CX

P.S. To everyone reading this rather inaptly named thread (save those who don't already know this), most biblical scholars, understandably, aren't atheists. Rather most are Xian of some flavor or another. Most of the conclusions I express are drawn from these same scholars.

Jayhawker Soule

What is the current consensus on the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Syriacus with regards to the missing verses of Mark?

CX

NA27 lists GMk 16:9-20 as a doubtful variant with only relatively late manuscript evidence supporting it. As such I believe that the current concensus is that the passage is not part of the autograph, but a late addition.

CX

Addendum: The passage in NA27 is marked with a "double bracket" [[. According to the explanation of the critical apparatus, Double brackets in the text ([[ ]]) indicate that the enclosed words, generally of some length, are known not to be a part of the original text. So my original statement of "doubtful" is significantly understated.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Michael:
"It's Jerusalem. Jesus is dead."

Shooting yourself in the foot. If you can answer the question, "did Jesus exist" then you may talk about his death. I don't think you can answer the question. If you are merely hypothesizing then we usually indicate it through language.

Spin, I already answered that question. Twice. Someone got himself executed, although when or by who, I don't know. I assume it was by the Romans. "Jesus" is just a convenient label. I am merely hypothesizing, and I did indicate it through language. Apparently insufficiently.

Now, why do you think that Christianity sprung up in Judea? The first writings we can date beside Paul (who was from Tarsus) came from elsewhere, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch...

I don't. I know that's where the earliest followers were located. Paul knows little about the historical Jesus, but he knows that the Jerusalem crowd is vital in propagating the new religion. According to him, accredited members of the new cult had letters from its leader, James, in Jerusalem. Paul does not. Additionally, where do "Cephas" and the "Twelve" live?

Michael

Vorkosigan

CowboyX, what do you think of the argument of Powell that John 21 is the originally ending of Mark? See <a href="http://home.att.net/~david.r.ross/Mark/" target="_blank">A Second Gospel: The Evolution of Mark</a> and scroll about halfway down the page for Powell's hypothesis.

spin

Michael: "It's Jerusalem. Jesus is dead."

spin: 'Shooting yourself in the foot. If you can answer the question, "did Jesus exist" then you may talk about his death. I don't think you can answer the question. If you are merely hypothesizing then we usually indicate it through language.'

Michael: "Spin, I already answered that question. Twice. Someone got himself executed, although when or by who, I don't know. "

What makes you say this. It seems that you are still shooting yourself in the foot.

Michael: "I assume it was by the Romans. "Jesus" is just a convenient label. I am merely hypothesizing, and I did indicate it through language. Apparently insufficiently."

Someone got themselves killed and you assume it was by the Romans. Hypothesizing, and getting nowhere. (I'm already there.)


spin: 'Now, why do you think that Christianity sprung up in Judea? The first writings we can date beside Paul (who was from Tarsus) came from elsewhere, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch...'

Michael: "I don't. I know that's where the earliest followers were located. Paul knows little about the historical Jesus, but he knows that the Jerusalem crowd is vital in propagating the new religion."

As Paul never met a historical Jesus, he knows *nothing* about one.

Michael: "According to him, accredited members of the new cult had letters from its leader, James, in Jerusalem. Paul does not. Additionally, where do "Cephas" and the "Twelve" live? "

We have nothing we can say that was written by these people.

What did these people believe? You never know. But whatever it was it was in conflict with what Paul believed.

Reading Galatians, the text has been added to, how much I don't know, but do you know anywhere else Paul uses the name "Peter" than in Gal.2:7-8? He uses "Cephas" elsewhere in this letter and also in Romans. Later harmonization of Peter and Cephas. (Read the Epistle of the Apostles to find two separate people Cephas and Peter.)

It's very hard to read texts like this without carrying the baggage of millennia of interpretative accretions.

Based solely on a reading Galatians, what does "the Lord's brother" mean to you?

Why do we have no trouble in reading the exchange of names between Cephas and Peter?

Why do we think we know the religious content of the beliefs of those people Paul talks about in Jerusalem?

I think Paul needs to be read for what he says, not in a later interpretative framework.

Our first literary sources we can place are from someone from Tarsus, from Antioch, from Rome. Get the idea?

Jayhawker Soule

CowboyX, turtonm: thanks.

David Gould

"I think Paul needs to be read for what he says, not in a later interpretative framework."

I know nothing about biblical scholarship or even literary criticism.

However, to me the same statement written in a different context in time and place can have a completely different meaning.

"I support everything the Germans are doing at the moment." written in 1943 in Poland.

"I support everything the Germans are doing at the moment." written in 1989, in Berlin - the wall is coming down.

If you just read what is said, you get nothing from the text at all.

Back to the scholarly types.

Kosh

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or
agreeing with Michael. Michaels statement is
based on an almost total lack of detail in
Pauls epistles.

I've wondered if the disagreement wasn't something
like:

Paul: I had a vision,Jesus was ressurected

Peter: you're crazy. He rotted on the cross

Paul: No, I think it's true

Peter: We know he rotted on the cross

Paul: No, I saw it in a vision

Peter: OK, why don't you go preach that to the
gentiles? &lt;snicker&gt;