Biblical Manuscripts

rakovsky

Active 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

Active 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
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Does it show knowledge of John's Gospel?
Indeed it does... in Matthew Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary at the same time (28:1,9) and Luke narrates no encounter whatsoever involving Mary Magdalene and the risen Jesus, though she and several other women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb (24:1-3,10). In the longer ending of Mark, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene first and only afterward to others (16:9,12,14) --- this reflects knowledge of John's narrative in which Mary Magdalene is singled out for the first post-resurrection appearance (20:11,14).

I date John's gospel to around 100 AD +/- 15 years.
I have no objection to this approximate dating.

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.
The gospel is anonymous... it is later tradition that ascribed it the name "Luke" and insisted this individual was a traveling companion of Paul.

A second reason is that the Testimonium Flavianum that I believe is by Josephus compiles elements of and the layout found in Luke 24.
I dealt with this at some length back in January, my final post to you on which can be found here --- in summary, there are good reasons to conclude that parts of the Testimonium have been interpolated by a Christian scribe and that Josephus was a source for Luke, not the other way around.

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.
I agree that Luke and Acts were written by the same individual, though there was an interval of months or years between them. Authors can choose to end their historical narratives wherever they please... Matthew, for example, ends with the risen Jesus speaking with his disciples on a mountain in Galilee --- should we conclude from this that it was written before the alleged ascension because the author does not narrate it? Of course not. Likewise, there is no reason why the author of Acts had to narrate Paul's demise in Rome... he chose instead to end on his hero preaching there boldly and unhindered for rhetorical reasons, to inspire his readers to do likewise. The author constructs Paul's speech to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 with knowledge of Paul's death, having the man predict he will never see them again and then get his ecclesial affairs in order by adjuring them to watch over the entire church of God in his absence.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

PS - I have been posting one day a week only for the past little while and after next Sunday I will be going on sabbatical from CARM for a few months, back probably in the New Year.
 

101G

Well-known member
Addressing the OP,

May we suggest one Let the Holy Ghost REVEAL himseld in the scriptures. if it's not his WORD, (whatever Biblical Manuscript you use the Holy Ghost will let you know if it's his words or not). for scripture never contridict itself. meaning God don't LIE. if there is an ERRO, let God point it out to you, and show you the correction. Bottom line,let God TEACH you by rev elation.

for he promised to TEACH US.
Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:"
Jeremiah 31:32 "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:"
Jeremiah 31:33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."
Jeremiah 31:34 "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

NT,
1 John 2:20 "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things."
1 John 2:21 "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth."
1 John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."1
John 2:23 "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."
1 John 2:24 "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father."
1 John 2:25 "And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life."
1 John 2:26 "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you."
1 John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
1 John 2:28 "And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming."
1 John 2:29 "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him."

one more, 1 Corinthians 2:12 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."
1 Corinthians 2:13 "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

LET the Holy Spirit TEACH YOU, and you want go wrong, no matter what Biblical Manuscripts you start out with. for the Holy Spirit will "GUIDE" you in the Correct Biblical Manuscripts

Biblical Principle, "we have not because we ask NOT", ask God to TEACH YOU.


PICJAG, 101G.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Then all your posts are irrelevant.

The argument from authority fallacy.

Um, no.
Whether Ehrman is a scholar is different from whether his conclusions on a particular issue are correct or not.

Ehrman is a moron

I find it amusing that you call out "appeal to authority", yet you commit "ad hominem". Rest assured that Ehrman is not a "moron", and is in fact very knowledgeable.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The argument from authority fallacy.
Pointing out that scholars are defined as such by credentials is not an argument from authority... you need to brush up on what constitutes an argumentative fallacy and what does not.

Ehrman is a moron...
Another poster has already noted the irony of this repeated comment of yours, which is a bona fide fallacy of the ad hom variety.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
When you use their creds as alleged evidence their claims are true - which is what you are trying - then its a fallacy.

You need to stop projecting.
Neither of the posters have claimed what Ehrman said was true. You are going off half cocked
 
Top