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: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.
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.
“This ivory likely decorated the cover of a Gospel book. The abbreviated Latin inscription refers to the opening lines of Mark’s Gospel: ‘I am the voice of oneearlychurchhistory.org
Does it show knowledge of John's Gospel? I date John's gospel to around 100 AD +/- 15 years.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.
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.
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.No he is a moron non-scholar who tell atheists what they want to hear
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).Does it show knowledge of John's Gospel?
I have no objection to this approximate dating.I date John's gospel to around 100 AD +/- 15 years.
The gospel is anonymous... it is later tradition that ascribed it the name "Luke" and insisted this individual was a traveling companion of Paul.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.
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 second reason is that the Testimonium Flavianum that I believe is by Josephus compiles elements of and the layout found in Luke 24.
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.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.
Then all your posts are irrelevant.Your opinion is irrelevant
The argument from authority fallacy. Ehrman is a moron who does not know what a contradiction is.to establishing whether one is a scholar or not, credentials do... and Ehrman has these.
Then all your posts are irrelevant.
The argument from authority fallacy.
Ehrman is a moron
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.The argument from authority fallacy.
Another poster has already noted the irony of this repeated comment of yours, which is a bona fide fallacy of the ad hom variety.Ehrman is a moron...
When you use their creds as alleged evidence their claims are true - which is what you are trying - then its a fallacy.Pointing out that scholars are defined as such by credentials is not an argument from authority...
You need to stop projecting.you need to brush up on what constitutes an argumentative fallacy and what does not.