The point is to make that information common knowledge by being available to more people. with the millions of Chriatians in this country alone who revere the Bible I’m betting few of them know these significant details about the book.
If people continue to claim the Bible is an inspired collection of books the fact mistakes were made, contradictions exist, and whole sections were added {and deleted?} has to have some impact on our understanding of what inspiration is and how it works. If whole sections about the life and resurection of Jesus were added and probably never happened what kind of faith can we have in the gospels as a whole. IMO, only as methphor rather than history.
Yes the vast majority of the tens of thousands of variences in the different copies of the NT books were minor errors. How many significant differences need there be, and how many people have to know and accept them as factual, before we shake off old inaccurate traditions about the Bible?
As far as doctrine is concerned, there are many doctrines formed by different interpretations of the Bible. If the evidence points significantly to thousands of minor errors and a few rather significantr changes that clearly demonstrate the interference of man within a “sacred” text what is called into question is the reliability of any doctrine drawn from that book. Chriatianity can and does have it’s traditions. Fine. Let’s be careful to recognize them for being just that rather than teach them to the masses as divine truth.
Are there actually any significant differences among early manuscripts, other than the three that have already been mentioned? As I’ve said, those three are clearly marked in any copy of the Bible that you’d buy these days. So are a handful of other variants that involve only a sentence or less. Can Ehrman actually point to any discrepancy of importance that is not listed in today’s Bibles? If not, then what reason is there for concern that the knowledge is not being made available?
What I’m really objecting to here is the insinuation from Dawkins that Christians are being misled about the basis of their faith, by copyists and translators tampering with the text of the gospels during the early centuries. That is simply not true. As the aforementioned Dr. Metzger said in an interview:
Or from Dr. Craig Blomberg:
Since Dawkins’ attacks on this topic (and throughout his book) are based on his simply declaring that all informed persons agree with him, these two quotes from two of the most prominent real scholars of the New Testament in the 20th century pretty much put the Dawkins line to rest.
I’d certainly be interested in any serious books that took a detailed look at the dating of the real gospels. Crossan I’ve already dealt with on the topic of the Gospel of Peter, and no one seems to want to dispute that he’s far out on the loony left of Bible scholarship.
However, we are wandering off the topic. The topic was Dawkins’ claim that the four canonical gospels were “chosen arbitrarily” from among several. And despite the fawning posts from your fan club, you’ve actually been not too far away from me on the major points. You put the authorship of Mark “probably right around 70”. I’ll personally follow Dr. Evans: “I’d put Mark in the 60’s. I think Mark had to have been in the shadow of the Jewish-Roman war of 66-70. Jesus says in Mark 13:18, ‘Pray that this will not take place this winter.’ Well, it didn’t. It happened in the summer. This statement makes sense if Mark was published when the war was underway or about to occur. But if it was written in 71 or 72, as some have speculated, that would be an odd statement to leave in place.” So really there’s not much dispute there. ‘Sometime close to 70’ is a dating we can apparently agree with.
Likewise with Luke, you want to push the possible date back to the mid 90’s, while I want to cap it at 90. We’re quibbling over about five years, which would have no effect at all on the basic fact that the canonical gospels were written several generations before all others. You say that Acts “mentions the death of Paul (more obliquely) in Acts 20”. Actually it does not. (Interest parties may read Acts 20 here.) All it features is Paul telling a group of believers that he won’t see them again, but he avoids more specific predictions. We could argue on about why Luke would write it in that way but not put Paul’s death at the end of the chronological list of events, which would be the obvious place for it, but that doesn’t affect the topic of the thread. Let’s just say that we’re in agreement about Luke being written by 100 AD and leave it at that for now. In other words, we both reject Sage Rat’s attempt to push the dates on those two gospels back to 150.
In any case, since we appear to agree that Metzger is a reliable scholar, let’s see what he actually says about the topic of the thread.
One couldn’t ask for a more clear refutation of the Dawkins version of events.
We’ll, we’ve just seen that Dr. Metzger actually says the exact opposite of what you claim he says, so I guess we can cross him off the list. As for the rest, perhaps you should actually read the thread, in which case you’ll note that Diogenes listed those as scholars supporting the dating of Mark and Luke, not as supporting the real and fake gospels being written at the same time. In fact, we’re still looking for any citation to a non-Wikipedia source willing to assert that.
Your terminology is off here. The Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, etc, are “real gospels”…they’re all accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus. The term you’re looking for is “canonical vs noncanonical gospel”
It’s not a refutation, just a different rhetorical spin. I’ve already said that it was misleading (and and perhaps not fully informed) for Dawkins to call the Canonization process “arbitrary,” but it’s equally misleading, or at least parsimonious, for Metzger (who was not without a confessional bias even though he was first rate scholar) to say that the NT contains the “best sources for the history of Jesus.” This statement, while technically defensible, is still incomplete in that the NT Canon is only the “best” in comparison to stuff that got left out. Yes, Mark is better than the Infancy Gospel of James, but that’s not saying much. It still has an unknown provenence and little reliability.
Doesn’t this suggest that the people who selected the official canon selected the stories that had most of the details more-or-less in common? Consistency doesn’t prove truth.
Could we have a citation to the prove that Princeton Theological Seminary backs up Dawkins, please?
Uh-huh. Let’s cover a few basic facts about Secret Mark.
Secret Mark does not exist. Nobody has ever seen a copy. The only “evidence” ever offered for its existence was a letter from Clement of Alexandria describing it. The only problem being…
The letter from Clement of Alexandria also doesn’t exist. A professor and former priest, Morton smith, claimed to have found the letter at the at the Mar Saba Monastery. The only problem is that when other scholars came to look for it, the letter had managed to grow feet and walk away. Thus they had to rely on Smith’s picture of it. The only problem being…
Those pictures were easily discerned to be a hoax and the letter a forgery. Stephen Carlson wrote a book, The Gospel Hoax, which piles up a mountain of evidence against the pictures. The most straightforward evidence is simply that Smith put a number of jokes into the forgery. This review covers the major points.
Ehrman talks extensively about it in Jesus Interrupted.
By that standard, Papias doesn’t exist either since the only “evidence” we have for him is what is quoted by Eusebius.
you’re behind the times on this. The Mar Saba manuscript was recovered in 1976:
I know Stephen Carlson. He’s a frequent poster on a Biblical Criticism board that I moderate. He’s a better than average apologist, and a civil, intelligent guy. I’m familiar with his argument for Morton Smith having forged Secret Mark. He he talked a lot about it on my board before he published it. It’s a nice try on his part. His case has not been particularly well accepted, though, and the majority of scholarship still supports the letter as being authentically Clementine.
Stephen has some quirky ideas. He thinks that Tacitus got his Jesus passage from Josephus, for instance (a case he argues with some degree of plausibility), and that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to get married (IIRC, he thinks that Joseph owned the inn).
First two sentences of the Wikipedia section on dating (bolding added) :
“There are differing opinions as to how late Mark could have been written. Most scholars agree with the Two-source hypothesis that proposes that Mark was one of the sources for the other Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Luke; according to this viewpoint the latest possible date for Mark depends on the dating of Matthew and Luke.”
That it could be no earlier than 70 is fairly well demarcated. The latest it could have been written, however, is pretty open. Given that the article continues on to mention a rogue segment that makes a serious case for a post-135 dating, putting it anywhere into the first half of the 2nd century seems reasonable.
There’s no reference to it previous to the mid-2nd century as said by the Wikipedia:
“The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[37] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke.”
Given that Luke is believed to be based on Mark and Q according to the Two-Source Hypothesis and Mark is highly unlikely to have been written previous to 70 CE, it seems rather implausible for Luke to have been earlier than 70.
Even if they were written by the same author, that doesn’t mean they were written at the same time. According to the Wikipedia on Acts of the Apostles, this is precisely the case. Presuming it to be the same author, I would agree that a latest date for Luke of ~100 CE would probably be better than the one I gave before.
“My second remark concerns Perrin’s main thesis, namely, that the author/redactor of GT relied upon Tatian’s Diatessaron. Let’s say from the start that Perrin’s conclusion is a default one. To put it in his own words, “since Tatian’s harmony was presumably the only gospel record available in the Syriac language at that time, the evidence points ineluctably to Diatessaronic influence” (17; see also 193: “Tatian’s Diatessaron is the only Syriac text of the Synoptic tradition that could have been available to Thomas”). In order to validate this post hoc propter hoc argument, a side-by-side comparison of the Coptic GT and its Syriac retroversion with the actual text of the Diatessaron—provided that it can be reconstructed with some certainty—would be necessary. Paradoxically, however, Tatian (and his Diatessaron) is the most noticeable absentee from this book.”
I.e. he entirely forgoes actually pointing out any similarities. And, skimming through chapter 3 (or what is viewable in the Google preview), I have to agree that there don’t appear to be any actual quotes from the Diatessaron. This seems rather an odd way to prove that this was the source.
Given that the Diatessaron was, itself, simply a compilation of the cannonical gospels, the only way to show that the Gospel of Thomas was based upon it would be to show that the choices for inclusion into the Diatessaron are the same as are included in the Gospel of Thomas–i.e. there are no non-Diatessaron quotes and usages that are in the cannonical gospels. How is one supposed to do such a comparison if one doesn’t actually include the Diatessaron in there?
I would also note that the earliest manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas we have is dated to 200 CE, and written in Greek. It seems rather implausible that Tatian would have completed his work, in Syriac, have it become widespread enough that someone else would use it as the basis for his information, and that Syriac language Gospel of Thomas again become widespread enough that someone else would translate it into Greek, all in the space of 25 years.
And lastly, I would note that Dr. Perrin is one guy with his own pet theory. When other people are jumping up and down on the idea, that seems the time to start talking about conclusive proof.
But, I would be perfectly fine to be more inclusive of rogue historians, if that’s your preference. If you want the latest date to be ~185, that’s fine by me.
See this is where that thing known as “word definitions” and “spelling” comes into effect. Most specifically, when you see two words that are spelled differently, this often means that they are different words from one another. And most often, different words have different definitions.
The words, in particular, that I refer to are “must” and “could”. These are two different words, with two different meanings. If I say that a work “must” have been written during the 1st century, it means something different from if I say, it “could” have been written during the 1st century.
The argument is that certain styles of writing would be more likely to exist at certain times. Presuming that the first run of writings would have been to recording sayings and snippets of events, and the second run of writings would have been to link these together into a story, then an argument can be made that a “sayings” document would be more likely to have begun its existence during the first phase of writing. It is more “reminiscent” of that period of writing.
“remniscent” and “must” are also separate words.
My dates are the same as ECW’s. I can’t comment on Evans’ argument. It’s beyond my abilities to judge the merit of it.
For the record, the argument for dating GThomas early goes beyond the fact that it’s a sayings gospel. It’s also because of its manifest independence from the synoptics and its lack of Christological development.
It appears to be an accreted work, though. Sayings were added over tme to the original layer.
Indeed. I was summarizing the -one- argument. There are further, unrelated arguments for both the early and late schools of dating.
But short of anything which positively links to an actual historic event (like the creation of the Diatessoran), the date of initial creation could be anywhere previous to 200 CE.
I think there are significant differences but YMMV. One example, in Luke 22 during the last supper Jesus gives them bread and says, “this is my body” what was added in later manuscripts was “which has been given for you, do this to remember me” I’d say that is a bit significant. There are several examples where the changing of a word or a few words could make a significant difference in traditional Christian theology. The last 12 verses of Mark not being part of the original seems very significant since it establishes the actual resurrection.
The important issue for me is although the information about the origin and changes in the Bible is available it has not being taught to average mainstream Christians. Dr Ehrman tells the story of asking his classes how any people think the Bible is the inspired word of God. Almost all hands go up. How many people have read the Da Vinci code? Again, almost all hands. How many people have read the Bible all the way through? A lot fewer hands.
Christians are woefully ignorant of the book they revere and a lot of traditional beliefs are accepted as factual without a lot of questions. IMO, in a belief system that values truth, that’s not enough.
I’d rephrase. They’re not being misled by the copyists so much as those who promote inaccuracies about the Bible and allow ignorant tradition to flourish over the truth. The information is not hidden. It’s available. How many average Christians are being encouraged to look at and consider it’s implications? How many are being taught some of these facts in their Bible study class?
Intelligent informed people also make decisions based in part on their emotions and personal preferences. Ehrman dedicates his book to Metzger and refers to him as Doctor-Father, but coming from a fundamentalist background and then passing through being an evangelical, he arrives at a different conclusion than his mentor and is an agnostic. Neither is conclusive.
I really have a hard time accepting his statement that the gospel accounts are accurate. It seems to me that the available evidence shows pretty conclusively that their accuracy is in question.
It seems unrealistic to expect detailed accuracy from Dawkins concerning a field where so much is in question. He may be exaggerating the case based on his own bias and preferences, but not nearly as much as Christian preachers have done for generations and are still doing. I’d rather have his view out there stimulating the debate and drawing attention to the subject matter.
I, too, would be quite interested in hearing of any mainstream church teaching that what Dawkins says is true or close to true.
In my class the priest read silly passages from apocryphal gospels and made comments such as “I wonder why this didn’t get in.” The compilers of the NT would have to have been nuts not to take this into consideration.
Anybody can make a claim that the majority of scholarship supports this or that. I haven’t read nearly enough to make a judgment on that, but what I have read is that there’s basically five unknowns about Secret Mark. Is the manuscript found by Smith real or a forgery? Is the 18th-century letter an accurate copy of something written in antiquity? Is the author of the letter actually Clement of Alexandria or someone else? Do Clement’s summary and quotations really come from a copy of a gnostic gospel that includes the text of Mark? And does that text actually predate the gospel of Mark that we have? Even if the answer to some of those questions is yes, I doubt anyone can make a cogent argument for all five answers being yes. I am aware that some left-wing scholars have been spinning elaborate theories about the first-century church based solely on Secret Mark, but frankly that tells us more about 21st century left-wing scholars and how easy it is to snooker them than it tells us about the first century church.