6) He claims that a resurrection appearance is expected because of preexisting Christian writings but there is no quality evidence of any resurrection appearance narrative before GMark. Most of his related argument is that previous Christian writing makes clear and emphasizes that Jesus was resurrected but GMark already does that. He appeals to Paul's controversial 1 Corinthians 15....
Both you and Lunn are worthless here. The Gospels preceded Corinthians. Mark was not the first Gospel.
JoeWallack wrote:7) He claims that the relationship with the canonical Gospels supports LE. His argument is that they have basic information/stories in common. He fails to explain that that is largely because GMatthew/GLuke use GMark as a base. He also fails to note that GMatthew/GLuke is quality evidence for 16:8 as they follow GMark almost word for word until and than are completely different after.
Your arguments are based on the Markan priority error combined with missing the basics that all four gospels are very unique in the resurrection period, simply because the events were so widespread and diffuse. I really can not comment on the Lunn argument from the snippet here.
JoeWallack wrote:8) He claims that resurrection predictions in 1-16:8 supports LE but GMark makes the resurrection explicit without LE. The observation that he should be making is that there is no resurrection appearance prediction in 1-16:8.
This one would need more precise detail from Lunn and you to comment more fully, although my sense is that Lunn is right.
JoeWallack wrote:9) He correctly claims that "for" is an extremely unusual way to end an ancient Greek book. He fails to note though that "Mark" has an extremely unusual style and that no early Patristic mentioned that as an issue.
You forget that 99.9% of the extant mss and numerous "Patristics" are referencing the traditional ending. When they are referencing the full text, they are not going to comment on what they do not have. This one is all Lunn.
JoeWallack wrote:10) He correctly notes that 16:8 contrasts with GMark's positive beginning but fails to note that GMark in general has a style of contrast and specifically reversed expectations..
I would put it simply. A Gospel story ending with existential angst makes no sense historically, spiritually, or authorially.
Score here, 1-0 Lunn .. the rest is only partials, errors and undecideds.
Secret Alias wrote: The reason most of the manuscripts agree in general is because there was a political effort in the third and fourth and fifth centuries to make all points of doctrine agree including the texts themselves.
This is a myth historically. The churches were wide over three (and more) languages and three continents. Never happened.
The actual hundreds of variants that kept up a division also disproves your contention of the political heavy-handedness. The overwhelming agreement on the Mark ending is not echoed, e.g. on the Periocope Adulterae, 1 Timothy 3:16, the heavenly witnesses, Acts 8:37, etc.
A case can be made (e.g. Frederick Nolan) than Eusebius favored certain types of corruptions, on variants that already existed. However, even if true, his overall effect was modest.
MrMacSon wrote:Please elaborate on the "bifurcation of the textline".
Simply that by the 2nd century there were clearly mss with the traditional ending over a wide area. Also by 200 AD there was likely mss with the truncated ending, although those were more localized in the Alexandria region.
MrMacSon wrote:What "movement from 45 AD to 400 AD", or "45 AD to 200 AD" ??
The rejection of the short ending counts as, overall, a "change is from 16:8 to LE", what Joe was claiming . But that change is only starting by looking at the already split line.
The key question is what happened from 45AD (Gospel being distributed) to 200AD, by which time we know there was a split in the line. Were some mss having the loss of the last page, or simply tired scribes stopping, or possibly approval of the loss for apologetics. All very possible. Or were some mss having a real ending added in, because, for some reason, there was no original Mark circulating.
In general, the loss of text is far easier to occur than the addition. (The only thing different here is that the lacuna is so blatant, so unlikely, that it would encourage the finding of the real ending) If the ending was being written ad hoc by Sam Turkey Israel at 100 AD (remember, it got to Justin Martyr) there should have been some notice of this (much like Joe makes a point that no one notices the awkward ending) and there would easily be a far more diffuse textual situation.
Secret Alias wrote:Steve
I don't know that anyone or everyone at this forum 'trusts' or believes either you or Joe. Let's call a spade for a spade. You and Joe are apologists and Joe is properly defined as a hater. You have all demonstrated yourselves to have agendas which make it possible to take anything you say at face value.
The fact that this is a 'skeptics' forum doesn't mean that we automatically side with a hater at the expense of an apologist. It just means that we don't fall victim (or try not to fall victim) to the blind spots of the arguments each side.
JW:
Oh lighten up Francis. We have more in common than you think. We would both agree that there is a huge difference in our respective levels of scholarship.
I'm not aware of a single substantive post you've ever written here so now I'm actually going to have to read one all the way through. Thanks. Let's start with the above:
You have all demonstrated yourselves to have agendas which make it possible to take anything you say at face value.
It just means that we don't fall victim (or try not to fall victim) to the blind spots of the arguments each side.
Is English not your first language? Seriously, this is the first time I've seriously looked at what you've written. As was said to Bender in the classic The Breakfast Club. "Yea, that's what I've thought."
I've sent the SAs (Steven Avery and Secret Alias) to that special room in the snobbish fraternity from Animal House with Jugdish, Mohammat, Sidney and Clayton because I think they will have lots to talk about. Continuing than with the serious scholarship:
Introduction
Continuing with Lunn's poor and backwards reasoning in his Introduction:
11) He claims it is remarkable that there is no Patristic explanation of a 16:8 ending until the 19th century. He fails to note that almost all of the evidence we do have regarding the ending of GMark is after it has already been canonized along with Gospels that do have subsequent narrative (that agrees with 16:1-8 almost word for word). Regarding Patristics, Augustine rather famously claimed that GMark was an abbreviation of GMatthew. Lunn's claimed point here is especially remarkable considering a necessary point of his argument for LE is that 16:8 is explained by a complete exorcism of what followed, leaving 16:8 as the end. So an even more important point of his already supposedly explains why 16:8 was left as original. In his desperation to make points he has no problem claiming things in one context that contradict him in another.
12) He likewise claims it remarkable that we have no record of any Christian critic taking note of 16:8. [Irony] We have relatively little preserved by Christianity regarding critics of Christianity as the Christians generally burned/didn't copy criticism (which applies to more than just criticism like, I don't know, manuscripts with objectionable readings, the critics themselves, etc.) [/irony]. And similar to the previous point, what evidence we do have is again after GMark is in a Canon.
13) Lunn's final point in the Introduction is fittingly his most strange/bizarre/macabre. He confesses that authority in general accepts 16:8 as original. He than cites several supposed authorities to try and discredit the opinion of authority. And than, because that was apparently not ironic enough, he points out that a subset of authority thinks that 16:8 is not the original ending because the original ending is missing, even though this subset thinks 16:8 is more likely the original ending than the LE.
This is a myth historically. The churches were wide over three (and more) languages and three continents. Never happened.
It is not a 'myth' historically. An example from the time of Constantine with respect to 'Arian books' which certainly included scriptures - they were burned and destroyed as were Marcionite books, the Diatessaron etc - you are so full of it. You can't even see the obviousness of the reality of antiquity because your faith won't let you admit it:
Your apologetic mindset can't let you even imagine for a moment which is palpably obvious from the early Church history - the winners write history and write history by destroying and re-writing the books from previous orthodoxies. It happened in Judaism and other religions. It happened in Christianity.
I can't believe that Ehrman's work is questioned or even reviled by apologists but it is because they live in another reality.
The caption at the bottom of the picture 'heretici Arianni damnati' - please shut up
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
And what would you demand to 'prove' the 'hypothesis' that successive orthodoxies limited scriptures to those which agreed with their dogma(s)? Read the imperial decrees regarding the command to destroy heretical scriptures, the translations of Aquila and the preference for the LXX because of its alleged 'divine inspiration.' Do you really believe that the dissenting scriptures just 'disappeared' because 'it was known' that they were contrived and untrue? Or that the existing scriptures survived because they were 'true' and sanctioned by God? This is the logic (and the arguments) of a simpleton.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Here is a relevant example of the manipulation and Imperial control of scripture in the Jewish community from Amnon Linder's book:
Justinian stated in a law from 553 (66) that Jews were allowed to read their holy books in the synagogue in any language they wished, but if they chose to use a Greek text, they must use the Septuagint or Aquila's translation. He also banned the Mishnah, and the holding of heretical opinions on the subject of the resurrection of the dead, the final judgement and the creation of angels.
the same things were going on in Christianity in the third and fourth centuries - undoubtedly also the second century.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
And just to make clear - the 'example from the time of Constantine' is a picture reproduced in the ninth century. On the evidence for known Christian book burnings - from Wikipedia:
Manichaean and Christian scriptures (by Diocletian)[edit]
The Diocletianic Persecution started on March 31, 302, with the Roman Emperor Diocletian, in a rescript from Alexandria, ordering that the leading Manichaeans be burnt alive along with their scriptures.[23] This was the first time a Roman Imperial persecution ever called for the destruction of sacred literature.[24] On the following year, on February 23, 303, Diocletian ordered that the newly built Christian church at Nicomedia be razed, its scriptures burned, and its treasures seized.[25] Later persecutions included the burning of both the Christians themselves and of their books. As related in later Christian Hagiography, at that time the governor of Valencia offered the deacon who would become known as Saint Vincent of Saragossa to have his life spared in exchange for his consigning Scripture to the fire. Vincent refused and let himself be executed instead. In religious paintings he is often depicted holding the book whose preservation he preferred to his own life (see illustration in Saint Vincent of Saragossa page.)[26]
Books of Arianism (after Council of Nicaea)[edit]
Burning of Arian books at Nicaea (illustration from a compendium of canon law, ca. 825, MS. in the Capitular Library, Vercelli)
The books of Arius and his followers, after the first Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), were burned for heresy by the Roman emperor Theodosius I who published a decree commanding that, "the doctrine of the Trinity should be embraced by those who would be called catholics; that all others should bear the infamous name of heretics".[Joseph Priestley. An history of the corruptions of Christianity (1782) pg. 173–174] Arius was exiled and presumably assassinated following this, and Arian books continued to be regularly burned into the 330s.[28]
Library of Antioch (by Jovian)[edit]
In 364, the Christian Emperor Jovian ordered the entire Library of Antioch to be burnt.[Michael von Albrecht, and Gareth L. Schmeling, A history of Roman literature (1997), page 1744] It had been heavily stocked by the aid of his non-Christian predecessor, Emperor Julian.
"Unacceptable writings" (by Athanasius)[edit]
Elaine Pagels claims that in 367, Athanasius ordered monks in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria in his role as bishop of Alexandria to destroy all "unacceptable writings" in Egypt, the list of writings to be saved constituting the New Testament.[Athanasius of Alexandria: Paschal letter (letter 39), 367 AD]
The Sibylline books (various times)[edit]
The Sibylline Books were a collection of oracular sayings. According to myth,[31] the Cumaean sibyl offered Lucius Tarquinius Superbus the books for a high price, and when he refused, burned three. When he refused to buy the remaining six at the same price, she again burned three, finally forcing him to buy the last three at the original price. The quindecimviri sacris faciundis watched over the surviving books in the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, but could not prevent their being burned when the temple burned down in 83 BCE. They were replaced by a similar collection of oracular sayings from around the Mediterranean in 76 BCE, along with the sayings of the Tiburtine sibyl, and then checked by priests for perceived accuracy as compared to the burned originals.[32] These remained until for political reasons they were burned by Flavius Stilicho (died 408).[33]
Writings of Priscillian[edit]
In 385, the theologian Priscillian of Ávila became the first Christian to be executed by fellow-Christians as a heretic. Some (though not all) of his writings were condemned as heretical and burned. For many centuries they were considered irreversibly lost, but surviving copies were discovered in the 19th century.[34]
Etrusca Disciplina[edit]
Etrusca Disciplina, the Etruscan books of cult and divination, were collected and burned in the 5th century.[35][36]
Nestorius' books (by Theodosius II)[edit]
The books of Nestorius, declared to be heresy, were burned under an edict of Theodosius II(435).[37][38] The Greek originals of most writings were irrevocably destroyed, surviving mainly in Syriac translations.
Middle Ages[edit]
Archives of Ctesiphon (during Arab conquest)[edit]
The Sassanid Empire's capital Ctesiphon was conquered by Arab armies under the military command of Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas in 637, during the caliphate of Umar. Though the general population was not harmed, the palaces were burned, leading to destruction of archives recording centuries of Sassanid history. According to an account written two centuries later in Tarikh al-Tabari by the Persian author Al-Tabari, the Arab Commander Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas wrote to Caliph Umar ibn al-Khatta-b asking what should be done with the books at Ctesiphon. Umar wrote back: "If the books contradict the Qur'an, they are blasphemous. On the other hand, if they are in agreement, they are not needed, as for us Qur'an is sufficient."[39] Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books, the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were thrown into fire or the Euphrates.[40]
Modern scholars have cast doubt on this incident. Franz Rosenthal, scholar of Islam at Yale University, calls it a "variant of [a] famous legend",[41] and Bernard Lewis, scholar of Oriental studies at Princeton University[42] and Touraj Daryaee, professor in the history of Iran and the Persianate World at University of California, Irvine, have also stated that the story is fabricated.[43]
Japanese books and manuscripts (during power struggle at the Imperial court)[edit]
During the "Isshi Incident" of 645, a transformative event in early Japanese Imperial history, the influential Soga no Iruka was assassinated and enemies of the Soga Clan seized power. Shortly afterwards, Iruka's father Soga no Emishi killed himself by setting fire to his residence. The conflagration destroyed the manuscript copy of the Tennōki, an important historical text which was forever lost, as well as many other Imperial treasures which had been taken for safe-keeping by the Soga,.[44] Fune no Fubitoesaka quickly grabbed out of the flames another unique historical text known as Kokki and is said to have afterwards presented it to Emperor Tenji - though it was at some later time lost in unknown circumstances, and no known extant copies of it remain.[45]
Repeated destruction of Alexandria libraries[edit]
Main article: Library of Alexandria § Destruction of the Library
The library of the Serapeum in Alexandria was trashed, burned and looted, 392, at the decree of Theophilus of Alexandria, who was ordered so by Theodosius I. Around the same time, Hypatia was murdered. One of the largest destructions of books occurred at the Library of Alexandria, traditionally held to be in 640; however, the precise years are unknown as are whether the fires were intentional or accidental.[46][47]
Qur'anic texts with varying wording (ordered by the 3rd Caliph, Uthman)[edit]
Main article: Origin and development of the Qur'an § First standardization of Qur'an
Uthman ibn 'Affan, the third Caliph of Islam after Muhammad, who is credited with overseeing the collection of the verses of the Qur'an, ordered the destruction of any other remaining text containing verses of the Quran after the Quran has been fully collected, circa 650. This was done to ensure that the collected and authenticated Quranic copy that Uthman collected became the primary source for others to follow, thereby ensuring that Uthman's version of the Quran remained authentic. Although the Qur'an had mainly been propagated through oral transmission, it also had already been recorded in at least three codices, most importantly the codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud in Kufa, and the codex of Ubayy ibn Ka'b in Syria. Sometime between 650 and 656, a committee appointed by Uthman is believed to have produced a singular version in seven copies, and Uthman is said to have "sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered any other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt."[48]
Competing prayer books (at Toledo)[edit]
After the conquest of Toledo, Spain (1085) by the king of Castile, it was being disputed on whether Iberian Christians should follow the foreign Roman rite or the traditional Mozarabic rite. After other ordeals, it was submitted to the trial by fire: One book for each rite was thrown into a fire. The Toledan book was little damaged after the Roman one was consumed. Henry Jenner comments in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "No one who has seen a Mozarabic manuscript with its extraordinarily solid vellum, will adopt any hypothesis of Divine Interposition here."[49]
Abelard forced to burn his own book (at Soissons)[edit]
The provincial synod held at Soissons (in France) in 1121 condemned the teachings of the famous theologian Peter Abelard as heresy; he was forced to burn his own book before being shut up inside the convent of St. Medard at Soissons.[50]
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias wrote:It is not a 'myth' historically. An example from the time of Constantine with respect to 'Arian books' which certainly included scriptures -
And how does this relate to the three continents and three languages?
You then give a grabbag of events, most of which were localized, or far off, and would have no influence on the textual tradition overall. By the time of many of them, the scriptures were disseminated in closer to a dozen major languages, making the effects of a localized suppression (eg. Nestorianism) of no effect on the scriptures.
Take that example: We know the Nestorians are here today, we know they use the Eastern Peshitta, we know they did not recognize five of the (usually accepted) canonical books, and it is quite clear that this is the same Bible they used in early centuries. We may have lost some neat commentary from the events you mention, but nothing that effects the scriptures. And that was one of the more important ones in your list.
Secret Alias wrote:And what would you demand to 'prove' the 'hypothesis' that successive orthodoxies limited scriptures to those which agreed with their dogma(s)? Read the imperial decrees regarding the command to destroy heretical scriptures, the translations of Aquila and the preference for the LXX because of its alleged 'divine inspiration.' Do you really believe that the dissenting scriptures just 'disappeared' because 'it was known' that they were contrived and untrue? Or that the existing scriptures survived because they were 'true' and sanctioned by God? This is the logic (and the arguments) of a simpleton.
The simpleton is the person who does not realize that Old Testament textual history in the Reformation Bible is through the Hebrew Bible, and that even at 400 AD Jerome properly rejected the confused and conflicting Greek traditions (various groups doing their own translations, corruptions abounding), moved to Bethlehem, Israel, used the library at Caesarea, studied with the Hebrews, and went back to the sources.
Secret Alias wrote:
Justinian stated in a law from 553 (66) that Jews were allowed to read their holy books in the synagogue in any language they wished, but if they chose to use a Greek text, they must use the Septuagint or Aquila's translation....
the same things were going on in Christianity in the third and fourth centuries - undoubtedly also the second century.
The same error, along with a new emphasis on Mishnah and Talmud controversies, which do not effect the preservation of the Hebrew Bible (and likely did not effect the preservation of the gargantuan Talmud and Mishnah) . And your "undoubtedly" shows great ignorance of the 2nd century textual history.
