capnkirk

Actually, for the first century at least, that statement did not apply to those transcribing Xtian documents. Early on, the copying was done by whichever member of the young church at "fill in the blank" who could write Greek and was ardent enough in his beliefs to commit the time and effort. In other words, amateurs with strong convictions of their own. The age of professional scribes for Xtian documents did not become the norm until after the conversion of Constantine and the establishment of the State Church. It was at this critical early stage that the quality of the copywork was at its weakest.

From your post, it would appear that your direct exposure to Ehrman's work is limited to the video linked at the start of this thread. If you had read any of his works you would realize that the video barely scratched the surface of the issues with the scriptural result of the first 200 years of Xtianity. He, in fact, did seriously restrain his critique insofar as he chose not to delve into how the internecine struggles of the first two centuries impacted the theology of Xtianity. Considering the theological differences that continue today and continue to produce new Xtian denominations even after having 1500 years of a stable Bible text, one can begin to get a glimpse of the cacophany of divergent Xtianities developing without any such stable scriptural base.

Just think about the number of known 'holy' books that were rejected by the faction that ultimately became the 'orthodox'. Had Eusebius (with his lifelong relationship with and influence on Constantine) been a gnostic, the surviving version of Xtianity would probably be quite different. The path of Xtianity from its origins to the founding of the RCC is anything but a straight-line path, and it is very difficult to maintain that what survived was inspired by God.

So, no I don't agree that Ehrman's presentation was biased against the Bible. Rather, I think that the perception is a reflection of the relative lack of relevant knowledge of the history and nature of the early church(es) on the part of the perceiver.

Ray Moscow

Why should I document church schisms on an textual thread? I've seen such splits first-hand, for example whenever a fundamentalist group splits over charismatic issues, or excludes others over the "essential" nature of baptism -- and all referring to a few verses at the end of Mark 16 as justification.

If by "lunatic fringe" you mean hundreds of thousands of North Americans and Latin Americans, I might agree with the first word but not the second.

Ray

Roger Pearse

On what ancient data do these interesting statements rest?

Isn't it unsound to argue that a text must have changed most just when we have no exemplars from it?

I can only speak as someone committed to encouraging the study of ancient literature and its textual tradition, but I have not felt the need to read Ehrman's book either. What I see is that the book is producing obscurantism in those who endorse it. This is not a good sign.

Such as?

It is disturbing to read all this just after your claims about Ehrman. Is Ehrman making these claims?

Eusebius had no involvement with the canon, he met Constantine only once, and so had very little if any influence on him. Gnosticism was a dying movement well before his time. The idea that Christianity was determined by Eusebius, or indeed Constantine, needs no discussion.

Neither of these statements appears to be based on fact.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

You will appreciate, I'm sure, that arguments which one side rejects and the other refuses to justify have little weight.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Gudjonsson

There are millions of Oneness Pentecostal that think baptism is a requirement for salvation, and base it partly upon Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" (while there are millions of Trinitarian Pentecostal on the other hand think faith is sufficient, a la Luther, hence a huge split occurred among the Pentecostals - and they are not few! (57 millions in the Assemblies of God world wide, and there are many Pentecostal churches not under that umbrella, but foursquare, and all that)

Ray Moscow

OK, if you insist.

Not to recount my own tedious church experiences with such things, but here's a note about church splits based in part on Mark 16.

The well-know split between the holiness movement and the charismatic movement is another example.

Mark 16 is usually referenced for justification.

In another camp, the exclusivity of Campellite churches (who, with the exception of the DOC, exclude everyone else) often cite Mark 16:16 as justification for their doctrine.

(None of these references is scholarly, but I suppose historical studies of these things are not particularly hard to find.)

What puzzles me is why you deny that this has been a problem. I thought it to be "common knowledge" in church circles.

Ray

Ray Moscow

Alas, for Roger this is the "lunatic fringe".

You and I come from the lunatic-fringe background, but Roger is of more respectable stock.

Ray

Roger Pearse

These are long web pages, mainly about other matters. I'm afraid that I was unable to locate in them justification for your comment, tho, since the disagreements were not on whether this verse was canonical (which both would agree it was). Unless I have missed something in all the extraneous matter?

I'm afraid that we cannot simply list people who use Mark 16 and then claim that the splits were *because* of disagreement over whether Mark 16 is canonical, surely?

That churches split over textual variants? The very claim is new to me, I'm afraid.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Isn't the point at issue being lost here, tho? The question is not whether church splits occur over differing interpretations of scripture. Rather whether they occur because of different texts of scripture being before the two sides. Nothing in this addresses this, as far as I can see?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ray Moscow

Perhaps we're speaking about different things.

There have been splits about "liberal" vs "conservative" views of the Bible -- for example, the 1950 split between the Independent Christian Churches and the Disciples of Christ (mostly in the USA) -- but this didn't center on whether any particular passages were "canonical".

(Edit: as far as I'm aware, all Protestant groups agree on the "canon".)

What I meant was that passages such as Mark 16:9-20, which were not part of the original gospel, have played a major role in church splits and other serious matters. These are still major issues that are vitally important to millions of people, who simply don't know that these passages were just made up by another author(s) and added to the text much later.

BTW: I'm just joking with you about the "lunatic fringe" vs respectable stock. I originally came from a strict religious sect where a Bible verse or two meant everything. Even though I now know the origin of many passages to be spurious, I have many friends who are still stuck there, counting on the forgeries to be authoritative.

Ray