Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it is beyond doubt that Ehman is a leading expert in this research field, given his academic position and the quality of his research outputs. Whether he is the leading expert, rather than just a leading expert would be a matter of debate amongst his peers - this is entirely consistent with my statement that 'arguably the leading expert on biblical textual analysis'.

I've no doubt he's a leading expert but, the leading expert?
Thank you for clearing up the depth of your argument.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've no doubt he's a leading expert but, the leading expert?

So we can agree that he is, at least, a leading expert. That's good - a bit of consensus for once.

So I presume therefore that, from your inexpert position, you wouldn't contradict his expert opinion that we do not, and indeed cannot, know what was actually written in the original version (or even versions) of the gospels. What we do know is what is written in the earliest versions we actually have - typically from CE200 onwards (although there are a very small number of slightly earlier fragments most of which contain nothing more than a few words and often not even full sentences). And we also know that those early versions contain huge numbers of variations version to version. I think the view is that there are more variations between early gospel texts than there are words in the bible.

Most of those variations are minor - spelling errors - slight changing of wording that doesn't change meaning. But there are some massive variations - the most obvious been the addition of a new ending to Mark. And we only know that because we have before/after versions. How many similar changes were made in the hundreds of years before we have any existing text - we are completely in the dark. Hence Ehrman's view that we do not and cannot know what was in the original.

[Spud]

But that is what all the gospels do when they posit a miracle claim alongside some down to earth plausible stuff.

That you see this only for the apocryphal gospels but not for the canonical ones is a faith position, as there is no more (or less) credible evidence within the canonical gospels compared to apocryphal gospels to support miracle claims. You accept the former but not the latter, not on the basis of evidence, but because your religion tells you the former are true and the latter not. That is a faith position.

Sure, except that the apocryphal gospels (which I'm not overly familiar with) have some very weird stuff in, that's clearly made up, by people who weren't eyewitnesses, a long time after the events: for example "Jesus comes out of the tomb as tall as a mountain, supported by two angels, nearly as tall themselves. And behind them, from the tomb, there emerges the cross, which has a conversation with God in heaven, assuring him that the message of salvation has now gone to those in the underworld."
https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/giant-jesus-and-walking-talking-cross.html?m=1

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So we can agree that he is, at least, a leading expert. That's good - a bit of consensus for once.

So I presume therefore that, from your inexpert position, you wouldn't contradict his expert opinion that we do not, and indeed cannot, know what was actually written in the original version (or even versions) of the gospels. What we do know is what is written in the earliest versions we actually have - typically from CE200 onwards (although there are a very small number of slightly earlier fragments most of which contain nothing more than a few words and often not even full sentences). And we also know that those early versions contain huge numbers of variations version to version. I think the view is that there are more variations between early gospel texts than there are words in the bible.

Most of those variations are minor - spelling errors - slight changing of wording that doesn't change meaning. But there are some massive variations - the most obvious been the addition of a new ending to Mark. And we only know that because we have before/after versions. How many similar changes were made in the hundreds of years before we have any existing text - we are completely in the dark. Hence Ehrman's view that we do not and cannot know what was in the original.

The gospels are dated to where they have been dated and the epistles are dated to where they are dated namely much earlier.
It seems to me that Dr Ehrman is more certain of a christian community with protoorthodox and protoheretical elements that is well underway by the time the gospels were produced.
In a lot of respects then I possibly accept more of Dr Ehrmans views on Jesus than what I see as the predominantly vague atheist view on this forum that there is a good chance Jesus is mythological and the epistles and gospels are likely to be fiction

[ProfessorDavey]

The gospels are dated to where they have been dated and the epistles are dated to where they are dated namely much earlier.

But we aren't necessarily arguing about when they are considered to have been originally written. We are discussing whether we can confidently conclude that the text we know to be in the earliest actual versions we have (typically from 220-350CE) is the same as that which was originally written. And Ehrman's view (as at least a leading expert) is that we cannot. All we can know for certain is what is in the versions we have from hundreds of years later - we do not know and indeed cannot know (unless earlier versions turn up) how dissimilar or similar this is to the originals.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But we aren't necessarily arguing about when they are considered to have been originally written. We are discussing whether we can confidently conclude that the text we know to be in the earliest actual versions we have (typically from 220-350CE) is the same as that which was originally written. And Ehrman's view (as at least a leading expert) is that we cannot. All we can know for certain is what is in the versions we have from hundreds of years later - we do not know and indeed cannot know (unless earlier versions turn up) how dissimilar or similar this is to the originals.

But then Ehrman does seem to consider evidence that the earliest church has a doctrine of Jesus as the son of God, as opposed to say, not having one.
To me that demonstrates he is prepared not to look at the gospels in isolation which seems to  be the predominant practice of some on this forum.

I have no problem with a scripture or formal organisational document being written post events.

[ProfessorDavey]

It seems to me that Dr Ehrman is more certain of a christian community with protoorthodox and protoheretical elements that is well underway by the time the gospels were produced.

I don't think anyone is denying that by late 1stC early christian communities had emerged, which interestingly did not seem to have an agreed orthodoxy - indeed there were very distinct sects within early christianity. The orthodoxy we think about today, both in terms of the selection of what texts were 'accepted' and which 'rejected' in the NT and in dogmatic terms didn't arise until much, much later - largely in the 4thC.

So had a different group have come to the ascendency by the 4thC we might have a completely different church - one that considers what we now think of as orthodox to be heretical and may have accepted what we now think of as heretical to be orthodox.

[ProfessorDavey]

But then Ehrman does seem to consider evidence that the earliest church has a doctrine of Jesus as the son of God, as opposed to say, not having one.

I don't think you can say this (and I don't think Ehrman does either) - not least because there wasn't just one 'earliest church', but several, which did not agree with each other.

[Maeght]

The gospels are dated to where they have been dated and the epistles are dated to where they are dated namely much earlier.
It seems to me that Dr Ehrman is more certain of a christian community with protoorthodox and protoheretical elements that is well underway by the time the gospels were produced.
In a lot of respects then I possibly accept more of Dr Ehrmans views on Jesus than what I see as the predominantly vague atheist view on this forum that there is a good chance Jesus is mythological and the epistles and gospels are likely to be fiction

Who on here has said Jesus is mythological?

[jeremyp]

'Not need' does not mean in contradiction.

It does in this case. If GR is correct, there is no "force of gravity" whether provided by pixies with strings or anything else.

If the supernatural is  incoherent then the argument that would have you a reason not to believe it is justifying that, not that you have an explanation under a material methodology.

Sorry I can't parse that sentence.

I say the supernatural is incoherent because as soon as you find objective evidence that a supernatural effect does actually happen, we re-label it as "natural" That's why I referred to it as a kind of god of the gaps.

And it's still got nothing to do with the non purpisive/purposive main discussion.

So what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think you can say this (and I don't think Ehrman does either) - not least because there wasn't just one 'earliest church', but several, which did not agree with each other.

I think he argues that the disciples immediate post crucifixion view was Adoptionist. What you suggest is not actually contradictory to the earliest church having  a doctrine or doctrines concerning Christ as son of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think anyone is denying that by late 1stC early christian communities had emerged, which interestingly did not seem to have an agreed orthodoxy - indeed there were very distinct sects within early christianity. The orthodoxy we think about today, both in terms of the selection of what texts were 'accepted' and which 'rejected' in the NT and in dogmatic terms didn't arise until much, much later - largely in the 4thC.

So had a different group have come to the ascendency by the 4thC we might have a completely different church - one that considers what we now think of as orthodox to be heretical and may have accepted what we now think of as heretical to be orthodox.

I think Ehrman would recognise an orthodoxy christian view that Jesus was the son of God although there remains for him the possibility that they were first adoptionist. That is Ehrmans view.
I dispute orthodoxy or apostolic christianity only being established in the 4th century. Since it exists in the epistles.
As for claims to anything being completely different. I take it that's just a bit of hyperbole on your part.

[jeremyp]

What is the earliest copy of a Gospel we have? Second Century?

The earliest copy of a gospel we have is mid second century.

I say "copy of a gospel" but the text I am thinking about is really a fragment of a copy of a gospel.

How do you know that the copies we have are the same as the originals?

We don't. In fact, we know that many of them are not the same as the originals. For example, the two earliest extant copies of Mark (both fourth century) do not include the last twelve verses, whereas many of the later ones do. This is usually taken to mean that the last twelve verses were tacked on at a later date, but it could possibly mean that the scribes that made those copies missed a bit. Either way, all the later copies are wrong, or they are wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think Ehrman would recognise an orthodoxy christian view that Jesus was the son of God although there remains for him the possibility that they were first adoptionist. That is Ehrmans view.
I dispute orthodoxy or apostolic christianity only being established in the 4th century. Since it exists in the epistles.
As for claims to anything being completely different. I take it that's just a bit of hyperbole on your part.

But until an 'orthodox' view has been established, how can you say that a particular view was orthodox. You are looking at things through the prism of what later history dictated was 'orthodox' rather than what was considered 'orthodox' by people living in, say 50CE. I'd say at that point there was no 'orthodox' position - there were lots of competing positions and views, which ultimately coalesced around an 'orthodox' position in the early 4thC.

Do you really think that the 2ndC christians who were later dismissed as heretical considered their view to be wrong - of course they didn't. I'm sure they were very certain in their views and considered those whose views eventually were agreed to be orthodox as wrong.

[jeremyp]

Don't be silly, Spud: none of them have any provenance of note so that, for example, the effects of any subsequent editing and translations of whatever the original sources were are unknown, and from this distance can probably never be known.

It's important to note that the same applies to all the ancient writings we have. We do not, for example, have the original of the Histories by Herodotos or even any manuscript from earlier than the second century CE which is five centuries after he wrote them. Herodotos is practically our only source for the Greco-Persian wars.  If you cast the same level of doubt on his writings as you are casting on the gospels, we have to throw out the Battle of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis and a lot of what we know about the Persian empire.

That's not to say we need to trust everything the gospels say. There's a lot in them that is clearly made up and, whereas Herodotos was explicitly writing a history, the gospel writers were evangelising Christianity.

[jeremyp]

But until an 'orthodox' view has been established, how can you say that a particular view was orthodox.

The earliest extant Christian texts support what we now call the orthodox view.

Of course, since it was the "orthodox" church that is responsible for the preservation of the early Christian documents, it is an open question as to whether other early Christian documents existed at one time that do not support the orthodox view.

We do know that there were competing versions of Christianity at the time Paul was writing his letters because that is why he was writing those letters.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So for the sake of clarity, what you ate trying to justify is that you know that the 'world' is non purposive.

I know that as much as I know that gravity isn’t done by pixies, yes. And I know that because of the falsity of the arguments for a purposive world and the robustness of the arguments for a non-purposive world.

Your case seems to be there are known thresholds for knowledge in physics which you have not applied, and it's not clear can be applied to justify this.

No it doesn’t. You asked about thresholds for the status of knowledge and I gave you an example used in particular field. For the most part most people have to decide these things on the fly though – when crossing a road and deciding whether they know the speed of oncoming vehicles for example – or, as here, by evaluating the justifying arguments and treating the outcome as evidence.   

That though those thresholds haven't been applied, they are just like basic empiricism, and mean whether the 'world' is non purposive is just like crossing the road.

Actually it isn’t, because I don’t evaluate the arguments for whether my belief that the approaching traffic won’t run me over is well-founded – a quick look and some likely mostly subconscious processing is enough for that purpose. I’m sufficiently confident nonetheless that I do know what I think I know about that that I will cross the road on that basis. And so, presumably, will you. 

Concluding that I have sufficient evidence to justify a claim of knowing the world to be non-purposive on the other hand comes from reviewing the arguments for and against. 

The point here is that there isn’t just one method for justifiably claiming to know something. I know the traffic won't run me over largely intuitively; I know the world is non-purposive largely through reasoning; I know the Higgs-Boson is real because I (or at least other people who understand these things) applied the five-sigma threshold test etc. 

That though you accept there can be rational belief that isn't knowledge,…

What are you trying to say here? Rational reasoning applied to a proposition produces information, which we can (and generally do) call “knowledge”.

…you know that the 'world' is non purposive because it's much easier to measure even though you haven't measured it or shown that it can be, than what horse will win the 4.30 at Kempton.

I can’t make any sense of this. I know that that the world is non-purposive for the reasons I’ve explained to you: the falsity of the arguments that it isn’t and the robustness of the arguments that it is.

That I'm lying about rating my understanding of warped space time as not great.

As not great what?

That when I dismiss an explanation as not knowledge apt, I am somehow saying it is knowledge apt and valid.

You’re straw manning me here. If you think a proposition is “not knowledge apt” that doesn’t thereby imply a sort of epistemological equivalence between the truth claims of the knowledge apt and of the non-knowledge apt propositions. In that case if the arguments for the knowledge apt proposition are robust that’s the end of that matter because there’s nothing to consider about the non-knowledge apt proposition. This isn’t a claim that the non-knowledge apt proposition isn’t true though – instead it’s a priori knowledge that the non-knowledge apt proposition isn’t a proposition to start with – it’s just white noise.         

That if you have 2 explanations, which still don't contradict outcomes, clash I somehow need knowledge of warped space time to trust getting on a plane. Just like I need to understand quantum physics to not sit on a chair.

First, you need to decide whether or not you’re still trying the “non-knowledge apt argument”. If you are, it’s not an “explanation” to begin with. Rhetorical white noise can’t be an explanation. 

Second, just no. That’s not what I was saying at all. You criticised me for not applying a strict method to decide whether I could claim to have knowledge about something and in response I merely explained that we all decide that we know things all the time without doing that, and moreover that we’re so confident that we do indeed know the things we think we know that we risk our lives on being correct about that.       

That looking at a general concept non purposive/purposive as regards the 'world',  you can say you know it's non purposive by suggesting a non knowledge apt purposive 'explanation' and dismissing that.

You’ll need to unscramble that if you want me to make sense of it. I think I’ve set out before and above though pretty clearly what I actually think and why though. The point here remains: you would say that you "know" instinctively that the oncoming traffic won't run you over if you cross the road. If pressed, you would also say that you know that because because traffic moves in accordance with consistent physical laws and forces - ie, you could argue your way to a justification. If I claimed that trolls actually were pushing the traffic and that they could accelerate the cars at 1,000 mph at will you'd be so confident in your knowledge that I was either producing white noise or wrong that you'd cross the road anyway. How so if, according to you, such claims to knowledge aren't justified?       

[ProfessorDavey]

The earliest extant Christian texts support what we now call the orthodox view.

Of course, since it was the "orthodox" church that is responsible for the preservation of the early Christian documents, it is an open question as to whether other early Christian documents existed at one time that do not support the orthodox view.

We do know that there were competing versions of Christianity at the time Paul was writing his letters because that is why he was writing those letters.

I think I agree with you ... if I'm reading this as being a bit of a circular argument.

Effectively that history is written by the winners - or in this case orthodoxy is determined by the winners of the competing views. So of course there will be texts from early that align with a view determined later to be orthodox. But there are (e.g. the apocryphal gospels and other documents) text from similar times that were not determined to be orthodox and were rejected by the 'winning side'.

And we need to be aware that the winning side will often eradicate evidence that doesn't support their view, or at least fail to preserve it. So the lack of extant texts for opposing views doesn't mean they didn't exist - just that they may have been destroyed due to they being considered heretical or not preserved. Now we may not be able to know what actually was in those text except by reference to second hand account, but then we don't have anything from many of the 'orthodox' early church fathers except from later second hand accounts.

And it is worth noting that what is in the 'orthodox' NT canon took hundreds of years to become settled.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, folks around here bypass that and accept your erroneous interpretations.

That's very Trumpian. Ehrmann said the opposite of what you thought he said. You then just call the explanation you were given for why this is the case as "erroneous" and hope no-one notices.

What do you get from this behaviour?   

[ProfessorDavey]

It's important to note that the same applies to all the ancient writings we have. We do not, for example, have the original of the Histories by Herodotos or even any manuscript from earlier than the second century CE which is five centuries after he wrote them. Herodotos is practically our only source for the Greco-Persian wars.  If you cast the same level of doubt on his writings as you are casting on the gospels, we have to throw out the Battle of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis and a lot of what we know about the Persian empire.

That's true.

But, of course, in some cases there is archeological evidence alongside the textual evidence. But also I don't think some of the other histories from antiquity are expecting us to agree to the level of detail christians demand of the gospels. So while we might completely reject any kind of detail around the Greco-Persian wars for the reasons you suggest, the broad 'footprint' - there were wars between the Achaemenid Empire and the Greeks around those times and involving various people, where there may be corroborating evidence e.g. in the form of contemporaneous coins, sculptures etc.

We may also be suspicious of the texts as they come from one side only and are therefore likely to be biased.

But this, I think, is exactly how scholarship around events from antiquity is pursued.

But there is a difference between accepting the plausibility of a battle between enemies (without necessarily accepting any level of detail from texts, nor considering the accounts to be unbiased) and accepting claims that are, prima face, implausible - whether that be miracles in the gospels, flying greek people or minotaurs.

That's not to say we need to trust everything the gospels say. There's a lot in them that is clearly made up and, whereas Herodotos was explicitly writing a history, the gospel writers were evangelising Christianity.

True - a history may well be biased, but it remains written with the intention of recording factual events. The gospels were never intended to be histories - they are written to support faith and evangelising Christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's very Trumpian. Ehrmann said the opposite of what you thought he said. You then just call the explanation you were given for why this is the case as "erroneous" and hope no-one notices.

What do you get from this behaviour?

And for the second time of asking Hillside what do you think I thought Ehrman was saying?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And for the second time of asking Hillside what do you think I thought Ehrman was saying?

What you said was, “Ehrman talks about some historians dismissing miracles a priori and therefore there are some who don't”, implying that being historians is somehow relevant to those who don’t. It isn’t.

Here (again) is what he actually said: 

“…Bart Ehrman argues that though some historians believe that miracles have happened and others do not, due to the limitations of the sources, it is not possible for historians to affirm or deny them. He states "This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe."[9][69]

You may as well have posted “some theoretical physicists believe in the Tooth Fairy and some don’t” for all the relevance being a theoretical physicist would have had to their non-/belief in the Tooth Fairy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What you said was, “Ehrman talks about some historians dismissing miracles a priori and therefore there are some who don't”, implying that being historians is somehow relevant to those who don’t. It isn’t.

Here (again) is what he actually said: 

“…Bart Ehrman argues that though some historians believe that miracles have happened and others do not, due to the limitations of the sources, it is not possible for historians to affirm or deny them. He states "This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe."[9][69]

You may as well have posted “some theoretical physicists believe in the Tooth Fairy and some don’t” for all the relevance being a theoretical physicist would have had to their non-/belief in the Tooth Fairy.

1:The two statements don't look mutually exclusive
2: You've committed another horses laugh fallacy with your guff about Tooth fairies and physicists.

[Spud]

So we can agree that he is, at least, a leading expert. That's good - a bit of consensus for once.

So I presume therefore that, from your inexpert position, you wouldn't contradict his expert opinion that we do not, and indeed cannot, know what was actually written in the original version (or even versions) of the gospels.

Once the order in which the gospels were written is established, and which contains the most primitive narrative, we can work on establishing what changes have been made to it. There is no need to postulate any versions predating Matthew's account.

[Gordon]

Once the order in which the gospels were written is established, and who wrote the most primitive narrative, we can work on establishing what changes have been made to it. There is no need to postulate any versions predating Matthew's account.

I take it this conclusion is from the 'Gospel According to Spud'.

Not that it matters anyway, since the bits you guys obsess about are indistinguishable from fiction.