Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-21-2012, 10:10 PM

Marqe (= Mark) is the founder of the current Samaritan tradition. The reason there is almost nothing on the internet about him is that the Samaritans know almost nothing about him.

Duvduv · 02-22-2012, 07:07 AM

This is pointless according to your own method because you are speculating based on what you would consider myths and legends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I find it likely that he existed because so many sources point to his presence in history (pagan, Jewish etc). With regards to the Samaritan question the way around that of course is that Ezra wasn't his real name. There is a conflicting tradition as to the proper name of Ezra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shealtiel

The author of the Deuterocanonical apocalyptic work 2 Esdras describes himself as "I, Salathiel, who am also called Ezra" (3:1). For this reason, the work is also sometimes known as Ezra Shealtiel. However, this Ezra is not the Shealtiel of the royal genealogies nor the priestly prophet Ezra, whose lineage is given in Book of Ezra 7:1-5 and in 2 Esdras 1:1 (Latin version), which agree that the prophet Ezra was the son of Seraiah, and a Levite.

While the author of the article disregards the possibility it is surprisingly similar to the role that Marqe plays in the Samaritan tradition. Marqe was not a high priest but managed nonetheless to reshape and map out the entire tradition even as it stands now (not withstanding the subsequent reforms of Commodus and Baba Raba).

The point is that it has always puzzled even Samaritans that Marqe wasn't a high priest. Indeed one could further argue that Marqe wasn't a priest at all, his connections to Amram are tenuous at best http://books.google.com/books?id=iLg...levite&f=false

stephan huller · 02-22-2012, 09:04 AM

Wherever

Toto · 02-29-2012, 11:48 PM

Getting back to the OP:

Hugh Hewitt Interview with Daniel Wallace

Quote:

...

HH: ... All right, let me ask you about the other manuscripts, the other six manuscripts in addition to the fragment from Mark. Are they other Biblical transcriptions?

DW: Yes. All six of them are Biblical, but one is not exactly a Biblical text, which is really, in some respects, the most interesting. It’s a homily on Hebrews, Chapter 11, a sermon on Hebrews 11.

HH: That is fascinating.

DW: What makes that so interesting is the ancient church understood by about AD 180 in what’s called the Muratorian Fragment, or the Muratorian Canon, that the only books that could be read in churches must be those that are authoritative. To have a homily or a sermon on Hebrews means that whoever wrote that sermon considered Hebrews to be authoritative, and therefore, it could be read in the churches.

HH: Now of the other five, then, a homily, a Gospel fragment of Mark, which books are they from?

DW: We have one from Luke, and we have, there’s four that are Pauline manuscripts. Paul includes Hebrews as far as the manuscripts are concerned. So…

HH: Any particular letters?

DW: Yeah, and I probably should not indicate what those are, but here’s the interesting thing about that, is that up until now, our oldest manuscript for Paul’s letters was dates about AD 200, P-46. Now we have as many as four more manuscripts that predate that.

HH: Wow. Now in terms of, for the lay audience, Professor Daniel Wallace, the significance of this work when it appears, how would you grade it, with an A being a Dead Sea Scroll sort of significance, and you know, flunking, it just doesn’t matter?

DW: I would grade it at least an A, maybe an A+.

HH: And will the rest of the scholarly world agree with you on that assessment, do you think?

DW: I think that when they understand the ramifications of the entire nature of this manuscript that I’m not at liberty to mention, yes. They’re going to understand. At least those that will accept that date.

Steven Carr · 02-29-2012, 11:54 PM

Why did you quote so much of the text?

All you had to do was quote a tiny fragment, and then we would know that none of the wording had ever been changed,

PhilosopherJay · 03-01-2012, 07:12 AM

Hi Toto,

The Muratorian Fragment has been reconsidered and reclassified by scholars as belonging to the 4th Century and not to 180. Since Wallace does not hesitate to give out false information about text that we already know about, why should we take him seriously about text that we don't about?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Getting back to the OP:

Hugh Hewitt Interview with Daniel Wallace

Quote:

...

HH: ... All right, let me ask you about the other manuscripts, the other six manuscripts in addition to the fragment from Mark. Are they other Biblical transcriptions?

DW: Yes. All six of them are Biblical, but one is not exactly a Biblical text, which is really, in some respects, the most interesting. It’s a homily on Hebrews, Chapter 11, a sermon on Hebrews 11.

HH: That is fascinating.

DW: What makes that so interesting is the ancient church understood by about AD 180 in what’s called the Muratorian Fragment, or the Muratorian Canon, that the only books that could be read in churches must be those that are authoritative. To have a homily or a sermon on Hebrews means that whoever wrote that sermon considered Hebrews to be authoritative, and therefore, it could be read in the churches.
...

Toto · 03-01-2012, 07:44 AM

Wikipedia

Quote:

The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in an eighth or 7th century codex that came from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains internal cues which suggest that it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century. The state that the original manuscript was in, as well as the poor Latin in which it was written, have made it difficult to translate.

...

The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to about 170 because its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (142 - 157), as recent:

But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.

A few scholars^[2] have also dated it as late as the 4th century, but their arguments have not won widespread acceptance in the scholarly community. For more detail, see the article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Bruce Metzger has advocated the traditional dating.^[3]

So it's not false, just overly "optimistic" about the date.

mountainman · 03-01-2012, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Wikipedia

Quote:

The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in an eighth or 7th century codex that came from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains internal cues which suggest that it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century. The state that the original manuscript was in, as well as the poor Latin in which it was written, have made it difficult to translate.

...

The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to about 170 because its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (142 - 157), as recent:

But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.

A few scholars^[2] have also dated it as late as the 4th century, but their arguments have not won widespread acceptance in the scholarly community. For more detail, see the article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Bruce Metzger has advocated the traditional dating.^[3]

So it's not false, just overly "optimistic" about the date.

7th century Latin internal clues suggest Greek original c.170?
Read all about it. That's not optimism. It's myopia.

When Christianity's heyday of "optimization" was long past, along came the mid 4th century Nag Hammadi Codices, and a whole new series of texts became the subject of eager over optimism. Of course optimistically many of these texts were originally authored hundreds of years before the 4th century, especially gThomas. Why? Well, why not be optimistic about Christian origins? What have we got to lose? Face?

With the exception of a few scholars, none of this "optimism" yet deals with the smoking gun (its actually a canon) in the 4th century

Toto · 03-01-2012, 11:17 AM

The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford Theological Monographs) by Geoffrey Mark Hahneman (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

The Muratorian Fragment, traditionally dated at the end of the second century, is by far the earliest known list of books of the New Testament. It is therefore an important milestone in understanding the formation of the Christian canon of scriptures. The traditional date of the fragment, however, was questioned in 1973 by Albert C. Sundberg, Jr, in an article of the Harvard Theological Review that has since been generally ignored or dismissed. In this book, Hahneman re-examines the traditional dating of the fragment in a complete and extensive study that concurs with Sundberg's findings. Arguing for a later placing of the fragment, Hahneman shows that the entire history of the Christian Bible must be recast as a much longer and more gradual process. As a result, the decisive period of canonical history moves from the end of the second century into the midst of the fourth. As a decisive contribution to our understanding of the development of the New Testament canon, this book will be of considerable importance and interest to New Testament scholars and historians of the early Church.

Reviewed here:
C. E. Hill, “The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” Westminster Theological Journal 57:2 (Fall 1995): 437-452.

stephan huller · 03-01-2012, 01:25 PM

I think the text is dated to 200 CE. I think Hill's criticisms are valid. Irenaeus seems to reflect the basic form of the canon at the very same time.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-21-2012, 10:10 PM	#71
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Marqe (= Mark) is the founder of the current Samaritan tradition. The reason there is almost nothing on the internet about him is that the Samaritans know almost nothing about him.

02-22-2012, 09:04 AM	#73
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Wherever

02-29-2012, 11:54 PM	#75
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Why did you quote so much of the text? All you had to do was quote a tiny fragment, and then we would know that none of the wording had ever been changed,

03-01-2012, 01:25 PM	#80
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think the text is dated to 200 CE. I think Hill's criticisms are valid. Irenaeus seems to reflect the basic form of the canon at the very same time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.