Ben C Smith

Yes, I am interested.

I may have many if not most of them to hand already; it is just a matter of finding the time to add them to my page(s).

But yes, another list would be helpful.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

Please explain what this means in plain English. The Vatican Library which has just announced it is to lose for refurbishment (and to lose some documents?:devil1 says it has a fourth century new testament and is not Lindisfarne pre 13th century?

What does authorial mean? What about Galen for example?

mountainman

Pot. Kettle. Black.

mountainman

Ideas only ever get tested Judge. A theory is always in test mode.
I might express my views forcefully, but it should be borne in mind
that I am trying to test these ideas, with the over-rider that they
can be refuted either in whole or in part with the provision of
appropriate citations by which we can unambiguously perceive
that there were christians on the planet prior to the rise of
Constantine. Sorry If this was not spelled out.

spin

Pot looking for kettle.

Ben C Smith

I think what Roger means is that we do not possess the so-called autograph (the very parchment and ink from the hand of the author himself) for any manuscript from before century XIII. A fourth century NT cannot be authorial unless the NT authors lived and wrote in century IV. The Lindisfarne gospels are, likewise, not authorial. The manuscripts that we have for Galen are, as usual, copies of copies; thus they are not authorial manuscripts.

If you were simply looking for manuscripts that predate century XIII, heck, we have thousands of those.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

I gave a short speech a couple of days ago - the as delivered one was not the same as I had previously emailed for the minutes. Which is the authorial?

http://www.instructables.com/forum/ECBL9SUGA5ETVPN6JY/

and

Ben C Smith

I could not find what you meant on that link you provided, but, if you authored both speeches by hand, both were authorial. However, what is authorial in our age of digital texts and such may not quite be the same as what is authorial in antiquity.

Roger has already made the point, however, that some authors in antiquity published updated editions as they went along. In my way of wording things, each edition, since it came from the hand of the author (or from the hand of a scribe taking dictation from the author), is authorial.

Ben.

aa5874

How was Papias able to make that statement? In order for Papias to know the veracity of the writings of Mark, it would mean that he had in his possesion writings or had knowledge of the history and correct chronology of the discourses and events of his Lord.

Papias would also need to have a knowledge of the information that Peter gave to Mark to verify that Mark did indeed record Peter accurately.

What document or information did Papias use to come to his conclusions, was it the book called Matthew?

Steven Avery

Yes, that is a very fair complementary question. You do have Jerome referring to the Greek as the fountainhead and likely other references. The Jerome comment is in the Vulgate prologue and is in the context of his updating the Old Latin.

A very basic issue is the original language of Mark.

Roger, I understand that there are earlier Peshitta NT that have a colophon that indicates that Mark was written in Latin for a Roman audience. And Hoskier writes of "subscriptions to the Syriac vulgate and to some of our Greek manuscripts" and also mentions quotations from Jerome and Clement of Alexander.

Hoskier was one author who made the case for Mark being originally in Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect. Possibly in two versions, one Latin and one Greek, with the Latin being translated to Greek in North Africa. Burkitt also published on the topic. While this is generally ignored today I have never seen any supposed refutation of the idea.

I put a few of the references from Hoskier at -

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia...c/message/2685
[Messianic_Apologetic] Mark - written in Latin or Graeco-Latin - Hoskier

Then CCEL put some or all of "Codex B" online.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/cod...tml?#highlight
Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment.
Chapter IV. Concerning the Genesis of the Latin Version of St. Mark's Gospel

Afaik, there has been little on this on IIDB.
Two comments of spin have been ..

"a Latin influenced Greek"

"(Mark) wrote Greek with a Latin substratum, which is best explained if the writer did so in Rome or another part of the Italic peninsula -- especially with the western "Syro-phoenician" reference."

However no scholarly references or explanation of the particular viewpoint.

The skeptics like to attack the Greek of Mark from a grammatical perspective so some may have a bit of a resistance to our canonical Mark being a translation Greek.

Similarly many Christian writers appear enamored of the "original Greek" and may be similarly adverse to such concepts.

Shalom,
Steven Avery