Page 6 of 6
Re: Matthean Priority or Markan Priority?
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:00 pm
by gmx
Ulan wrote:gmx wrote:Your assumption that the ancient church had the capability to preserve any document it wanted to is absurd.
This argument has been trotted out for a long time, but it's born out of desperation and does not sound plausible.
Can you explain why that argument isn't plausible? Writings such as Hegesippus were extant in the 17th century, yet still have been lost. I'm sure there are many other examples that the forum could cite.
What underlies your assumption that the church was capable of retaining any documents it wanted to?
Re: Matthean Priority or Markan Priority?
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:42 pm
by MrMacSon
gmx wrote:
Writings such as Hegesippus were extant in the 17th century, yet still have been lost.
What do you mean by that? The term extant seems to refer to physical documents rather than words transcribed through the centuries. Are you saying documents have been cited in the 17th century as having allegedly been seen but cannot now be found? (this could mean either a a genuine loss or destruction, or a false claim from the 17th C)
Re: Matthean Priority or Markan Priority?
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:17 am
by gmx
MrMacSon wrote:gmx wrote:
Writings such as Hegesippus were extant in the 17th century, yet still have been lost.
What do you mean by that? The term extant seems to refer to physical documents rather than words transcribed through the centuries. Are you saying documents have been cited in the 17th century as having allegedly been seen but cannot now be found? (this could mean either a a genuine loss or destruction, or a false claim from the 17th C)
Yes I believe the claim is that multiple copies of the documents existed in the 17th century. I don't read German, but the reference is to Zahn...
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 2 (1877-8), p. 288; and Theologisches Litteraturblatt (1893), p. 495
That reference is lifted from the Wikipedia page on Hegesippus.