Bart Ehrman quote from an article- please help refute!

[Dovekin]

Just what a modernist would say.

 

[deMontfort]

Hardly. I actually believe what the Church taught prior to Vatican II.

 

[Shakuhachi]

assuming they are historical documents, and not talking about inspiration or anything like that

That seems to me to be an oversimplification. The four Gospels definitely have different perspectives, intended audiences and places in the historical timeline, that is, Mark probably earliest and John latest. While they contain some historical record they need not be taken as if every detail is historically accurate.

 

[edward_george1]

I didn’t say anything like that. Read the whole argument.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[HarryStotle]

Within that context, the gospels may have circulated with no name attached. They still have some authority behind them. The process of identifying the original author, as I assume Ehrman thinks four people authored the originals though I cannot be sure, goes through the authority of the scribes. Or it was made up for political purposes. Either way, that is just the identification of the author; the texts are in no way “deliberate fabrications” as you accuse him of implying.

What would you call works compiled by thousands of people over 200-300 years from hearsay accounts then written down to promote a highly fictionalized version of Jesus in order to further the interests of the Church? That is, essentially, what Ehrman claims happened. Seems a lot like “deliberate fabrications,” whether or not he prefers to use “deliberate” in a benevolent or a malevolent sense, or somewhere vaguely in between.

It isn’t that Ehrman has evidence that the Gospels circulated with no names attached to them for those 200-300 years. There is absolutely no evidence for that claim. As a manuscript scholar, Ehrman knows that full well. In addition, there is a great deal of evidence that the specific identities of the Gospels’ authors were well known from very early on.

Take the Gospel of Mark. There is ample evidence from the Church Fathers that Mark scribed Peter’s memories about Jesus into an unordered narrative.

Papias of Hierapolis ( ~120 to 130 AD,) who was a disciple of John, the Apostle, wrote:

And the elder [John] used to say this: “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard or make any false statement in them.”

Note: According to Papias, Mark "… made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard or make any false statement in them.” Doesn’t sound anything like the telephone game account of Ehrman’s. Was Papias making this up?

What about Irenaeus?

Irenaeus of Lyon ( ~150 to 200 AD,) who was a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John, wrote:

After their [Peter and Paul’s] departure, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter…

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Clement of Alexandria ( ~ 170-200,) who knew elders, who knew the Apostles, wrote:

But a great light of godliness shone upon the minds of Peter’s listeners that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine proclamation. So, with all kinds of exhortations, they begged Mark (whose gospel is extant), since he was Peter’s follower, to leave behind a written record of the teaching given to them verbally, and did not quit until they had persuaded the man, and thus they became the immediate cause of the scripture called “The Gospel according to Mark.” And they say that the apostle, aware of what had occurred because the Spirit had revealed it to him, was pleased with their zeal and sanctioned the writing for study in the churches.

The “… immediate cause of the scripture called ‘The Gospel according to Mark.’” Telephone game? One person, Mark, identified as the “immediate cause” of the Gospel According to Mark? Where is the anonymity in that? Is Clement claiming he didn’t know who wrote the Gospel because it was anonymous?

Mark was named specifically as the writer of the first Gospel by three very early Church Fathers, who either knew one or more of the Apostles, or who were themselves second generation disciples of disciples.

That comes as close to certainty about the provenance of ancient writings as you could possibly hope for, but Ehrman opts for the telephone game analogy to characterize the process of transmission.

Why would he do that, given these references?

 

[Gorgias]

Do you think I oversold it?

Yeah, I think so.

Anonymous means without a name.

Every Gospel manuscript that contains the beginning of a Gospel identifies it as “the Gospel According to …”. That’s “anonymous” in your book?

It means one thing in a society of mass produced books, and something else of hand copied scrolls.

I would say that it means precisely the same thing: no attribution of authorship. The Gospels have attribution. How can we call them ‘anonymous’, then?

More to the point: given your definition of ‘anonymous’, how can you claim that we who claim that the Gospels aren’t anonymous are “willfully misunderstand[ing] the word ‘anonymous’”?

 

[Dovekin]

Every Gospel manuscript that contains the beginning of a Gospel identifies it as “the Gospel According to …”. That’s “anonymous” in your book?

Every gospel manuscript that survives is from the 3rd or 4th century. That is after the suggested period of “anonymous” circulation.

it means precisely the same thing : no attribution of authorship.

As I have said elsewhere, anonymity in ancient times does not mean a lack of authority. Any copy takes time and/or money to produce, so each individual copy has the authority of scribe or patron behind it and that person is probably known to the hearer. THE authority behind the text is Jesus, but the scribe could answer provenance questions, ie who is the authority he got it from…who got it from Mark who got it from Peter who got it from Jesus. A name on the text only became important later, as more gospels circulated and the chain of provenance got longer.

The anonymity of a text in that system is very different from the anonymity of a text in modern times.

 

[HarryStotle]

Every gospel manuscript that survives is from the 3rd or 4th century. That is after the suggested period of “anonymous” circulation.

Even if that were true, which it isn’t, by the 3rd or 4th century, many, many, copies of the Gospels had spread throughout the Roman Empire. Ehrman has to explain how those disparate copies by that time very wide spread and numerous then suddenly all became attributed to the same four authors by scribes all over with no remaining traces of anonymity.

Again, we have the Letter to the Hebrews, an actually anonymous text, as an example of how actually anonymous writings were viewed by the Church Fathers.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Notice, how there is no attribution to an actual author by the scribes until the tenth century. Also note, different authors are named. Not so with the Gospels. Every copy with a superscript attribution is to the same author.

Here are the manuscripts (papyri and codices with superscripts intact). Notice a number are dated to the second century and some, arguably, to the late first.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The claim of anonymity also ignores all of the early Church Fathers from the second century who quote the Gospel texts many times and unanimously attribute the Gospels to the same authors.

 

[Gorgias]

Every gospel manuscript that survives is from the 3rd or 4th century. That is after the suggested period of “anonymous” circulation.

Oh – so, hold on a second! The claim is “we don’t have any manuscripts that are anonymous, and all the ones we have aren’t anonymous – but we’re gonna claim that the ones we’ve never seen were anonymous.” Umm… really?!?

 

[HarryStotle]

Every gospel manuscript that survives is from the 3rd or 4th century. That is after the suggested period of “anonymous” circulation.

The theory also needs to explain the basis upon which the Gospels were then unanimously attributed to the same four persons AFTER the “suggested period of ‘anonymous’ circulation.” How did scribes from all over the empire suddenly and unambiguously decide Mark wrote Mark, Matthew wrote Matthew, Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John if, up until then, the texts circulated anonymously?

The Church Fathers who quoted the Gospels extensively, were not ambiguous on the attribution, and some of them wrote very early, and some were disciples of John, the Apostle.

 

[Dovekin]

You really need to learn something about redaction criticism.

Read Mark 16, the end of the gospel. Does it end with the women telling no one? With the apostles sent out again after the women spoke? With a recap of resurrection appearances told more fully in other gospels?

Ehrman’s “telephone game” explains the 3 endings reasonably, and applies to the thousans of other differences in the earliest mss. It does not imply the gospel as we have it now is a fabrication made by thousands of people over many years.

—

Ehrman doesn’t think Papias is referring to the gospels of Matthew and Mark as we have them. The descrptions do not match the content we have,
Mark almost certainly is not the exhaustive account of what St Peter preached that Papias claims it is. Besides “ Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ.” does sound like the telephone game. Jesus said or did this; Peter adapted his teaching; Mark interpreted Peter, repeating everything but not in the right order…

Clement of Alexandria says “ they became the immediate cause” not “he became” as you claim. It is easy to make mistakes like that when copying, even when you use cut and paste. Clement’s inclusion of the many who urged Mark to write sounds like Ehrman’s thousands. And again, the process of transmission is Jesus to Peter to Mark to…us. A lot like the telephone game. He does not say the message changed, got reworked and reordered, as Papias said, but leaves open the possibility. And Ehrman is talking about th mss after Mark.

 

[Dovekin]

That is what Ehrman claims, or at least suggests as a theory.

 

[Gorgias]

That is what Ehrman claims, or at least suggests as a theory.

And so we’re being unreasonable when we identify this kind of ‘scholarship’ by less-than-flattering names?!?

 

[Dovekin]

The Church Fathers who quoted the Gospels extensively, were not ambiguous on the attribution, and some of them wrote very early, and some were disciples of John, the Apostle.

Your earlier note contains a lot of dating information that is questionable. A quick glance of UBS 3rd edition of the Greek text (NA26?) shows third century dates where yours has 2nd century. Not a big deal, change my remark to 2-4th century. Also, I cannot tell if a patristic writing cites author by name, but less than about 5% of the patristic quotes are from the 2nd century. If you have a source for your dating info, it would be easier to look into.

How did scribes from all over the empire suddenly and unambiguously decide Mark wrote Mark, Matthew wrote Matthew, Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John if, up until then, the texts circulated anonymously?

This is the point of Ehrman’s theory on this. He suggests the motivation was not an accurate attribution, but a politically acceptable one. I have not read much of that, and do not care to defend it. I am just trying to make the point that the “telephone game” was not about the creation of the gospels, as you seem to be upset about, but about the redaction of an established text.

 

[Dovekin]

Indeed, you are being unresonable. It is an odd idea but comes from an accomplished scholar and deserves at least to be understood. Instead You suggest rejecting it without inspection, and do so without really understanding what he is saying.

You should at least recognize that theologians have used less than flattering names about other teachings, like heliocentrism, religious liberty, democracy, conscience, etc.

 

[Gorgias]

does sound like the telephone game. Jesus said or did this; Peter adapted his teaching; Mark interpreted Peter, repeating everything but not in the right order…

Except that the ‘telephone game’ is all about a string of mis-communications and unintentional changes. And, it doesn’t presume that the persons in the game are professional transcriptionists. We’ve got a completely different dynamic in the Gospels:

• Ehrman really does claim a chain of “thousands of people over many years”. In his Jesus: Apocalpytic Prophet of the New Millennium, he writes what @HarryStotle has quoted (perhaps from Pitre’s book?): “Imagine playing ‘telephone’ not in a solitary living room with ten kids on a sunny afternoon in July, but over the expanse of the Roman Empire (some 2,500 miles across!), with thousands of participants, from different backgrounds, with different concerns, and in different contexts, some of whom have to translate the stories into different languages all over the course of decades. What would happen to the stories?”
  
  So, Ehrman really is claiming something different than what redaction criticism claims: he’s claiming a cast of thousands in the early Church, prior to the ossification of the stories into written form. (Worse yet, his example would lead us to believe that there should be myriads of wildly dissonant Gospel versions, but what we really find is a large degree of agreement, along with some variants between texts.)
• Ehrman is also relying on us to accept that a simple story, told among non-professionals, would be representative of how a narrative of religious significance, among professional scribes, would be recalled and written down. It’s a claim that boggles the imagination.

Indeed, you are being unresonable. It is an odd idea but comes from an accomplished scholar

So… it’s acceptable on the “ad hominem” basis? I’ll pass, thank you.

and deserves at least to be understood. Instead You suggest rejecting it without inspection

Actually, I have researched the claim. IMNSHO, it doesn’t hold water.

, and do so without really understanding what he is saying.

No, I think you’ve confirmed that I understand precisely what he’s saying.

 

[Dovekin]

Ehrman is also relying on us to accept that a simple story, told among non-professionals, would be representative of how a narrative of religious significance , among professional scribes, would be recalled and written down. It’s a claim that boggles the imagination.

My imagination is not boggled. Nor would most peoples be. A common experience is often used to explain complicated processes.

The problem is not with Ehrman’s explanation, but with misapplications of it and misunderstandings. Reading an explanation of redaction criticism, and saying that this is a claim that the gospels are lies and deliberate fabrications? That could boggle the mind!

The thousands involved in copying the bible have delayed the ossification of the text. Presumably the original text of Mark had one ending, after being copied a bunch, it has at least three. Redaction criticism is all about figuring out what the original text probably was, so as long as it is happening, the text has not completely ossified.

And as far as I can tell, Ehrman is not saying that the wildly different stories that result from the “telephone game” means that wildly different gospel resulted from copying the gospels. Differences appeared though nothing as wildly different as what happens in the parlor game. Although, Matthew and Luke copied an awful lot of Mark, and produced very different gospels. And maybe John produced a wildly different one. You can change that to adjust who copied from whom, noy very relevant to the point that gospels got changed in the copying.

 

[Gorgias]

A common experience is often used to explain complicated processes.

Fair enough. An easy-to-understand example is worth pages of technical description.

Yet, I think his example doesn’t apply; and, I don’t think that, in saying this, I’m “misapplying” or “misunderstanding” what he’s saying. He’s really not giving an explanation of ‘redaction criticism’; he’s extending that understanding with a description that really doesn’t do justice to the notion of professional editors working with (what they consider) a holy text.

The thousands involved in copying the bible have delayed the ossification of the text.

I would disagree. That process of ‘ossification’ happens when a text leaves the oral tradition and becomes written tradition. Once that happens, what we see is what we’ve got with the Gospels – a couple of variants and a number of transcription errors and putative ‘corrections’ – but not a wholesale “telephone game” in which those who present the text have modified it (if even not deliberately) to the point where it’s unrecognizable. And that really is the claim Ehrman is making here, isn’t it?

And as far as I can tell, Ehrman is not saying that the wildly different stories that result from the “telephone game” means that wildly different gospel resulted from copying the gospels.

You don’t think that he’s saying that the Gospel as first written down is substantially different than what we have today? If so, then his example is a very poor one for explaining his claims – since it makes precisely that point!

 

[HarryStotle]

Differences appeared though nothing as wildly different as what happens in the parlor game. Although, Matthew and Luke copied an awful lot of Mark, and produced very different gospels. And maybe John produced a wildly different one. You can change that to adjust who copied from whom, noy very relevant to the point that gospels got changed in the copying.

Ehrman isn’t claiming that Matthew and Luke copied an “awful lot of Mark.” What he is claiming is that a whole lot of anonymous persons copied and transcribed, added and redacted various versions of the Christian stories and narratives for 200-300 years and then someone, somewhere, decided that the names of important persons from the first century, two hundred years prior, ought to be appended to some of the more acceptable versions of Gospels to “give them much needed authority.”

That is what he means by the telephone game and the anonymous Gospels.