Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bart Ehrman.
#1
This post might well be suited for another category, but since the General category gets the most use....

Folks, I'll get right to the question - what is the deal with Bart Ehrman's take on the disgenuine not-so-authoritative "New Testament" scriptures and their authors? If, as he flatly asserts, there are extant a plethora of false books, manuscripts and altered Gospels, where does that leave the AENT and other good translations built on reliable early translations of the NT text?? Are these (such as Khabouris text and others) also tainted in much the same way.......or in ANY way? Have the early church fathers tampered sufficiently with these translations in some sick effort to de-Judaize or de-legitimize the Holy Writ of G-d? If so, to what extent might we say they have?

The first chapter alone of Ehrman's latest work is replete with such claims.

Has anyone had a chance to verify his claims, or bold enough to dismiss him as merely a frustrated former-evangelical agnostic looking to make fast bucks?
Reply
#2
SeekEmet Wrote:Has anyone had a chance to verify his claims, or bold enough to dismiss him as merely a frustrated former-evangelical agnostic looking to make fast bucks?

Barts claims are pretty much in line with what scholars conclude about the NT, when they don't consider the evidence for peshitta primacy.
Peshitta primacy is quite radical. It over throws a large proportion of NT scholarship. Not everything though. things such as marcan priority would most likely still remian.
If peshitta priority is correct then a whole industry is on the wrong path, millions of people around the globe who study NT greek are looking in the wrong place, so it's not surprising it maintains its dominance.

Now if we leave the peshitta aside and only look at the greek NT, then waht is a reasonable person to conclude. We have texts which differ. We need to find an explanation for why they differ.
Either they were changed deliberately or accidenatally.
Take alook at mark 1:41. <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1505">viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1505</a><!-- l -->

Hre we have two different greek texts. the two words that differ in greek dont look alike, so it's hard to imagine how this difference could have arisen by accident. So a reasonable person migh conclude that the change was deliberate.
There is aprinciple used in textual analysis called , Lectio difficilior potior, <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_difficilior_potior">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_difficilior_potior</a><!-- m --> , meaing that the more difficult reading is probably the original.
Using that, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the NT text was changed deliberately in the way Erhman thinks. In lieu of that we are left without an explanation, and an explanation that makes some sense is better than none at all.

When peshitta primacy is considered another story emerges though, which seems to have better explanatory power.
Reply
#3
Well said, akhi!

Ehrman is just another casualty of textual criticism without looking at the Peshitta. He's dangerous and should be carefully dealt with, as he is apostate.

Sadly textual criticism often does not equal dealing with the texts wisely by the power of the Ruwkha. Without divine discernment at work textual criticism leads to where Ehrman currently finds himself...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#4
judge Wrote:
SeekEmet Wrote:Has anyone had a chance to verify his claims, or bold enough to dismiss him as merely a frustrated former-evangelical agnostic looking to make fast bucks?

Barts claims are pretty much in line with what scholars conclude about the NT, when they don't consider the evidence for peshitta primacy.
Peshitta primacy is quite radical. It over throws a large proportion of NT scholarship. Not everything though. things such as marcan priority would most likely still remian.
If peshitta priority is correct then a whole industry is on the wrong path, millions of people around the globe who study NT greek are looking in the wrong place, so it's not surprising it maintains its dominance.

Now if we leave the peshitta aside and only look at the greek NT, then waht is a reasonable person to conclude. We have texts which differ. We need to find an explanation for why they differ.
Either they were changed deliberately or accidenatally.
Take alook at mark 1:41. <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1505">viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1505</a><!-- l -->

Hre we have two different greek texts. the two words that differ in greek dont look alike, so it's hard to imagine how this difference could have arisen by accident. So a reasonable person migh conclude that the change was deliberate.
There is aprinciple used in textual analysis called , Lectio difficilior potior, <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_difficilior_potior">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_difficilior_potior</a><!-- m --> , meaing that the more difficult reading is probably the original.
Using that, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the NT text was changed deliberately in the way Erhman thinks. In lieu of that we are left without an explanation, and an explanation that makes some sense is better than none at all.

When peshitta primacy is considered another story emerges though, which seems to have better explanatory power.

Akhan Judge,

It's a rare event when I read a post and feel compelled to just say thanks for the eloquent wording and the relevance to our "mission" here.

+Shamasha
Reply
#5
Paul Younan Wrote:Akhan Judge,

It's a rare event when I read a post and feel compelled to just say thanks for the eloquent wording and the relevance to our "mission" here.

+Shamasha

Thanks Paul. I could at least have used "spellcheck" though. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#6
For the believer reading Ehrman, one sees this concept rather clearly: to have once believed in Moshiach and squarely placed ones trust in the Sacrifice of sacrifices and to then turn away and exalt the headiness of intellectualism to diety status is quite a stark transition. It is one thing to not fully grasp or come to understand the Way(s) of Elohim, and quite another to abandon Elohim because there remain unanswered questions. Someone in this thread used the word dangerous to describe him. Agreed. At issue however, might rather be exactly what kind of tampering has been done at the hands of church fathers to perfectly good Scriptures in an effort to steer the masses to one particular religious system or to control and manipulate in one way or another. And I can't be the first one to have asked these kinds of questions. Can you think of a better way to influence minds than to alter the Holy Writ of G-d? So this is the area I want to unearth. I pray for the guidance of the Ruach HaKodesh.

Simply put, there are aspects of the Sacred text that believers try hard understand and cannot - if we admit that we still have real questions and have not exalted our intellect.... And the scope of these questions range from mere syntax to the complexities of deciphering "Bible codes". This is why I voiced the idea of authenticity of Scripture in this forum. Because it appears to me from a cursory reading (I have many more miles to travel on this current learning-journey) of the Aramaic that the primacy argument is right on the money.

Are there books on the subject that could give one a compass reading to navigate Aramaic with?
Reply
#7
Hi SeekEmet.

Are you looking for a reference like a grammar, or an online lookup tool like those found on the links to the left? Are you somewhat familiar with at least Hebrew or reading the alphabet? Knowing those things will help me recommend a starting point for you.

+Shamasha
Reply
#8
Shlama Shamasha (Paul),

Yes, a grammar would be helpful in my search. By the way, the online interlinear translation is SUPERB! It has already been very useful in highlighting differences in the text. I am familiar with Hebrew, and although not my native tongue, I am an intermediate student of Hebrew. The Aramaic is fascinating though, and I am at a loss to explain just why. I need a "recommended reading list"!

The AENT appendices and AGR's articles have been useful as well.
Reply
#9
I was first introduced to Aramaic primacy through AGR's book "Ruach Qadim"; although not the grammar tool that you are looking for, it was a good source of primacy keypoints in a book-by-book fashion.
Reply
#10
Shlama SeekEmet and Noordos.

The best grammar to the language that I've found and recommended a lot is Thackston's Grammar.

You can find it on amazon.com I believe. It's worth it's weight in gold. If you can read Hebrew, you'll be able to read Aramaic. It's the same 22 letters in the alphabet. 80% of the words share a common Semitic root, so you'll see many words you recognize.

The differences mainly involve suffixes, inflections, etc.

+Shamasha
Reply
#11
judge Wrote:
SeekEmet Wrote:Has anyone had a chance to verify his claims, or bold enough to dismiss him as merely a frustrated former-evangelical agnostic looking to make fast bucks?

Barts claims are pretty much in line with what scholars conclude about the NT, when they don't consider the evidence for peshitta primacy.

When peshitta primacy is considered another story emerges though, which seems to have better explanatory power.

Mm,
late reaction though <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> but are we talking about peshitta primacy? Not about Aramaic primacy? I hardly can believe the original documents straightly were Syrian Aramaic. Why would the apostles do that instead of Judean Aramaic? (I can imagine that Paul & Luke could have used Syrian Aramaic)
Reply
#12
Well, I think that Bart Ehrman is exaggerating some of the things that he is saying. I don't believe in the Greek primacy, but I would say that the Greek New Testament it is still important to understand the Semitic thought of the Hellenized Jews in the 1st Century. If you see the quantity of copies in Qumran that would will you a clue about how it is almost impossible that the New Testament was written in Greek. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive">http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive</a><!-- m --> Hebrew 785 Scrolls, Aramaic 206, Greek 132, Hebrew? 35, Aramaic 18? Nabatean 12. For me it is amazing how the Essenes had a large quantity of scrolls in Hebrew and Aramaic but not in Greek. So for me that it is an important witness about the importance of Semitic languages in the first and second century.

If you go the Ehrman project you would see how the scholars would clarify some of the statements that Ehrman is saying. Some scholars believe that Ehrman is incorrect in some points in his thesis about the Greek New Testament. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ehrmanproject.com/index">http://ehrmanproject.com/index</a><!-- m --> Ehrman is a man with a specific agenda that is to tell us that the New Testament was corrupted through the centuries and that Rabbi Jesus was converted in a pagan god and all his miracles are false. I don't think he want to enter in the Aramaic Primacy discussion because I believe he would be losing his reputation. The Aramaic New Testament is the most accurate document in the world, even more accurate than the Tanakh who is difficult to beat.

Shalom,
Carlos Menodza
Reply
#13
Hi,
I was talking about the comment of Judge. He mentions Peshitta primacy.
I think this is a term which cannot be maintained as correct.

The apostles probably did not speak and write the Syrian dialect. The Peshitta is written in Syrian dialect.

I would say, that Greek and the Peshitta have a common ancestor.
Reply
#14
How about Aramaic Primacy then? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The Eastern Peshitta NT seems to have come from The Apostles, who gave the Church of Edessa their 1st copy, and The Church in Babylon must have got a copy from them as well. This is said to have been as early as 78 A.D. Now...how much different were the two or three Aramaic dialects from what The Apostles spoke and wrote in, and those of Edessa and Babylon.

English is English, even though some folks sound funny when they speak it, in their part of the world...such as in the Southern USA, the Western USA, the Eastern USA...and In England.

Is Aramaic like this?...in it's various dialects, and if not now, perhaps back then?
Reply
#15
distazo Wrote:The apostles probably did not speak and write the Syrian dialect. The Peshitta is written in Syrian dialect.

I would say, that Greek and the Peshitta have a common ancestor.
I could 100% agree with you on that, but I would also say that the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA held to the Mother Text far better while the Greek ones strayed adding and subtracting things here and there as well as having had mistranslated many things also. So even if the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA is a copy/version/or even a translation of the original Text that the Apostles wrote (as the evidence shows) it is by all means the most faithful copy/version/translation that we have available to day, and the Greek translations are definitely flawed but still usable as a second witness (only), as they definitely come in handy in places where they show plural values while the Aramaic have to be understood by context - such as in Acts 20:7, MattithYahu 28:1, Markos 16:2, Loukanus 24:1, and YoKhawnawn 20:1. For a detailed analysis of the intended reading in these verses read the PDF Article @: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/121752802/h03-What-day-did-they-gather-upon-in-Acts-20-7">http://www.scribd.com/doc/121752802/h03 ... -Acts-20-7</a><!-- m -->
The article is based strictly upon the evidence within the Greek translations, yet the Aramaic Text agrees if one has wisdom thereof of what is being said.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)