CX

Damn. Beat me to it.

Mathetes

I would say that the gospels of Matthew and Luke ARE two competing versions of the gospel of Mark.

judge

So how is it that these exact same version were retained by an independent group. Independent theologically, ecclesiatically and geographically?

The COE had nothing at all to do with the formation of the Catholic and hence protesatnt canon.

Kosh

I have no problem doubting all works of antiquity.

They simply don't get much questioning because they don't purport to be the word of the creator of the universe.

Gooch's dad

judge, this thread isn't about Aramaic text priority. I'm not taking your bait. My point about multiple copies of gMark has nothing to do with Aramaic/Coptic priority. End of story. Drop it. I'm not saying this as a moderator, by the way.

laestrella

Take into account that:
When the NT was coming together is was put together by CMan. He was a pagan and was only a christian on his deathbed when he had no time to protest.
He was a roman. And the worshipped the sun god. Hence why we go to church on SUNday. He put it together the way he wanted, and with a whole bunch of roman sun beliefs

judge

No problem

Atheos

The 27 books of the NT canon (as has been mentioned by others) were arbitrarily chosen according to the religious predispositions of a few men several hundred years after they purport to have been written. It's been argued that the selection was "not arbitrary, but according to very specific rules". However the fact remains that these "rules" did not miraculously appear written with the hand of God. They were set forth in accordance with the predispositions of the men involved, and thus are arbitrary. There was considerable argument over the accepted books even in spite of the parameters of admission. It is no different than if I were to decide beforehand that of a large group of people I wanted to select a particular individual. I then dismiss all individuals who have blue eyes, then all who have brown hair, etc., until only the individual I intended to select in the first place remained.

In addition, it is hardly provable that any of these books are actually the work of the person or persons to whom they are ascribed. Many of them do not even so much as make a claim as to who wrote them. Many of even the Pauline epistles are of dubious authenticity.

Add to that the fact that there are literally thousands of textual variants (some minor, others quite signifigant), and in the end you can't help but laugh vociferously at the preposterous claim "no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.". :rolling:

-Atheos

Vinnie

This is false in this context, IMO. Maybe I am losing my memory but that quote is solely in context of textual reliability.

If we are discussing textual issues, that Matthew and Luke redacted Mark is irrelevant. That Mark is embedded within them allows us to see test how well Mark was preserved initially in a limied way. So it offers us a we to judge the reliability here of Mark's textual integrity.

But don't tell Judge that there is evidence, under the two-source theory, that Mark was redacted on the basis of looking at Matthew and Luke. Plus possibly Secret Mark//Carpocratian (sp?) Mark and we also know that several different endings were attached to the text of Mark a few years after it was created.

Some have even suggested that the version of Mark used by MT and LK may have differed some.

We have anywhere from 1 to 4 different possible versions of Mark early on and also some fabricated endings.....

Though I agree with you in a sense in that Mt and Lk can be seen as textual corruptions of Mark. For sure the authors never quote him or say they are altering//using another source heavily. It shows how fluid such material was. Two indpendent authors culd easily take material, change it, add to it, alter it and so forth and make their own compositions.

Vinnie

Celsus

I'm surprised Vork has piped in with the originals of Chinese manuscripts. But the point is, even with the originals (e.g. various victory stelae all over the Near East), nobody in their right minds takes the inscriptions/texts at face value. T.L. Thompson has even speculated that the Shoshenq (Sheshonq/Shishak) victory stele was written a generation after him, even with the original ascribing itself to Shoshenq right before him.

Joel