Robert said
Steefen said
Bart Ehrman says there are forgery issues with the Gospel of Mark according to this 5 minute video lecture clip of him
He’s talking about two text-critical issues in the gospel of Mark, not forgery. The added ending of Mk 16,9-20 and the lectio difficilior of Mk 1,41.
Thank you for correcting the YouTube channel that mislabeled the video. Still, the added ending was not written by the author/s of Mark and probably without the permission of the author/s of Mark.
James Tabor in the Biblical Archaeology Society, Bible History Daily indeed writes:
Here is that forged ending of Mark:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen said
While we’re throwing around these terms, by today’s standards shouldn’t both Matthew and Luke be considered plagiarists for their wholesale appropriation of Mark?
Virtually every writer of antiquity was a plagiarist by modern standards. Plagiarism, by modern standards, doesn’t require verbatim or near verbatim re-use; merely, appropriating the work of another without express attribution (or express permission) falls under the modern definition of plagiarism. By that standard, almost all works of antiquity were plagiarized.
Robert said
He’s talking about two text-critical issues in the gospel of Mark, not forgery. The added ending of Mk 16,9-20 and the lectio difficilior of Mk 1,41.
Both of which can easily be defended as authentic in the great mass of Greek (and Latin and Syriac) mss, which read as we see in the Authorized Version.
Stephen said
While we’re throwing around these terms, by today’s standards shouldn’t both Matthew and Luke be considered plagiarists for their wholesale appropriation of Mark?
If the author of Mark actually knew of a resurrection story he would have written it in himself. There was no resurrection. The post resurrection stories are fiction that is why they contradict each other.
Shakoor said
Stephen said
While we’re throwing around these terms, by today’s standards shouldn’t both Matthew and Luke be considered plagiarists for their wholesale appropriation of Mark?
If the author of Mark actually knew of a resurrection story he would have written it in himself. There was no resurrection. The post resurrection stories are fiction that is why they contradict each other.
Sounds like a good point.
The record of history is full of inconsistencies. There are many different views and details about the American Civil War, but that does not mean that there was no war. In this case, 3 of the 4 surviving Gospels has some account of resurrection. 1 against 3 is not usually the winning vote tally.
Shakoor said
Stephen said
While we’re throwing around these terms, by today’s standards shouldn’t both Matthew and Luke be considered plagiarists for their wholesale appropriation of Mark?
If the author of Mark actually knew of a resurrection story he would have written it in himself. There was no resurrection. The post resurrection stories are fiction that is why they contradict each other.
To clarify my original comment, from Ehrman’s point of view neither Matthew nor Luke should be considered a plagiarist because the actual composers did not claim authorship.
There is definitely a Resurrection in Mark. What is missing are post-Resurrection appearances although there is a promise that he would appear.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert