tanya

Waiting

mountainman

There is abundant evidence of the prohibition, censorship, burning and destruction of other books (e.g. the non canonical gospels and acts) by the heresiologists. There is even evidence that the death penalty was legislated for anyone caught preserving prohibited books as soon as the Nicaean Council was concluded. There is evidence also of imperial damnatio memoriae at the same moment in history. Do you happen to know what this term means, and what it implies in the political sense? The idea that conspiracies do not happen is a most deluded and naive idea reserved for knee jerks.



The Womens Weekly and the Historia Augusta are both mockumentaries - the latter produced by a team of scribes, in a scriptorium that was very similar to the scriptorium managed by Eusebius, through whom 50 bibles were manufactured. Alternatively, there is probably, in most issues, more historical content in any edition of the Womens Weekly than there is in the new testament.



I have seen no evidence from your POV. None. Fuck all. Just hot air. Skeptics should not just automatically reject the possibility of conspiracy in this field, especially in view of the evidence above. For example, do you even know what the term "heresiological" means, and what evidence exists to describe the history of the political nature of the conflict between the heresiologists and the heretics before and after the closure of the NT canon?

mountainman

Precisely. But isn't that what Christian origins is / was all about - a book industry?

I think this claim of Ehrman's is a perfect example of modern heresiology in action.

Ehrman as an heresiologist has sought refuge in an ancient and highly revered Christian tradition.

thief of fire

An "unorthodox" original version of Mark that is never mentioned anywhere, that no "orthodox" heresy hunter ever had to explain away, that had no supporters who had to be opposed by any "orthodox" heresy hunter?

What you are proposing is an original Mark written 65-80 (correct me if I'm wrong), when "christianity was widespread if Paul is any guide.
This circulates until when,100 CE?, 150 CE?, 200 CE?, 250 CE? (Can you or someone please suggest a date).

If it 100 CE then there is no "orthodox" church to dump it.
If it is much later then the problems I mentioned earlier are there.

thief of fire

What evidence did you find compelling?

mountainman

How do we separate "Paul" and "Pseudo-Paul" and which of these is to be our guide? See the 4th century forged correspondence between Paul and Seneca. The sources called Pseudo-Paul and Paul may be as late as the 4th century.

thief of fire

Ok. Let;s run with this. See if it makes any sense. When do you propose this editor did it. 100CE, 200CE, 500CE, 1000CE?


So you think someone wrote this literary masterpiece, which was beutifully structured and organized gace it to an editor the editor then removed bits and added bit so it was no longer organized.

The writer porbably just said.."yeah that's fine. Sure I've just handed you my work that took me ages to write that I carefully crafted and organized, and I'm quite happy that you, you a$$hole, just wrecked it."

Toto

That date of 65-80 CE is the earliest that Christian apologists can make a viable case for, based on internal evidence, but we have no real evidence of gMark before the mid second century, and even that is equivocal.

Paul is not such a good guide, but even Paul only describes small house churches in various cities. You couldn't go to your local bookstore and read up on Christianity.

That's the problem. There's no indication that Mark circulated widely, if at all. The Christians that we know about from the second century treated the Jewish scriptures (creatively interpreted) as the basis for their faith. By around 180 CE, Irenaeus decided that there must be four gospels, one of which is "Mark."

If Irenaeus hadn't picked Mark, that gospel would probably be lost to us.

According to William O. Walker, the proto-orthodox church around 180 was small enough and unified enough to decide on the orthodox version of Paul's letters and make that decision stick. Robert Price thinks that Polycarp (died about 155 CE) was the final editory of the New Testament.

So that's the best estimate for the final edit of the Gospel of Mark - mid to late second century.

It's speculative, of course, but you don't have to posit any vast, unreported conspiracy.

Grog

You are jumping to conclusions. How do you know Carr's observations aren't warranted if you haven't read Ehrman's book? I was shocked when I skimmed through it in about an hour at B&N. If it had been a better book, I would have bought it in a second. My shelves are full of HJ books, or books that assume an HJ at least. They are almost all of them treasured and have taught me a lot, even though I have long questioned the weakness of their opening assumption: that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, crucified under Pilate, who was the inspiration at the heart of Christian origins. I have at least 4 of Ehrman's other books on my shelves, his published papers in my PDF library. NOT because he is a mythicist, but because these works add to our body of knowledge and our understanding of the origins of Christianity. This book does not do that. I might think that Carr has overstated his criticisms, but I do think this book damages Ehrman's credibility. It won't hurt his career though. Paradigms, as they say, fall one funeral at a time. This paradigm, and Ehrman's distinguished career, will survive the damage caused by this badly argued book. For now. Ehrman's reputation though is tarnished, though perhaps "trashed" is an overstatement.

For the record, I don't care if Jesus existed or didn't exist. I think it is also plausible to push his time on Earth to an earlier period, which is the topic of your book, I believe. The strongest, though, in my opinion, is that Christianity did not begin with an actual person at the center of it, but a mythological character derived from the suffering servant motif. If I were proved wrong, I wouldn't worry too much about. I used to be quite excited about a revolutionary Jesus until I researched the subject more.

I'll read your book sometime. I saw that one at B&N as well, but it just seemed too far outside the scope of what I thought reasonable at the time to actually purchase. I was intrigued, though, and spent an or hour so checking it out. It definitely had more to chew on than Ehrman's latest offering.

Duvduv

Good old Irenaeus who knew about four gospels that just happen to be the canonical gospels, a mere 30 years after Justin was around who knew nothing of four gospels or any other Christ-related scriptures. More likely, much more likely, the claims of Irenaeus were made well into the 4th century by the Constantinians.