"The Rise and Fall of the Bible"

by leavingwt 34 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  PSacramento

  There was an interesting programme on the BBC this week about books and it featured the codex Sinaiticus from the fourth century, which it described as the oldest surviving complete Bible.

  It said that one of remarkable things about this manuscript is just how many alterations had been made in the text, over 20,000, which is a considerable number on every page, and far more than could be explained by scribal errors. The programme said that this indicated the instability of the text of the Bible even at that early stage, and contributed to doubts about the inspiration of the scripture in the nineteenth century when the manuscript was found.

  Yes, but you also need to understand that those 20K errors are not 20K different erros, not allo of them, As Metzger poindt out 1 error that is repeated 2000 times is viewed as 2000 errors by scholars and as he pointed out also, 99.5% of the NT documents are without error.

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ydj1m/The_Beauty_of_Books_Ancient_Bibles/

  PSacramento when you say Ehrman's scholarship does not compare favourably with Metzger, have you read much of Ehrman's work before he started writing popular books for a general readership? His books on the text of the Fourth Gospel used by Origen and the text of the gospels Didymus the Blind are pretty detailed and his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture stands somewhere in the middle between his popular and scholarly works.

  used by

  I think it is very interesting that Metzger, who was at one time viewed as a conservative scholar, chose to collaborate with Ehrman on the final edition of one of his most important books The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption and Restoration. Metzger certainly developed his views considerably from his younger days when he was defending the authorship of the book of Daniel for example.

  I want to be clear that I think Bart is an excellent scholar and a good guy from what I have read, never meeting the man.

  I mentioned Metzger because not only was he Bart's teacher, it was working together that led Bart to the questions he had, even though theyr were "nothing new" for Metzger.

  Having read that book you mentioned, along with a few other by Metzger, I much prefer how Meztger states the facts and leaves personal opinions and specualtion aside, though he does at times raise the issues and states an opinion, he also states the counter to his opinion.

  I realise that Bart's works are aimed at opening the eyes of the layman, but my issues is that, though admirable it seems overly bias.

  Reading only Bart's works can lead one to believe that the NT is totally corrupt, that the issues have never been discussed fully and that the writings can't be trusted.

  Whereas the "facts" don't warrant such a condemnation.

  Just my humble view based on what I have read and study not only from Bart, but Metzger, Wright, Habermas, Bloomberg, Craig, and others.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Metzger is one of my favourtite authors on biblical subjects.

  Books I have read by Metzger:

  The Text of the New Testament 4th edition with Bart Ehrman (which I think is less bullish on the reliability of the text of the NT than earlier editions)

  Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (discusses Tetragrammaton, nomina sacra and other interesting stuff. He claims contrary to George Howard that Paul would never have used the tetragram when writing to gentile Christians)

  The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content (a basic introduction to the NT. In it Metzger gently argues in favour of the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles, a very conservative position)

  The Canon of the New Testament (he follows the standard line of evidence through quotations from the church fathers and concludes Athanasius was the to first list the books of the NT as we do today, although he hints that Origen may possibly have beat him to it)

  The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions (the one thing I remember about this book is he doesn't seem to like the NIV, but I can't remember why)

  Reminiscences of an Octogenarian (his autobiography which is mainly a dry account of the books he wrote and the lectures he gave in various parts of the world. He does however state that he was pleased to be involved in the ecumenical movement bringing together Orthodox and Catholic as well as Protestant believers, which may not please some of his Evangelical admirers)

  I think the only major book he wrote I have not read is The Early Versions of the New Testament which is about the early Coptic, Latin and other versions.

  I have also consulted his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, the most interesting parts of which are where he differed from the other scholars on the committee about which reading was original, and he gives his view which was sometimes in the minority.

  Although Metzger started out as a very conservative scholar I think it is fair to say he moved some distance toward the liberal camp with age, which is why his decision to co-author the last edition of his book on the New Testament text with Bart Ehrman is not entirely surprising.
• 

  PSacramento

  Although Metzger started out as a very conservative scholar I think it is fair to say he moved some distance toward the liberal camp with age, which is why his decision to co-author the last edition of his book on the New Testament text with Bart Ehrman is not entirely surprising.

  I agree.

  I think that deep down, like so many like him, Metzger wanted to see a "reunion" of Christians, evangelicals, protestants and Catholics and Orthodox, simple because he saw, like so many, the similarities FAR outweight the differences.

  I don't think that he would view his move from the "conservative" camp as being a "liberal" or becoming a "liberal", I think he wopuld view it as he viewed the works of the bible, a progressive revelation of God's Word through Humans, in his case, being human.

  At least I hope he would have viewed it that way, truth is I don't know enough about the man to make that call, just going on a "gut feeling" about what I have read from him and about him by others.

  He saw the bible for what it was, a lifelong study of man and man's relationship with God.
• 

  trevor

  LWT: You make it sound as if Bart invented this notion. This is unfair to Him and millions of Evangelicals, IMHO.

  So true. The Roman Catholic church enforced the idea of Biblical inerrancy in the most brutal way.

  But then they would, they complied the bible. I would say wrote but I am in a generous mood.
• 

  PSacramento

  So true. The Roman Catholic church enforced the idea of Biblical inerrancy in the most brutal way.

  But then they would, they complied the bible. I would say wrote but I am in a generous mood.

  And yet, the RCC does NOT view the bible as inerrant, but infalliable.

  Bible inerrancy has been debated for centuries.

  Look at Augustine, Aquinas, Origen and even before them.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Metzger was also involved in the Reader's Digest edition of the Bible which is an abridged version. I seem to recall from his autobiography that he was given a lot of grief about that from conservative Christians who claimed he was taking away from the word of God. I would have loved the opportunity to talk with Metzger, he probably knew more about the transmission of the Bible than anyone else.

  Having said that I think Ehrman has made the correct judgement about the implications of the instability of the text of the early Christian Bible.
• 

  PSacramento

  Having said that I think Ehrman has made the correct judgement about the implications of the instability of the text of the early Christian Bible.

  Agree to disagree my friend :)
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  I'm going to miss the Ehrman speech at UNC (I'll still be at work). If a recording gets posted, please update us with a link. Thanks.
• 

  trevor

  PSacramento

  And yet, the RCC does NOT view the bible as inerrant, but infalliable.

  To me they are much the same thing. But then, I am a straightforward sort of person.
• 

  PSacramento

  To me they are much the same thing. But then, I am a straightforward sort of person.

  When dealing with historicity and historical documents, the difference can be huge.

  When dealing with God, the Infinte power and wisdom of God, speaking to finite and lowly and fallen Man 2000-3000 years ago, the difference is ginormous !

  And no, that isn't a real word ;)