/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19196613]

What's /lit/'s take on the Synoptic Problem? Do you support the conclusions of liberal scholarship about the Gospels or even the Bible in general? I've come across several arguments in favour of dating gMark later than 70 AD, but they don't sound very right. For instance, there is an anectode about Jesus healing a man that is possessed by "legion". Scholars interpret this to mean that Mark was written after the First Jewish War because there were no Roman legions stationed in the Decapolis before that point in time.

[Anonymous No.19197506]

>>19196613
>thread about the nuances behind some of the most significant documents of late antiquity
>gets zero replies as it freefalls onto page 10 of the catalog
>multiple threads containing politically sensitive OPs having nothing to do with literature directly
>300 replies

[Anonymous No.19197538]

>>19197506
unfortunately I am not well read enough to give any opinion whatsoever. I have heard about the theory that Jesus was invented by the historian Josephus, but I do not think the hypothesis holds up. I cannot tell you why I don't think it holds up as I am not well read enough, but it's a hunch

[Anonymous No.19197600]

>>19197538
But that's clearly false. Why would Josephus do that? We have the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, Tacitus, Suetonius, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, Thallos, Phlegon, Mara Bar Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, Pliny the Younger, Celsus, and possibly even sources like the Greek/Coptic Gospel of Thomas as proof of the fact that Christianity originates in the 1st century AD.

[Anonymous No.19197614]

>>19197600
yes I'm sure you're right. The hypothesis had something to do with Rome wanting to pacify the jews, wanting to establish a proper imperial cult, and something about how Josephus self-inserts or something

[Anonymous No.19197637]

>>19197614
Yeah, I've heard of that theory before, but I haven't carefully examined the arguments for it.

[Anonymous No.19197638]

>>19196613
It's not only that they are possessed by "legion" (which is in itself interesting, as legions were absent from Judea pre-66) but that they are pigs, which was the standard of the Legio X Fretensis that occupied Jerusalem post-70 AD. It's also curious that the "render unto Caesar" pericope discusses the denarius coin, which likewise only circulated in Judea after the war. Added to a bunch of other Latinisms in Mark including many military and administrative terms, (e.g. praetorium, centurio, census), and it indicates that it was written at a time when Judaea was under heavy and direct Roman influence.

[Anonymous No.19197659]

>>19197638
>>19197638
>(which is in itself interesting, as legions were absent from Judea pre-66)
Yes, I mentioned this in my OP. But weren't the legions present in Judea when Pompeii was there?

[Anonymous No.19197679]

>>19197659
Pompeii? I mean yes, Pompey campaigned there about a century before Jesus was crucified but I'm not sure why that's relevant. Under the Empire to the Jewish Revolt the only Roman units in Judea were auxilia.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476993X18791425

[Anonymous No.19197726]

>>19196613
Lmfao at that fake map. Faggot tranny jew cucks

[Anonymous No.19197756]

>>19196613
I personally think that the so-called 'Gospel of Marcion' was the first Gospel written, followed by Mark and a sayings gospel similar to Thomas.

[Anonymous No.19197767]

>>19197538
I think the more convincing argument is that the reference to Jesus in Jospehus is a later interpolation.

[Anonymous No.19197782]

>>19197756
Marcion had an early version of Luke, which is dependent on Mark and (if it existed) the sayings gospel Q.

[Anonymous No.19197824]

>>19197679
Doesn't that fact pose a problem for the view that the mention of "legion" in Mark 5:9 indicates a later date of composition?

[Anonymous No.19197832]

>>19197824
Why would it?

[Anonymous No.19197881]

>>19197832
>zeichman
Hey, I know this dude, I saw his posts on r/AcademicBiblical before! He doesn't seem to mention Pompey in this article though.

[Anonymous No.19197902]

>>19197881
Oh interesting. I found it on a search.

[Anonymous No.19197964]

>>19197832
Also, as a matter of fact, my translation uses "legion" to translate various Greeks terms for military units (e.g. τάγμα, σύμμαχος) even when the context is about Roman units. Perhaps it could be the case that Aristobulus received two legions from Pompey?

[Anonymous No.19198009]

>>19197964
I'm not sure why an English translation would be relevant to what term 1st century Greeks would use.

I still don't know why you're hung up about legions conquering Palestine a century before Christianity was a thing and why you would think it's relevant. The point is that a pericope mentioning legions is more likely to have been written while Judaea was under occupation from legions, and this is not an isolated point but one in the context of many other Latinisms in Mark that relate to a Roman military occupation post-70 AD, e.g. the denarius in the 'render unto Caesar' pericope.

[Anonymous No.19198161]

>>19197638
You're so particular about the word legion but not swine rather than boar? None the less the Legio X was associated heavily with Octavian and Judea before the time of Christ. Legio, a completely generic word used for hundreds and hundreds of years beforehand to refer to a large crowd, couldn't ever have been heard of in any other way? Its used in Virgil, Horace etc, it was used to refer to aspects of the largest military force on earth. It was probably used in letters, by bilingual people, adopted into local dialects throughout the Mediterranean. Your vocabulary is no doubt full of both words for things you've never seen and foreign loan words, surely many are both at once. The coins being rendered unto Ceasar being Judea capta denarii is an interpretation not insisted upon in the text. A recent suggestion is that it is a "tetradrachm, a silver coin minted at Antioch, the administrative capital of the Roman province of Syria. It was shown to him because the Jews found it objectionable and they wanted to get his reaction. It is the only silver coin minted at Antioch by Tiberius during the lifetime of Jesus," that they called a denarius generically or to make it comprehensible to a Roman audience (most people know what a 'dollar', very few know any highly specific occasional currencies.) Many of your above arguments are based on a notion of isolated communities not in communication with any others, completely unawares of any specifics relating to, perhaps even the presence or influence of Rome. In truth, they had a remarkably efficient system of written and oral communication over vast active trade networks and Rome was the dominant cultural force a Ross the Mediterranean before the time of Christ as well as after.

Incidentally I have a professor that wrote a hugely influential article on Revelation being a coded text critiquing Nero. Hes a full on midwit sex pest and slavering Dawkins and Dennett fanboy--and in fact a state bureaucract to boot. Such is the state of Biblical scholarship. That's anachronistic interpretation.

[Anonymous No.19198166]

>>19198009
>>19198009
>I'm not sure why an English translation would be relevant to what term 1st century Greeks would use.
Because the knowledgeable scholars who translated the text thought the two terms could be considered equivalent in a 1st century Judean context?
>I still don't know why you're hung up about legions conquering Palestine a century before Christianity was a thing and why you would think it's relevant.
I already explained this. I don't know why you're asking me this.

>The point is that a pericope mentioning legions is more likely to have been written while Judaea was under occupation from legions
Likely or not, the presence of the Roman military in Judea a century prior indicates that the Jews of that time were probably not completely oblivious to how the Roman armies functioned. I believe enough time has passed from the Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) to Christ's ministry (30 AD) for the concept of "legion" to have become widely known. Regarding the denarius, however, I also believe that point is moot. The Sundveda Hoard, for instance, has been found near Stockholm and it has been dated as far back as 850 AD. The hoard contains approximately 482 coins and most of them come from the orient (e.g. Arabia, Persia and even India). Now, if it is possible for something like this to end up in Sweden during the Dark Ages, I don't think it would take a miracle for the people of Galilee to know about the denarii, especially since the Roman state already had vast borders by 50 BC (see: pic related)

[Anonymous No.19198670]

>>19198161
>You're so particular about the word legion but not swine rather than boar?
Because pigs are particularly symbolic of offenses to Jewish customs.
>Legio X was associated heavily with Octavian and Judea before the time of Christ.
No it wasn't. It only occupied Jerusalem post-70. The only reference I can find for Legio X in Judaea pre Jewish Revolt is that it was *possibly* one of the Syrian legions that briefly was in Judea to overthrow Archelaus in 7 AD, but even there it isn't named and may not have been.
>couldn't ever have been heard of in any other way?
Of course people likely knew what a legion was. The point is to ask when would it be most likely for a pericope about legionary occupation to have been written?
>The coins being rendered unto Ceasar being Judea capta denarii is an interpretation not insisted upon in the text.
Mark literally uses the word denarius.
>that they called a denarius generically or to make it comprehensible to a Roman audience
It would have made it less comprehensible to use the Latin word of one coin for another Greek coin, when writing in Greek to other Greeks.
>Many of your above arguments are based on a notion of isolated communities
No it doesn't. Mark uses the Latin word census, but Luke 2, for example, uses the Greek word apographa. Is Luke less cosmopolitan than Mark? Not really. He's just less influenced by Roman military administration, which was conducted in Latin. The point is that Mark's Latinisms are very distinct in the New Testament and deserve explanation.

>>19198166
>Because the knowledgeable scholars who translated the text thought the two terms could be considered equivalent in a 1st century Judean context?
Some modern translator considered it equivalent enough for English-speaking readers in the 21st century. This is really a stretch.
>Jews of that time were probably not completely oblivious to how the Roman armies functioned.
>I don't think it would take a miracle for the people of Galilee to know about the denarii
Neither of you seem to get the argument. The point is not that it was *impossible* for Jews in 40AD to know about legio, denarii, censuses and the whole panoply of Roman military and administrative terms used in Mark. The point is that these terms are *more likely* to have been used by an author under Roman military occupation. It is indicative of the author's milieu. While it is theoretically possible that Mark could have used all these terms as they were current in the Roman Empire, the use of the terms is indicative of the particular period in Judaea or the Decapolis. On the balance of evidence this means we should favour a post-70 AD date for the composition of Mark.

[Anonymous No.19198718]

>>19198161
>Incidentally I have a professor that wrote a hugely influential article on Revelation being a coded text critiquing Nero.
Also yeah it pretty much is. 666 is numerology for Nero Caesar, and we know this because there are variants where the number is 616 which fits Nero too. Nero was a persecutor of Christians and there were rumours in the eastern empire about a Nero Redivivus who would come back and retake the throne.

[Anonymous No.19199564]

>>19198670
>>19198670
>Of course people likely knew what a legion was. The point is to ask when would it be most likely for a pericope about legionary occupation to have been written?
Mark 5 isn't about legionary occupation lol, it's about Jesus healing a man possessed by many devils.
>Some modern translator considered it equivalent enough for English-speaking readers in the 21st century. This is really a stretch.
This is actually the Loeb translation, even professionals rely upon it. I'm sure somebody wishing to read Loebs edition of Josephus' book on the Jewish War half of which is filled with carefully edited Greek could easily learn about the difference between tagma and legion.
>The point is that these terms are *more likely* to have been used by an author under Roman military occupation
Judea was already made a province in 6 AD.

[Anonymous No.19199660]

>>19199564
>Mark 5 isn't about legionary occupation lol, it's about Jesus healing a man possessed by many devils.
The demons say they are legion and are go into pigs as the boar standard of the Legio X Fratensis that was in Jerusalem. It's a plausible reference.
>This is actually the Loeb translation, even professionals rely upon it. I'm sure somebody wishing to read Loebs edition of Josephus' book on the Jewish War half of which is filled with carefully edited Greek could easily learn about the difference between tagma and legion.
Literally what is the relevance of a modern translation for English readers to what a 1st century Greek might have written? This is baffling.
>Judea was already made a province in 6 AD.
The entire point is that there were no legions and very little Roman presence at all in Judea from its incorporation as a province until the Jewish Revolt. If Mark is referencing all kinds of Roman military and administrative terms that likely places it after 70 AD.

[Anonymous No.19199690]

>>19198718
>rumors in the eastern empire
There were Nero impersonators claiming to be the risen Emperor for fucking decades all across the Empire, not just in the East. Nero was ENORMOUSLY popular among the Romans. The Christian and Jewish ill view of him survives, but we have to remember that that view is one that is retroactively enforced on people, not one that most people actually held. The fact that all graffiti critical of Nero is defaced, and often has other graffiti then slandering the Jews and Christians as weird sexual deviants, is a demonstration of this.

[Anonymous No.19199814]

>>19199660
>The demons say they are legion and are go into pigs as the boar standard of the Legio X Fratensis that was in Jerusalem. It's a plausible reference.
This has already been asserted. I don't know why you're repeating yourself.
>Literally what is the relevance of a modern translation for English readers to what a 1st century Greek might have written? This is baffling.
You've totally ignored my reasoning for what I suggested. I think we've come to an impasse regarding this issue.
>The entire point is that there were no legions and very little Roman presence at all in Judea from its incorporation as a province until the Jewish Revolt. If Mark is referencing all kinds of Roman military and administrative terms that likely places it after 70 AD.
It doesn't matter whether or not there literally were named legions in Judea prior to Christ's time. What matters is if people had general knowledge about how the Roman military functioned, and they probably did due to the above mentioned reasons.
>If Mark is referencing all kinds of Roman military and administrative terms that likely places it after 70 AD.
Yet earlier on you claimed Luke doesn't do so, despite the fact that according to liberal academics it too must have been composed later than 70 AD. Clearly something else is the cause of the Latinate terminology.

[Anonymous No.19199827]

>>19196613
The numerous verbatim and near-verbatim agreements make it pretty irrefutable that the synoptic gospels are related. Mark being the earliest is a reasonable conclusion since differences in Luke and Matthew tend to be embellishments or added explanations. Anything more specific is highly conjectural and uncertain, such as the two-source hypothesis, with a lost source of Jesus sayings ("Q").

[Anonymous No.19200157]

>>19199827
I know

[Anonymous No.19200224]

>>19199827
There’s also a theory that they’re published in that order because they were written in that order
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

Matthew is the most Judeo-centric and might have been for the benefit of Jesus’ followers in Jerusalem
As they were forced out of Jerusalem and tried to spread their message to the Greek and Roman lands they needed Gospels less centered around Jewish beliefs and concerns, so the other Gospels were written
Mark the most rudimentary gospel might well have been a stop gap and Luke might have been the more thorough follow up
Then John is just way the fuck out there.

[Anonymous No.19200286]

>>19200224
Yeah, that's called the Augustinian Hypothesis. The conjectured order of composition you'll see most scholars accept is very similar to the Augustinian hypothesis, but with Matthew and Mark switched because of Markan priority. Goodacre's favourite argument for Markan Priority is what's called "The Fatigue Argument". This argument starts by looking at similar verses in Matthew and Mark and goes on to posit that Matthew was dependent on Mark because his verses are usually more accurate (e.g. Matthew 14:1 calls Herod Antipas by his proper title of "tetrarch", but Mark 6:14 simply calls him "King"). The explanation given for this is that Matthew suffers from fatigue as he is copying from Mark and decides to copy the text verbatim without making any corrections or embellishments.

[Anonymous No.19200291]

>>19199814
>This has already been asserted. I don't know why you're repeating yourself.
Because you just gave an assertion of your own: "it's just a demon possession" as if there's no other way to analyse the pericope.
>You've totally ignored my reasoning for what I suggested. I think we've come to an impasse regarding this issue.
Yes, because it's irrelevant.
>It doesn't matter whether or not there literally were named legions in Judea prior to Christ's time. What matters is if people had general knowledge about how the Roman military functioned, and they probably did due to the above mentioned reasons.
You still don't understand the point. It is not that no-one could have heard about a legion pre-Jewish Revolt. It is that an author is *more likely* to be writing about legions and censuses and speculators and quadrans and modius when they're in a region under Roman military government conducted in Latin, not before. In dating the gospels we decide on the balance of probabilities.
>Yet earlier on you claimed Luke doesn't do so, despite the fact that according to liberal academics it too must have been composed later than 70 AD.
Because Luke is written by an educated Greek outside of Palestine somewhere in the East, possibly Antioch. But yes, insofar as they do use the occasional anachronistic terminology then they are not expressive of a pre-70 AD Palestine either.

[Anonymous No.19200346]

>>19196613
Have you read Bart Ehrman? Bible is supposed to be a devotional guide, not a hostoric text.

[Anonymous No.19200402]

>>19200224
Mark is really kinda weird, it reads like a pro-Pauline polemic to me and has confusing stuff like the Messianic Secret and ending without any resurrection appearance. It's easy to see why both Matthew and Luke wanted to write another gospel that would use Mark's material more to their liking (Jewish Jesus in the case of Matthew, Hellenistic philosopher Jesus in the case of Luke).

[Anonymous No.19201881]

bump

[Anonymous No.19201980]

What is a good book for learning more about the historical Jesus?

[Anonymous No.19202390]

>>19201980

[Anonymous No.19202399]

>>19201980
Forgot pic.

[Anonymous No.19202516]

>>19202399
These books have nothing to do with the question asked.

[Anonymous No.19202699]

>>19202516
Yeah, it's just a screengrab from a google or amazon search, which are the helpful sources you could find.

[Anonymous No.19202975]

I believe the best evidence is that the synoptics were written before 70 AD. Why?

Well it's clear from Luke that it was written after Matthew and Mark

>Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us…it seemed good to me also to write carefully in order for you, most excellent Theophilus…. (Luke 1:1-3)

And it is also clear that Luke fails to mention the death of Paul at the end of Acts

>And he [Paul] lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered. (Acts 28:14-16)

Now why would Luke fail to mention Paul's death if he mentions James and Stephen? Why is it written in such an innocent manner? "Unhindered?" The best explanation in light of this is that it was written before Paul's death.

Now it's also clear the the synoptics are very similar to other autobiographies and historians of that day e.g Josephus, Suetonius. These people wrote up to the present day. Why did Luke not do the same in Acts?

Therefore the Synoptics were written before 70 AD. Until we can explain why Luke, who was arguably very close to Paul (2 Tim 4:11) did not write about Paul's death then we cannot date it later than his death.

P.S Bart Ehrman is garbage and a pop historian

[Anonymous No.19203099]

CARRIER GANG GANG GANG

[Anonymous No.19203825]

>>19196613
>What's /lit/'s take on the Synoptic Problem?
/tv/anguard here, new centers of early christians made new gospels and added them to the versions still in use elsewhere. They're in more or less the correct order, though later ones were in development at the same time.
>Do you support the conclusions of liberal scholarship about the Gospels or even the Bible in general?
Do you mean, is the bible literally true? I'm forced to assume it isn't, the world we live in is very different than the one described.

[Anonymous No.19203843]

>>19203825
>/tv/anguard
It's fa/tv/irgin, and all you said was that some were composed later than others, no shit.

[Anonymous No.19203923]

>>19203843
What do you think the synoptic problem is?

[Anonymous No.19204560]

>>19202975
2 Timothy, along with 1 Timothy and the Epistle to Titus, is often regard as pseudepigraphic by liberal scholars. I don't know their reasons for this.
>>19203825
You should look into the maximalism vs minimalism controversy. I've been recommended to read Kitchen's *On The Reliability of the Old Testament* and it apparently provides a solid case for biblical maximalism.

[Anonymous No.19204580]

>>19202975
>And it is also clear that Luke fails to mention the death of Paul at the end of Acts
Luke doesn't mention the death of Paul because he's a militant apologist for the Roman state and frames every single act of persecution of Christians as instigated by the Jews, not Romans. Including the martyrdom of Paul would have completely undermined one of the author's core messages that Christians are loyal subjects of the Empire and not in any way a threat to civil authority.

Your logic is on the level of: "Mark doesn't mention the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples, so it must have been written in 33AD before that happened."

[Anonymous No.19204596]

>>19204560
Wait Antioch is in Syria?
I thought it was in Turkey?
Fucking Amerimutt religious education I swear I was taught that.

[Anonymous No.19204604]

>>19204596
It was historically part of Syria but the region was given to Turkey by France between WWI and WWII because of its large Turkish population.

[Anonymous No.19204628]

>>19204596
Easy mistake to make if you study Alexander's asia minor campaign, it seems like he leapfrogs directly from Miletus to there.

[Anonymous No.19204657]

>>19204596
Did you spot the second Antioch on the map yet?

[Anonymous No.19204809]

>>19204560
I'm sure both sides can make compelling arguments in long form. However the difference between a world filled with spirits and demons, ruled by satan, and a secular world should be clear enough for simple, snappy arguments, like the one I made against biblical literalism.

[Anonymous No.19206014]

>>19202516
About the historical jesus? Yes they do. Jesus didn't exist as the mystical son-of-god. He was likely a Jew that spoke of charity and forgiveness. Gospels slowly converted him from savior of jews to savior of mankind. He was later wrapped up into a messiah myth hundreds of years after he existed.

[Anonymous No.19207032]

>>19196613
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20100401/whole-story-about-jesus/

[Anonymous No.19207216]

>>19207032
Please go away, we're having a serious biblical discussion here. No heretic cults allowed.

[Trox mf No.19207233]

>>19197506
The best combo lmfao !!!

[Anonymous No.19207695]

>>19204809
Well, when it comes to such things, other people might report entirely different experiences. Miracles are still ongoing and exorcisms are still being performed in their view. But the Old Testament doesn't even have that many references to demons and such.

[Anonymous No.19207700]

>>19207216
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.19207828]

>>19204580
The ending of Mark doesn't appear in early manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, but it could be the case that these two codices follow a different line of transmission than alternative sources which do contain additional verses after verse 8. Mark 16:16 contains an interesting and unique statement that goes:
>He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
This passage is mirrored in other places in the NT, such as Acts 16:31-33 and Titus 3:5. Regarding your argument against the veracity of Luke's account, I believe it becomes really once we consider that the author of Acts mentions Paul being imprisoned by the Romans in Philippi (Acts 16:23). He was later kept imprisoned in Rome as well (Acts 28:16).

[Anonymous No.19209373]

bump

[Anonymous No.19209583]

>>19196613
I do believe the Holy Spirit and not a liberal scholar, so I believe that Matthew is the earliest Gospel written in Aramaic originally, and that the Apocalypse was written by St. John the Evangelist. Also St. Moses wrote the Torah and not an abstracted Yahwist or what have you.

[Anonymous No.19209649]

>>19209583
meds

[Anonymous No.19209708]

>>19207695
then it seems we're at an impasse. Plenty of people report entirely demon free existences, and there's no way of objectively establishing anything because that would go against the rule of faith. That leaves cold hard logic, to which secularism is more friendly. (for example, "the bible is true because it says so" is flawed from a logic standpoint) This helps explain why secularism is the dominant authority in the world today, actually.

[Anonymous No.19209741]

>>19209708
>the bible is true because it says so" is flawed from a logic standpoint
Not if the Holy Bible, or rather the Logos and Holy Spirit that inspired it are taken as basis for logic itself.

[Anonymous No.19209893]

>>19209741
why would they be?

[Anonymous No.19209947]

>>19209741
If that were true, there would be no need for faith.

[Anonymous No.19210011]

>>19207828
>but it could be the case that these two codices follow a different line of transmission than alternative
The problem is that if a longer ending of Mark is original, not only does it not explain how there are *multiple* additional endings to Mark, but also how the abrupt ending survived in our oldest and best manuscripts without anyone correcting it.
>This passage is mirrored in other places in the NT, such as Acts 16:31-33 and Titus 3:5.
All this suggests is that whoever wrote the longer ending was dependent on later parts of the NT.
>Acts mentions Paul being imprisoned by the Romans in Philippi (Acts 16:23)
Well, he is briefly imprisoned overnight after a crowd implores the magistrates and then is released with an apology.
>He was later kept imprisoned in Rome as well (Acts 28:16).
Paul's "imprisonment" in Rome, remembering that he goes there because he asks to see the Emperor, is portrayed as a mild form of house arrest where he is allowed by the authorities to preach in Rome freely. In contrast to the evil Jews who martyr both James and Stephen, the author of Acts is incredibly careful not to give any impression of martyrdom by the Roman state because he wants to convert Roman gentiles and prevent Christians from being viewed as a threat by the authorities,

[Anonymous No.19210202]

>>19209708
They don't happen all the time and everywhere, so of course it is not that common. Do you a priori reject any sort of wonder-working or what?

[Anonymous No.19210253]

>>19210011
>The problem is that if a longer ending of Mark is original, not only does it not explain how there are *multiple* additional endings to Mark, but also how the abrupt ending survived in our oldest and best manuscripts without anyone correcting it.
Of course. I didn't propose a solution for how the two lines of transmission came to be.
>All this suggests is that whoever wrote the longer ending was dependent on later parts of the NT.
That obviously can't be because Acts was written later than Luke and Luke (as I'm sure you know) was written later than Mark. We only have Titus left. Secular scholars tend to the date the Epistle of Titus from the 80s AD up to the end of the 2nd century.
>is portrayed as a mild form of house arrest where he is allowed by the authorities to preach in Rome freely. In contrast to the evil Jews who martyr both James and Stephen, the author of Acts is incredibly careful not to give any impression of martyrdom by the Roman state because he wants to convert Roman gentiles and prevent Christians from being viewed as a threat by the authorities,
Why would Romans in Italy have more of a reason than the Jews to kill a minor group of religious believers? I literally don't know where you're getting your "Luke was an apologist for the Roman state" line from.

[Anonymous No.19210301]

>>19210011
>The problem is that if a longer ending of Mark is original, not only does it not explain how there are *multiple* additional endings to Mark, but also how the abrupt ending survived in our oldest and best manuscripts without anyone correcting it.
Of course. I didn't propose a solution for how the two lines of transmission came to be.
>All this suggests is that whoever wrote the longer ending was dependent on later parts of the NT.
It indicates that this doctrine did not come out of nowhere and has its source in the 1st century.
>is portrayed as a mild form of house arrest where he is allowed by the authorities to preach in Rome freely. In contrast to the evil Jews who martyr both James and Stephen, the author of Acts is incredibly careful not to give any impression of martyrdom by the Roman state because he wants to convert Roman gentiles and prevent Christians from being viewed as a threat by the authorities,
Why would Romans in Italy have more of a reason than the Jews to kill a minor group of religious believers? I literally don't know where you're getting your "Luke was an apologist for the Roman state" line from.

[Anonymous No.19210408]

>>19210253
>That obviously can't be because Acts was written later than Luke and Luke (as I'm sure you know) was written later than Mark.
The longer ending of Mark is a 2nd century addition to Mark. It's not in our oldest and best manuscripts.
>Why would Romans in Italy have more of a reason than the Jews to kill a minor group of religious believers?
Well they did martyr multiple apostles according to Christian tradition, so...
>I literally don't know where you're getting your "Luke was an apologist for the Roman state" line from.
The narrative of Acts that portrays Paul as a loyal Roman citizen who is saved from death by the Roman authorities and given free licence to preach in Rome.

[Anonymous No.19210442]

>>19210301
>It indicates that this doctrine did not come out of nowhere and has its source in the 1st century.
Anyone could write anything at any time with doctrine that has its source in the 1st century.

[Anonymous No.19210454]

>>19210301
>It indicates that this doctrine did not come out of nowhere and has its source in the 1st century.
Anyone could write anything at any time with doctrine that has its "source" in the 1st century. I'm not sure why this is relevant. Acts and Titus are likely 2nd century anyway. And either way it's certainly not original whatever doctrine you think it holds, as again it's not in our best and earliest manuscripts.

[Anonymous No.19210476]

>>19210408
>The longer ending of Mark is a 2nd century addition to Mark. It's not in our oldest and best manuscripts.
Yeah, I mentioned those manuscripts here: >>19207828. I haven't investigated the matter in depth, but from what I can find it seems that the Codex Alexandrinus (one of the Four Great Greek Uncials) has Mark 16:9-20.
>Well they did martyr multiple apostles according to Christian tradition, so...
Each of the Apostles was killed in a different way and some were allegedly didn't even die within the borders of the Roman Empire
>The narrative of Acts that portrays Paul as a loyal Roman citizen who is saved from death by the Roman authorities and given free licence to preach in Rome.
St. Paul was a Roman citizen and so he could request trial. This is brought up multiple times in the book of Acts.

[Anonymous No.19210494]

>>19210202
Demons are responsible for much of the bad luck and evil in the world, they should be fucking everywhere. That's their purpose, is it not?

I don't accept OR reject anything a priori. However, the Bible can't possibly be taken literally, for one reason: If it were proven true by objective means, or if such a thing were possible, that would invalidate the need for faith. The Bible must be largely metaphor, because real events don't require faith. Imagine if we discovered Noah's Ark, or found evidence that Earth was 6000 years old, that would ruin God's whole test. No such evidence can exist anywhere. Nor can any proof of demonic influence EVER be found.

[Anonymous No.19210515]

>>19210454
>Anyone could write anything at any time with doctrine that has its "source" in the 1st century. I'm not sure why this is relevant.
Why do I have to think for you? If this precept is already present in very early sources, it might very well originate with the founder himself. Also I would still like to know why you think Luke has all these biases.

[Anonymous No.19210549]

>>19210494
>Demons are responsible for much of the bad luck and evil in the world, they should be fucking everywhere. That's their purpose, is it not?
Yes, that is called spiritual warfare.
>However, the Bible can't possibly be taken literally, for one reason: If it were proven true by objective means, or if such a thing were possible, that would invalidate the need for faith. The Bible must be largely metaphor, because real events don't require faith. Imagine if we discovered Noah's Ark, or found evidence that Earth was 6000 years old, that would ruin God's whole test. No such evidence can exist anywhere. Nor can any proof of demonic influence EVER be found.
It can be interpreted on multiple levels (cf. the literal-tropological-allegorical-anagogic method of interpretation). Something can be interpreted literally whilst referring to incorporeal things (e.g. angels, demons, or what have you)

[Anonymous No.19210599]

>>19210476
>I haven't investigated the matter in depth, but from what I can find it seems that the Codex Alexandrinus (one of the Four Great Greek Uncials) has Mark 16:9-20.
Yes, Codex Alexandrinus is generally regarded as an inferior text in its version of the Gospels vs the rest of the New Testament. Netstle-Aland uses A as a third-order witness for Mark versus first-order for Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
>St. Paul was a Roman citizen and so he could request trial. This is brought up multiple times in the book of Acts.
Right, something not mentioned once in Paul's own letters but fits the narrative of Acts very well - both ideologically and as a plot device to get him to Rome.

>>19210515
>Why do I have to think for you? If this precept is already present in very early sources, it might very well originate with the founder himself.
Why do I have to think for you? If I were to decide to write a new a chapter to put on the end of my Mark, I could mash up a bunch of references to the rest of the NT that contained 1st century doctrine, but it would be written in the 21st century. It would say nothing about its authenticity as being Original Mark.
>Also I would still like to know why you think Luke has all these biases.
Because every author who ever lived is biased.

It might be baffling and impossible to you that Luke-Acts wouldn't write about the martyrdom of Paul at the hands of the Romans if he knew it happened so it MUST be written at an impossibly early date. But if you just consider that Luke was a pro-Roman author who didn't want to highlight Romans killing his hero it's perfectly obvious why he didn't write about it. There is no massive mystery.

[Anonymous No.19210618]

>>19201980
The New Testament.

[Anonymous No.19210643]

>>19210599
>Yes, Codex Alexandrinus is generally regarded as an inferior text in its version of the Gospels vs the rest of the New Testament. Netstle-Aland uses A as a third-order witness for Mark versus first-order for Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
Can you please explain to me why A is considered inferior without deferring to chronology?
>Right, something not mentioned once in Paul's own letters but fits the narrative of Acts very well - both ideologically and as a plot device to get him to Rome.
Oh great an argument from silence how charming
>Why do I have to think for you? If I were to decide to write a new a chapter to put on the end of my Mark, I could mash up a bunch of references to the rest of the NT that contained 1st century doctrine, but it would be written in the 21st century. It would say nothing about its authenticity as being Original Mark.
Why did you just ignore my last sentence? Not very nice of you.
>Because every author who ever lived is biased. It might be baffling and impossible to you that Luke-Acts wouldn't write about the martyrdom of Paul at the hands of the Romans if he knew it happened so it MUST be written at an impossibly early date. But if you just consider that Luke was a pro-Roman author who didn't want to highlight Romans killing his hero it's perfectly obvious why he didn't write about it. There is no massive mystery
You are just restating your beliefs here, not arguing for them.

[Anonymous No.19210676]

>>19210599
Would you be willing to come on to a discord server so that we could chat in real-time? Going back-and-forth quickly gets tiresome.

[Anonymous No.19210717]

>>19210643
>Can you please explain to me why A is considered inferior without deferring to chronology?
Because it appears to be a Byzantine-type text in the Gospels, which is a family of textual transmission that favoured inferior, harmonising readings of textual variants over original readings.

[Anonymous No.19210759]

>>19210717
Why favour the Alexandrian text?

[Anonymous No.19210815]

>>19210676
Sorry, I don't use discord. Thank you for the offer though.
>>19210759
Alexandria was not only the second largest city of the Empire and the cultural centre of the Greek East, but had a strong tradition of textual criticism dating back to the Museum and Library of Alexandria of the Hellenistic period where scholars copied and produced the best editions of classical Greek texts. In the 2nd century AD there was one of, if not the earliest Christian school which took over that Hellenic tradition to produce and transmit the best versions of the New Testament with the best scribes and scholars like Pantaenus, Clement, Origen, Athanasius and Didymus the Blind. This is the tradition that produced our most ancient manuscripts with the best readings, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus among others.

[Anonymous No.19210880]

>>19210815
>Sorry, I don't use discord. Thank you for the offer though.
Understandable.
>Alexandria was not only the second largest city of the Empire and the cultural centre of the Greek East, but had a strong tradition of textual criticism dating back to the Museum and Library of Alexandria of the Hellenistic period where scholars copied and produced the best editions of classical Greek texts. In the 2nd century AD there was one of, if not the earliest Christian school which took over that Hellenic tradition to produce and transmit the best versions of the New Testament with the best scribes and scholars like Pantaenus, Clement, Origen, Athanasius and Didymus the Blind. This is the tradition that produced our most ancient manuscripts with the best readings, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus among others.
OK, so I take the argument is that since Alexandria already had an established reputation for the transmission of literary texts, then it carried over into the Christian tradition and eventually produced Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and so forth?

[Anonymous No.19210924]

>>19210549
it can't be referred to literally because that would contradict material science in obvious ways, ruining the test of faith. Lack of evidence is important to faith because otherwise there would be no lack of evidence.

[Anonymous No.19210938]

>>19210880
Yeah. It's not just provenance though, the tradition gives the best readings according to textual critical principles. If you're interested in this subject, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Metzger and Ehrman is a very good overview of this stuff.

[Anonymous No.19210987]

>>19210938
I will look into this, thank you. Got anything else I should read? I've mostly stuck to primary sources in the past.

[Anonymous No.19211017]

>>19210924
How does the separation of the light from the darkness contradict any part of the exact sciences? You have to understand that faith is something very fundamental. I think this verse from the Chāndogya-Upaniṣad 7.19.1 puts it quice nicely:
>A man must first have faith before he thinks—when one does not have faith, one does not think; only when one has faith does one think. So, it is faith that you should seek to perceive."
>"Sir, I do seek to perceive faith."
This is also echoed by Anselm in his Proslogion where he says:
>I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but rather, I believe in order that I may understand
TL;DR: Faith is important for knowledge and understanding because in order to get those two things we have to assume (i.e. believe or have faith in) certain logical principles and inferences to arrive at them.

[Anonymous No.19211048]

>>19211017
then why doesn't god check in once in a while? Perform a miracle or sublime act? Faith is fundamental so he doesn't need to hide his existence. Why does Satan bother to hide his trickery, if not to make us disbelieve?

[Anonymous No.19211064]

>>19211017
wait, I got it -- He should have made the bible's pages glow with holy light. Then no one would be confused about which is the right holy book. Why are people allowed to be misled by satan, if not to test their faith with ambiguity?

[Anonymous No.19211425]

>>19211048
>why does God do X?
Because He wills to do it. The significance of any miracle seems like it deserves to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis.

[Anonymous No.19211427]

>>19211064
People have always had the choice between good and evil, beauty and ugliness, truth and falsehood. Plus, it is immoral to want to be convinced by miracles.

[Anonymous No.19211585]

>>19196613
It's been a while since I've studied the issue but I do remember which chronology seemed the most well-supported.
Mark is obviously the earliest, and as you said it's probably around 70AD because of the references to the second temple's destruction, legion, and so on. Matthew and Luke use it as source material and the order they were written in isn't hugely important. John came last and deviates so much it probably shouldn't be in there.

[Anonymous No.19211592]

>>19211427
>it's a sin to want any proof
awfully convenient

[Anonymous No.19211713]

>>19211592
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.19211722]

>>19211713
Me

[Anonymous No.19211725]

>>19211722
Based

[Anonymous No.19212141]

>>19211427
nah that's bullshit, the other great faiths are indistinguishable aesthetically. Satan made them that way to fool us, or so I've been told.

[Anonymous No.19212518]

>>19210987
Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament is excellent.