/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20152774]

Didn't this book destroy the hypothesis that the gospels are anonymous? Why do people keep peddling Bart Ehrmans debunked theory?

[Anonymous No.20152843]

>>20152774
Textual criticism as a field of study is highly suspect. I don’t understand how you’re supposed to determine from looking at old manuscripts that it was written at such and such a date and by so and so. Bart Erhman seems to be something of a joke too. He admits that all the textual variants are irrelevant to the actual substance of the New Testament, and that the New Testament is the most well-preserved ancient literature, but then he tries to make sensational claims about its unreliability. I have a hard time trusting history and empirical science, and textual criticism is on an even more speculative level than those, so I don’t trust it whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.20152858]

>>20152774
Everyone who has spend any amount of time on /x/ will tell you testimonies are not reliable.

[Anonymous No.20152864]

>>20152858
Testimonies are all you have. There is no such thing as truth that exists outside a subject

[Anonymous No.20152894]

>>20152864
Which is why any reliable piece of knowledge is always falsifiable.

Which reminds me: is there a case in which you'd accept these eyewitness accounts as unreliable?

[Anonymous No.20152903]

>>20152894
If they weren't true

[Anonymous No.20152905]

>>20152903
And when is that the case, according to you?

[Anonymous No.20152911]

>>20152905
When they are false

[Anonymous No.20153071]

>>20152911
And when is that the case, according to you?

[Anonymous No.20153087]

>>20153071
When they are not true

[Anonymous No.20153094]

>>20152894
>>20152903
>>20152905
>>20152911
>>20153071
>>20153087
get a room

[Anonymous No.20153165]

>>20152774
This book literally changed my entire view on religion. It is said that there were many scriptures that did not describe the resurrection of Jesus at all. There even was a thing called the Gospel of Judas.

[Anonymous No.20154563]

>>20153165
Great, now read this

[Anonymous No.20154570]

>>20152905
When they don't agree with me.

[Anonymous No.20156125]

>>20154563
>Wolf-Peter Funk
Yeah no. I cant take a book seriously with that name attached to it.

[Anonymous No.20156457]

>>20152843
Haha, the amount of cope in this post is insane. Ehrman has never said any of the outright lies you’ve just claimed he said. How can a piece of text of thousands upon thousands of manuscripts, none of which match, be classed as preserved or reliable. Ffs you don’t even have a SINGLE sliver of paper with the text in it’s original Aramaic.

[Anonymous No.20156480]

>>20152843
>He admits that all the textual variants are irrelevant to the actual substance of the New Testament,
Imagine being this much of a fucking liar. “All”? He said “All” the variants don’t matter? Do you think people don’t have access to Google and can’t check this for themselves? Or do you just live in some deluded fairytale cope? What he actually said
>MOST of them are completely unimportant and insignificant and don’t matter for twit.
> But there are other variants that matter a *lot*
https://ehrmanblog.org/do-textual-variants-actually-matter-for-much/

[Anonymous No.20156507]

>>20156480
This, plus there's the question of what textual variants we simply don't have. The earliest (incomplete) copies we have for anything from the New Testament is usually decades (at least) from after they were written.
That's several generations of handcopying that we have no access to.

[Anonymous No.20156523]

>>20156507
Yeah and even in terms of Biblical narrative the testimony itself is 3rd hand account. “Someone” heard Mark says Jesus said X, Y and Z. Who is this someone and who is Mark? That’s also not even factoring in the translation issue that another anon mentioned. Even by the Bibles OWN narrative the reliability is terrible. Add in textual criticism and you have something that verges on a joke.

[Anonymous No.20156549]

>>20152774
Because it has very weak arguments. Like claiming gMark mentioning Peter is an "inclusio" to demonstrate it's Peter's eyewitness account. Very weedy, lots of ancient texts mention people the author never met, it's an attempt to get around the fact that gMark never once says it's based on Peter's testimony.

Also Bauckham's analysis of name frequency is pathetic. He list name frequencies in the synoptic gospels, then compares them to name frequencies from other evidence for Jewish names in Palestine. But he includes vmthe gospels in the latter category, skewing the data, since he is supposed to be comparing the gospels to the rest of the evidence. That aside, his analysis is just arbitrarily choosing two names and saying the frequencies in the gospels and other evidence look kind of similar so the gospels must be based on eyewitnesses. No systematic analysis, no graph of frequencies, no stats, just absolutely arbitrary cherry picking and his gut feeling about what the numbers mean. He's clearly totally ignorant of anything related to data yet presents his amateurish take as a rigorous assessment (and other innumerate scholars just accept it, see Michael Licona who has cited Bauckham's name "evidence" for the reliability of the gospels)

[Anonymous No.20156586]

>>20152843
>Textual criticism as a field of study is highly suspect. I don’t understand how you’re supposed to determine from looking at old manuscripts that it was written at such and such a date and by so and so
You can look at the language itself used. Even before sophisticated computer techniques came along this is something that you can do. Revelations for example continues a line of Jewish apocalyptic literature, it's just updated for a specific ideology and time period. You can find basically word-for-word "prior versions" of it, but replace Nero with Ptolemy and all of the IT'S TOTALLY NOT JUST A METPAPHOR FOR ROME GUYS with IT'S NOTALLY NOT JUST A METAPHOR FOR GREECE GUYS. Likewise, if the text is composite (as the Bible, by definition, is) you can compare the story internally (for example, the Apostles can't agree on when precisely Jesus's parents realized that he was the messiah) and externally (Solomon's Temple just flat out never existed).