driver8

Wiki Scribe

From Mark:

2 [6] Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts,
2 [16] And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
3 [22] And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Be-el'zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons."
7 [1] Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,
7 [5] And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?"
9 [11] And they asked him, "Why do the scribes say that first Eli'jah must come?"
9 [14] And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd about them, and scribes arguing with them.
10 [33] saying, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles;
11 [18] And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him; for they feared him, because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching.
11 [27] And they came again to Jerusalem. And as he was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to him,
12 [28] And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?"
12 [32] And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;
12 [35] And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
12 [38] And in his teaching he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market places
14 [1] It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him;
14 [43] And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
14 [53] And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled.
15 [1] And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.
15 [31] So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself.

Now, you may not consider scribes to be strictly historians, but it appears that the profession served just this purpose. They are described above as distinguished professionals and obviously had developed professional standards of operation.

Based on the testimony of Mark, scribes were intimately involved in the ministry and trial of Jesus. We see that they "questioned in their hearts," "came down from Jeruselum," they gathered with Jesus and the Apostles, they "sought a way to destroy him," and even aided in delivering him to Pilate.

So, we have numerous citations of professional historians on the scene, with motivation to record events with which they intimately involved. I must ask, where are all the recordings of these scribes?

They are cast as in opposition to Jesus, so it would be unlikely to credit their writings as the sources of the gospels. So, did they not carry out their professional duties? It seems highly unlikely they would have left no record had the events and their presence been real.

Or, are the scribes so intimately involved in the story for another reason?

I am also struck by this statement:

Is there perhaps a source for this seemingly "vague claim?" How have you quantified what is lost?

badger3k

I'm used to seeing it after the message, not at the top, so I missed it. But everytime I see the "naked archaeologist" (thank the non-existent deity he is neither) my blood boils. I grew up on archaeology - one of the first books I bought with my allowance was a book on the Sumerians (which I no longer have and can't remember the name of). When you get pseudoarchaeological BS like he puts out (I consider him on par with Hancock, Von Daniken, and others) - I get testy. It's like he's beating up on my first love. :angry:

Yellum Notnef

Please don't let this thread die until we hear more about how 99% of ancient literature is lost and how scholars arrived at such a figure.

Or I guess we can wait until the next time Roger trots out that figure.

Iskander

99% or perhaps 98.9% or something like that.

How do I know it is about 98.9 %? I don’t, it is an arbitrary figure to say that most of the ancient writings have been lost.

Make an offer and I will consider it sympathetically.

GakuseiDon

IIRC, the ancient Library of Alexandria had anywhere from 500,000 to a million scrolls. What percentage of those do we have left?

I understand that the Romans kept records of government proceedings. How many of those do we have left?

aa5874

But, you will not EVER find the records for the trial of the creator, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, who transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds as found in the the remaining 1% of writings of antiquity that were not lost.

Roger Pearse

All these figures are estimates. Who can know? But I was reading Martial this week, and saw repeated references to other poets, all now lost except Juvenal. Sounded like a dozen or two.

The 99% figure was given by N. G. Wilson (co-author of Scribes and Scholars, the standard handbook on how the classics reached us) on the website for the Archimedes Palimpsest at one stage, although I cannot find it now. I happened to meet him at a conference a few years ago, and asked him where it came from. He said that the estimate was that of the Renaissance scholar Pietro Bembo. Unfortunately I don't have a reference, so don't know on what Bembo based it. It's probably a general estimate.

But the number feels right, when you look at what we have, what we know we do not have, and what must have existed. I wouldn't treat it as gospel, but as an estimate, and probably more or less about right.

spamandham

There's something to the 99% number? All this time I thought Roger was just using it to mean "a large unknown majority".

Roger Pearse

What do you think is the case with regard to the survival of ancient literature, then?

jakejonesiv

98% burned by christians and the rest interpolated.