Biblical Manuscripts

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Jews were exempted from sacrifices to the emperor but they had to pay a special tax. Until the destruction of the temple, Christians generally worshipped in Jewish synagogues and were considered a Jewish sect.

As time went on Christians who openly professed the divinity of Christ were expelled from the synagogues. Romans no longer considered them a Jewish sect so failure to sacrifice to the emperor was a capital offense but enforcement depended on the whims of local officials.

There were good reasons not to write down the ending for the Gospel of Mark.
You haven't provided any good reasons to think this... as I've already pointed out, the (longer) ending of Mark is cribbed together from other New Testament texts that are stable in the manuscript tradition and even more explicit about Jesus' divine status. Your hypothesis crumbles on this point even before attempting an integration with the historical situation. Your comments related to this reflect an outdated and improperly-nuanced model of the relationship between Jews, Christians and pagans in the Greco-Roman world. The pertinent point of departure relates to Christianity's position vis-à-vis Judaism --- while it is true that the latter enjoyed a measure of imperial endorsement for their peculiar monotheistic practices, this elicited both admiration and disdain from their pagan contemporaries, at times leading to hostilities and persecution. As Johnson points out, "Jewish separation had legal protection but not universal popular approval" (113). Even that legal protection was tenuous and subject to the whims of local officials and shifts in power, as the attacks on Jews in Alexandria within a decade of Jesus' crucifixion attests (Barclay 48-55). Identification with Jews thus had the potential for both benefits and persecution, which problematizes the scenario you outline...

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Barclay, John M.G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE - 117 CE). Hellenistic Culture and Society 33. University of California Press, 1996.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. Yale University Press, 2009.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Jews were exempted from sacrifices to the emperor but they had to pay a special tax. Until the destruction of the temple, Christians generally worshipped in Jewish synagogues and were considered a Jewish sect.

As time went on Christians who openly professed the divinity of Christ were expelled from the synagogues. Romans no longer considered them a Jewish sect so failure to sacrifice to the emperor was a capital offense but enforcement depended on the whims of local officials.

There were good reasons not to write down the ending for the Gospel of Mark.

seems like a bit of a militant extension.
 
Last edited:

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Bart Ehrman once said something to the effect of not one single core Christian doctrine would be compromised if all the questionable passages were removed from the Bible.

He would then be quite incorrect.


Additionally, it has long been understood that one of the most effective measures for discerning what belonged in the canon and what didn't is its compatibility with the whole of scripture (this one of the reasons the apocryphal writings are considered apocryphal ;)). I'm also inclined to believe God is the one ultimately responsible for His word and all the suspected changes, whether they be in the Pentateuch, the prophets, or the gospels may well be there by providence. This is akin to understand the leading of the Spirit: the Spirit never contradicts the written word; rhema never contradicts logos. So if hypothetic logos contradicts established logos then it is neither hypothetical or logos and should be discarded.

The two texts cited work.

So they remain.


Do you find there is some inconsistency with other scripture?
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
You haven't provided any good reasons to think this... as I've already pointed out, the (longer) ending of Mark is cribbed together from other New Testament texts that are stable in the manuscript tradition and even more explicit about Jesus' divine status. Your hypothesis crumbles on this point even before attempting an integration with the historical situation. Your comments related to this reflect an outdated and improperly-nuanced model of the relationship between Jews, Christians and pagans in the Greco-Roman world. The pertinent point of departure relates to Christianity's position vis-à-vis Judaism --- while it is true that the latter enjoyed a measure of imperial endorsement for their peculiar monotheistic practices, this elicited both admiration and disdain from their pagan contemporaries, at times leading to hostilities and persecution. As Johnson points out, "Jewish separation had legal protection but not universal popular approval" (113). Even that legal protection was tenuous and subject to the whims of local officials and shifts in power, as the attacks on Jews in Alexandria within a decade of Jesus' crucifixion attests (Barclay 48-55). Identification with Jews thus had the potential for both benefits and persecution, which problematizes the scenario you outline...

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Barclay, John M.G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE - 117 CE). Hellenistic Culture and Society 33. University of California Press, 1996.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. Yale University Press, 2009.

You sound like dr. Fauci.

Ummm ... we don't really know .... but we are "following the scientists".

I mean despite us taking advantage.



OK ..... we are going to biblical "peer" review; and will will figure this out.

Seriously?
 
Last edited:

Slyzr

Well-known member
And the relationship between ^^^ and what I posted is what exactly? :unsure:

Kind regards,
Jonathan

What you posted .....

I get the peer review thingy ..... and I am a protenant of such.



I get it ...... you ARE a peer review Christian apologist.

No offense but christian apologists are just that ... christian apologists.

The issue with christian apologists is they know the are apologizing for something.

But not sure what that is.....
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
What you posted .....

I get the peer review thingy ..... and I am a protenant of such.



I get it ...... you ARE a peer review Christian apologist.

No offense but christian apologists are just that ... christian apologists.
I don't wear the hat of a Christian apologist very often and certainly wasn't acting in any such capacity in the post you responded to here... my primary approach is that of an academic who brackets questions of theology altogether. It was the anomaly of one vitriolic atheist troll in the other thread that had me reaching for and dusting off that old cap... and as he has since tucked tail and run, at least from that thread, it's back on the peg.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
I don't wear the hat of a Christian apologist very often and certainly wasn't acting in any such capacity in the post you responded to here... my primary approach is that of an academic who brackets questions of theology altogether. It was the anomaly of one vitriolic atheist troll in the other thread that had me reaching for and dusting off that old cap... and as he has since tucked tail and run, at least from that thread, it's back on the peg.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Ok .......

You are now not a a Christian apologist ......

But the other guy was evil; . for not cough ... cough ... supporting Christianity.


Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

You are a some time Christians apologist ...... looking to win with peer review? .

for you not being a Christian apologist; or being a Christian apologist. (however your whim works).

So could we say ... you are an academic.

Or just an academic that some times is an academic ..... other times a Christian apologist.

That makes perfect sense ...... :rolleyes: :cool:
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Ok .......

You are now not a a Christian apologist ......

But the other guy was evil; . for not cough ... cough ... supporting Christianity.


Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

You are a some time Christians apologist ...... looking to win with peer review? .

for you not being a Christian apologist; or being a Christian apologist. (however your whim works).

So could we say ... you are an academic.

Or just an academic that some times is an academic ..... other times a Christian apologist.

That makes perfect sense ...... :rolleyes: :cool:
It's not a difficult concept... your obvious struggles to understand it above notwithstanding.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Perhaps you could clarify.
A Christian apologist, by definition, defends Christianity against its opponents... I recently did so in the face of a particularly embittered and irrational attack. I don't do this very often because I frequent these forums primarily to discuss the Bible from an academic perspective, one that sets aside theological concerns. For example, many months ago when I critiqued a claim of yours about the Hebrew of the garden narrative, I was not doing so as a Christian apologist or to defend any particular theological agenda, I did so purely from the perspective of a scholarly Hebraist. Hope this helps clarify...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
A Christian apologist, by definition, defends Christianity against its opponents... I recently did so in the face of a particularly embittered and irrational attack. I don't do this very often because I frequent these forums primarily to discuss the Bible from an academic perspective, one that sets aside theological concerns. For example, many months ago when I critiqued a claim of yours about the Hebrew of the garden narrative, I was not doing so as a Christian apologist or to defend any particular theological agenda, I did so purely from the perspective of a scholarly Hebraist. Hope this helps clarify...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I remember that ........

You warned me about challenging the "translations"
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
Insofar as the (longer) ending of Mark is primarily cribbed together from other pertinent texts within the New Testament, this hypothesis would not seem to hold, particularly in light of far more explicit proclamations of Jesus' divinity elsewhere in the New Testament that do not have such an unstable status in the manuscript tradition. I would further point out that the Greco-Roman world was polytheistic and its (non-Jewish) citizens could care less whether Christians worshipped a deity named Jesus... the problem was not this, but rather than they did so to the exclusion of the local deities who were thought to extend or withhold their blessings to the citizenry based on the devotion or not that was given to them. When things went wrong, Christians were easy scapegoats because of their refusal to participate in pagan religious rituals...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Makes sense, Jonathan.

The long ending of Mark must have been added pretty early in the history of Christianity
I forget all the arguments in favor of it being an early addition, but it.seems to have been put in during the first two centuries AD. I guess Mark himself could have added it or cribbed it as you said, using the other gospels written after Mark's first edition.

I think that there was not anything doctrinally problematic in it. It has one part at least that isn't in the other gospels. Namely, apparently on the night after the Resurrection, Jesus shows up to the 11 apostles like in Luke 24, but Mark 16 16 - 18 has Him say additional things not in Luke's account of that appearance but substantially the same as what Jesus said earlier during His earthly ministry. So either Luke didn't choose to include those parts during his account of the appearance, or didn't know about that part, or the author of Mark's long ending made it up.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The long ending of Mark must have been added pretty early in the history of Christianity
I forget all the arguments in favor of it being an early addition, but it.seems to have been put in during the first two centuries AD. I guess Mark himself could have added it or cribbed it as you said, using the other gospels written after Mark's first edition.
I would say about the middle of the second century at the earliest since the additions show knowledge of Luke, which I date to the early second century... this would rule out the original author, who seems to have written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

ferengi

Well-known member
Greetings all. What should we do about passages like Mark 16:9-20 and John 8? These passages have little manuscript evidence backing them. If ther are to be taken as scribal errors or additions, should we read them as Scripture or even have them in the Bible?
There are 24907 NT manuscripts - we know whats in the NT
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
Makes sense, Jonathan.

The long ending of Mark must have been added pretty early in the history of Christianity
I forget all the arguments in favor of it being an early addition, but it.seems to have been put in during the first two centuries AD.
This would have been the kind of thing I was thinking of, because the Diatessaron compiled the 4 gospel stories into one, and it included the Long Ending:
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), one of the first and best apologists for the faith, in his First Apology uses words in Mark 16:20 as a fulfillment of Messianic prophecy in his examination of Psalm 110. His pupil Tatian the Syrian (c.120-180), writer and theologian, in his Diatessaron (Harmony of the Gospels) incorporates material from all the four Gospels and includes Mark 16:9-20.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
I would say about the middle of the second century at the earliest since the additions show knowledge of Luke, which I date to the early second century... this would rule out the original author, who seems to have written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Does it show knowledge of John's Gospel? I date John's gospel to around 100 AD +/- 15 years.

I am open minded on the dating of Luke's Gospel. One reason to date it in the second half of the first century is that "Luke" was one of Paul's disciples/apostles. A second reason is that the Testimonium Flavianum that I believe is by Josephus compiles elements of and the layout found in Luke 24. A third reason is that the author of Luke is commonly considered the author of Acts, and I am inclined to think that Acts is written before Paul's killing, as it doesn't mention Paul's killing.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
And Theo, I read where you're telling others they are coming across as arrogant and ignorant. Not only is this a violation of the tou but when you appeal to your own studies of textual criticism you come across in the same ways. I will be reporting the post. Do please make a conscious effort to keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. I trust everyone here in the conversation can abide by that simple standard.

Apparently the moderators didn't find any issue with my post.
But do you realize that in your comments above you are guilty of precisely the SAME infractions you accused me of?

Hmm.....
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
No he is a moron non-scholar who tell atheists what they want to hear
Your opinion is irrelevant to establishing whether one is a scholar or not, credentials do... and Ehrman has these. For the record, he is an agnostic and has challenged those atheists who deny the historicity of Jesus in both live debate and print... he is not pandering to these individuals or atheists collectively. As to the topic of this thread -- biblical manuscripts and text-critical issues -- his peer-reviewed books are solidly written even if I don't agree with everything he argues for. His books aimed at popular audiences, however, often lack nuancing, as do a number of his casual comments offered in interviews and debates... I have criticized him in the past for this, as have debate opponents such as Daniel Wallace --- and we have done so without hurling insults as you have.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Top