Christian scribal practices indicate single common source

[Secret Alias]

The switch from watching things on your laptop to your phone or hand held device. That's the analogy.

[RandyHelzerman]

Of course Christians *eventually* mostly used codex form. Not news.
That is different than saying that they always did, or that some unknown imagined "single common source" set that practice from the start.

Nobody is saying that. The claim (which is supported by the manuscripts) is only that when christians wrote texts they considered to be sacred scripture, they wrote them in codices and used nomina sacra, and--since it's very unlikely that they all started doing this independently of each other--that they all were conforming to norms established early on, when some Christian wrote text which he considered to be sacred scripture, and used nomina sacra, into a codex.

Since that is unconvincing to you, I *still* would like to know what you *would* consider to be evidence for that.

[StephenGoranson]

Randy, perhaps you are misreading me.
You (nor anyone else that I know of)
have not provided evidence of
"some unknown imagined 'single common source'" [check the thread title].
When, what date, was this putative universal switch of all imaginary unified Christians everywhere?
Are you unaware of differing opinions?
So, given that particular absence of evidence, why should I be convinced?
{Of that, or of x or y emperor-invention fantasies, not saying that's your preference.}
I notice that you also accept the gMark as allegory proposal, which rgprice
offers as, in effect, another single-source idea.
But, of course, it is not an allegory. Also, not persuasive.
A group may eventually and gradually mostly find a new formatting use handy, right?

[RandyHelzerman]

Randy, perhaps you are misreading me.
You (nor anyone else that I know of)
have not provided evidence of
"some unknown imagined 'single common source'" [check the thread title].

I apologize if I haven't been clear--I tend to write run-on sentences which bury some arguments inside of each other. And in this case, I have phrased the argument in the form of a question (like on jeopardy )

Nevertheless, I *have* argued that the manuscript tradition provides evidence for a single source. The evidence is that virtually *all* of the manuscripts, which we have even fragmentary remains of, were written in codices using nomina sacra.

Seems to me there are only 2 possibilities:
1. Either that tradition was created once and spread,
2. or it was created over and over again, all over the empire, virtually every time any scribe put pen to paper to first write out a sacred text.

The "jeopardy" question is: Which one of those possibilities seems more likely?

When, what date, was this putative universal switch of all imaginary unified Christians everywhere?

It had to happen *after* what was written was sacred scriptures. Perhaps early copies of Mark, and certainly the autographs of Paul's letters were written on scrolls. But they were not considered sacred scripture yet.

And it had to happen before virtually any of the manuscripts we have any scrap of were produced.

That narrows it down to right around the turn of the 2nd century.

Are you unaware of differing opinions?

Well, I consider you a friend, so apparently some of my friends have differing opinions

So, given that particular absence of evidence, why should I be convinced?

I don't know what evidence you wish to have is absent Which is why I keep asking you for it, apparently to the point of trying your patience. Sorry ;-(

I notice that you also accept the gMark as allegory proposal, which rgprice
offers as, in effect, another single-source idea.
But, of course, it is not an allegory. Also, not persuasive.

Well, that is another can of worms. I was of the "of course its not!" school of thought when I started reading his book, but by the end I had changed my mind. Seldom have I ever been so gobsmacked by anything. It is certainly a very counter-intuitive hypothesis, going against the party line of virtually all religious and secular scholarship. The earliest readers of Mark who we know about (Matthew and Luke) took it literally, not allegorically. So believe me, I can understand why you don't agree, in fact, there's more work to do to really nail it down. E.g. if it could be shown that some other contemporary work, perhaps the shepherd of hermas, was written allegorically, and make a study of the early church fathers to demonstrate they all interpret scripture allegorically, that would help lot. There is a just-discovered 4th century text which gives an allegorical reading of the gospels: was that sui genres, or was it part of a tradition? But until that work is done, it's certainly reasonable to disagree with it.

A group may eventually and gradually mostly find a new formatting use handy, right?

Yes, but that's kinda the claim; just saying that *somebody* must have been the first, and as his book and copies of it spread around, other people took a look at it and thought it was a good idea. They then made *their* books that way, etc etc. And this whole process must have been completed by around the turn of the 2nd century. We may, in fact, not be so far apart on this as we both were assuming, come to think of it.

[StephenGoranson]

Your two options are not the only two options.

[RandyHelzerman]

Your two options are not the only two options.

Well, feel free to name a third one which you prefer, and append some evidence in favor of it which *I* would find convincing.

The kinda thing which would convince me otherwise would be something like we found a lost book of Origin, where he noted that when compiling the Hexapla he ran across several interesting versions of the NT which were written on scrolls, or we discover some lost notes by Eusebius which described the scribal practices at Alexandria, Antioch, and Pergamum in which he noted that they all started using nominal sacra at different times, etc etc.

Is it really so hard to name some evidence which would convince you?

[StephenGoranson]

Again, again, gradual transformation, without following any "SINGLE COMMON SOURCE."

[RandyHelzerman]

Again, again, gradual transformation, without following any "SINGLE COMMON SOURCE."

Well, I hope you'll understand if I don't think that the evidence you presented here is a knock-down, airtight case.

[StephenGoranson]

Two very different things:
a) your bizarre fiat of just two very personally narrowly limited options only, even while they are just among very obvious other options
and
b) your personal preference to reject all other options as lacking, to your mind, absolute evidence--never-mind how history often works such--while ignoring the fact that neither of your two proffered imagined options has your supposed self-required "knock-down" evidence.

[RandyHelzerman]

Two very different things:
a) your bizarre fiat of just two very personally narrowly limited options only, even while they are just among very obvious other options
and

Is that really fair? I invited you, in good faith, to present a third option. You can't fault me for not adopting it when you didn't give any supporting evidence for it.

b) your personal preference to reject all other options as lacking, to your mind, absolute evidence--never-mind how history often works such--while ignoring the fact that neither of your two proffered imagined options has your supposed self-required "knock-down" evidence.

Your assertions certainly lack absolute evidence, because they lack any evidence at all of any kind Just shouting "You are wrong!!!" over and over again isn't going to change anybody's mind dude.