential issues surrounding Ehrman's arguments. There are other works on which I'm working that are intended to be scholarly in content and scope---this book's intent was to assist and to assure the person in the pew whose education may have ended with high school.<BR/><BR/>Thank you, however, for your comments! "As iron sharpens iron ..."TimothyPaulJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006779457409650888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38915761389801841722007-06-02T23:11:00.000+01:002007-06-02T23:11:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.TimothyPaulJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006779457409650888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57097859766882519382007-06-02T23:07:00.000+01:002007-06-02T23:07:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.TimothyPaulJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006779457409650888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75208832287634683522007-06-02T16:28:00.000+01:002007-06-02T16:28:00.000+01:00Hi Serge,Thanks for the comment. I wasn't meaning ...Hi Serge,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comment. I wasn't meaning to be condescending. I think you'll find that I interact like this with many issues on this blog. I suppose I could just ignore issues or let them slide because Jones is supposed to be on the good guys side and Ehrman is supposed to be on the bad guys side. Except that in these two cases they are actually on the same side (textually speaking).<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, I would have expected a popular level work on this subject to be a bit more straightforward about the evidence for the readings adopted. That was the point I believe I was highlighting in my comment.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-36592528318132829172007-06-02T02:33:00.000+01:002007-06-02T02:33:00.000+01:00Dear Peter, i am looking at your comments 4:47PM a...Dear Peter, i am looking at your comments 4:47PM and the one from the blog where this book was introduced a couple of week ago and for the second time, for some reason, i feel some condescendance in them! am i wrong? if not why this attitude toward a brother in Christ who is trying to contribute to this issue?<BR/><BR/>serge poirierserge poirierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14294258049504384597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7555104492383205662007-06-01T16:47:00.000+01:002007-06-01T16:47:00.000+01:00A couple of points. Interesting to see that there ...A couple of points. Interesting to see that there is no disagreement on Ehrman's text-critical conclusions. Rather striking actually considering the slim evidential basis in both these cases. I wonder if this is the tone of the whole book: 'Oh, I agree with Dr Bart on this variant, but it surely is not so significant and theology-shattering as he implies.'<BR/><BR/>a) "Although the manuscript evidence for “becoming angry” is mixed ...". "mixed" is an interesting term; basically means "slim (extremely)".<BR/>b) "Solid evidence does exist to suggest that these specific verses may not have appeared in the first edition of Luke’s Gospel." Interesting to know what this "solid evidence" actually is.<BR/>c) I didn't find the explanation of Luke's lack of atonement theology (influence of hellenistic audience for whom sacrifice was not of interest) convincing.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-52290897241638090412007-06-01T14:24:00.000+01:002007-06-01T14:24:00.000+01:00To read the Introduction and Study Guide from Misq...To read the Introduction and Study Guide from <I>Misquoting Truth</I>, you can go to <A HREF="http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/toc/code=3447" REL="nofollow">IVP's website</A> for the book.TimothyPaulJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006779457409650888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-41236551171297204372007-06-01T14:02:00.000+01:002007-06-01T14:02:00.000+01:00Or, for that matter, James 2:25 ("Rahab ... had vi...Or, for that matter, James 2:25 ("Rahab ... had violently thrown out the spies"?) and Revelation 11:2 ("violently throw out the courtyard"?). In the book, I used only examples from Mark's Gospel because of Dr. Ehrman's explicit claim that <I>ekballo</I> "always" functions in that Gospel in the senses of violent conflict or hurling out.TimothyPaulJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006779457409650888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71504110960843615082007-06-01T11:56:00.000+01:002007-06-01T11:56:00.000+01:00The "throw" root of ἐκβάλλω need not be taken in a...The "throw" root of ἐκβάλλω need not be taken in a harsh sense in every case. One could think about περιβάλλω which suggests nothing more than putting on clothing in a normal fashion.<BR/><BR/>Imagine if we interpreted Math 9:38 in light of a harsh ἐκβάλλω:<BR/>"Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, <I>to throw (violently)</I> workers <I>out</I> into his harvest field."Christian Askelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381441700351009913noreply@blogger.com