Re: What Bible?

I have a Greek New Testament that has variant manuscript readings in the
footnotes. My impression is that the variant readings are rarely if ever
at odds with doctrines taught elsewhere in the NT. Many times they are
additions to the text that express truths that can be deduced from
elsewhere. The addition in I John 5 would be an example of this.

The story, as I recall, of how the expanded version of I John 5:8 made it
into the Textus Receptus is that Erasmus lost a bet. He did not include it
in his original edition in 1515, but a Catholic priest asked him why he
had not. After all, it was in a revision of the Latin Vulgate (but not in
Jerome's original version). Erasmus responded that he had never seen it in
a Greek manuscript but that if the priest could show him one that
contained it, he would include it in his second edition, which would be
published in a few years mostly to correct typos. The priest produced a
late Greek manuscript with the additional words written in the margin in a
modern hand, and so, in spite of his suspicions, Erasmus included it. To
this date, of all the hundreds of Greek manuscripts available, only four
contain it, all of them of late date, and two of them have it in the
margin in a modern hand. The case is clinched by the fact that in the days
of the Arian controversy noone mentioned this verse even though it would
have made the most convincing proof of the trinitarian position.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Robert Schneider wrote:

> Bart Ehrman is not a Morman; in fact he was raised in an evangelical
> household and attended Moody Bible College, though he's moved far from that
> tradition. He is presently on the faculty of the University of North
> Carolina, Chapel Hill. Ehrman is a well-acknowledged expert on early
> Christian movements and texts. He has compiled much material to support his
> thesis. There are a number of passages in the Greek NT that are not
> attested to in major manuscripts and appear in the critical apparatus. In
> the NRSV I use as a college text, many of these appear in footnotes. Some
> are bracketted with double brackets; these appear in some major witness, but
> not in others. The brackets indicates that the editors could not agree
> whether they should be included or omitted. One would have to examine his
> arguments for specific passages to see if one thought he had made a good
> case for scribal doctoring in order to advance theological positions. In
> the case of 1 John 5:8, omitted now in the NRSV, I think a good case can be
> made for scribal insertion.
>
> Bob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
> To: "Pim van Meurs" <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: What Bible?
>
>
> >I don't know what Ehrman's background is, but the commentary you quote is
> > from a Mormon, and so we know where he is coming from. Unless Ehrman has
> > ancient manuscripts that most Biblical scholars have not seen, his ideas
> > about the canonical books being doctored sound like mere speculation.
> >
> > Gordon Brown
> > Department of Mathematics
> > University of Colorado
> > Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Pim van Meurs wrote:
> >
> >> Cool seems that Christians and non-Christians alike have found something
> >> in the writings of this author. Understanding the history of Christianity
> >> seems something we should be all interested in, even if the past may show
> >> something some of us may not like.
> >>
> >> I listened to some of the NPR interviews with Ehrman, he sounds like a
> >> very interesting and well informed person.
> >>
> >> His book "The orthodox corruption of Scripture" (see
> >> http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/orthodox.htm for instance) helps us
> >> all understand how history has shaped much of what we consider nowadays
> >> to be the canonical books of the Bible.
> >>
> >>
> >> <quote>Ehrman, perhaps better than any other scholar to date, shows that
> >> the manuscripts of the Bible were written and copied and recopied, not by
> >> emotionless machines, but by living breathing human beings "who were
> >> deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day." (p. 3).
> >> They could not have approached their task objectively, as they went about
> >> rewriting the Bible manuscripts to say what they already felt that the
> >> Bible meant! "...theological disputes, specifically disputes over
> >> Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of scripture
> >> in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes
> >> modified their manuscripts to make them more patently "othodox" and less
> >> susceptible to "abuse" by the opponents of orthodoxy." (p. 4). "...it was
> >> the perception of their opposition that led scribes of the proto-orthodox
> >> party to change the sacred texts that they transmitted." (p. 14). Ehrman
> >> shows how the term "heresy" was sometimes the orig!
> > ina
> >> l
> >> Christianity which later orthodoxy fought! And in the first three
> >> centuries there was not an "orthodox" *original* Christianity, rather,
> >> there were various sects all claiming original "Apostolic" teachings! The
> >> various sects fought each others' views and claimed their own was the
> >> "original" and all others were "heresy". In other words, it won't do to
> >> just simply label the Gnostics as the heresy and throw out their beliefs,
> >> anymore than it will do to say the "orthodox" are the correct Christian
> >> teachings! Orthodoxy was in later times, what the earlier heresy used to
> >> be, and vice versa! It is an amazingly complex and utterly fascinating
> >> issue which most of us are completely unaware of. We Mormons particularly
> >> would do much better to acquaint ourselves further with the history of
> >> early Christianity. I say this more for my own benefit than for others,
> >> as I hold quite high standards for my own level of learning.</quote>
> >>
> >> Some video lectures
> >>
> >> http://www.yale.edu/divinity/video/convo2004/ehrman01.htm
> >>
> >> First Shaffer Lecture
> >> Bart D. Ehrman
> >> "Christ in the Early Christian Tradition Texts Disputed
> >> and Apocryphal I. Christ Come in the Flesh"
> >>
> >> http://www.yale.edu/divinity/video/convo2004/ehrman02.htm
> >>
> >> Second Shaffer Lecture
> >> Bart D. Ehrman
> >> "Christ in the Early Christian Tradition Texts Disputed
> >> and Apocryphal II. Christ The Divine Man"
> >>
> >> Thanks Janice, this really blows my skirts
> >>
> >> Pim
> >>
> >> Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote: At 03:19 PM 3/12/2006,
> >> Pim van Meurs wrote:
> >>
> >> Another addition to my reading list. Thanks Janice for encouraging me
> >> to research this book further. The history of early christianity is quite
> >> fascinating to me and help understand the evolution of Christianity into
> >> its present form
> >> @ You're most welcome. Whatever blows your skirts.
> >>
> >> Here are some others who eagerly added his book to their reading list:
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
Received on Mon Mar 13 10:56:44 2006