Hello all, my name name is Jonathan.
Now if the historical Gospel texts of Mark and John were interpolated with such passages to include the Last 12 verses of Mark 16 and John 7:53 – 8:11, the questions we need to answer is as follows:
Who were these so called scribes? Where were they from? and how did they successfully manage inserting these same interpolations throughout the Greek East and Latin West without anyone ever noticing.
In my short animation below, I challenge Bart Ehrman, James White, and Daniel Wallace to historically validate their assertions.
Now according to Tertuallian, Marcion in the second century accused the same Apostolic Churches of interpolating the text, by the defenders of Judaism to fashion the type of Christ the churches wanted to promote; In addition Marcion introduced a redacted text of Luke and ten letters of Paul that were shorter yet not better, that Marcion said were the original writings of Paul.
Ehrman, White, and Wallace challenge to the texts of the Apostolic Churches are no different in statement and tactics than Marcion; For these scholars bring forward their own so called early and shorter edition of the biblical texts with Sinaticus and Vaticanus, that they say are earlier representatives of the texts used by the Official Greek Orthodox churches.
Yet, Ireneus and Tertuallian in the second century were able to prove the Gospel Texts by appealing to the objective system which identified the original text of the apostles, and the means that secured the text down through the ages which is witnessed to by thousands of independent Apostolic Churches that basically witness to the same text with minor scribal variations throughout the Mediterranean world.
So Mr Ehrman, why do you ignore the objective system identified in the writings of Tertullian and Irenaeus, that proves the the preservation of the New Testament? I am waiting for your response.
Ehrman does not answer questions or challenges put forward on this forum. You will have to put your question as a comment to his latest posting. Requests of this kind will normally be handled with a reference to an existing posting on this topic, or to one of his books. On the other hand, if you do the homework, obtaining a fair representation of Ehrman’s views on PA, and then ask a sharply pointed question, you will get a fair, direct and short answer.
Your animation is funny, but hopelessly biased. You mention some old textual witnesses to PA, but omit the complete list of old witnesses lacking the PA, among them P66( ca. 200) , P75( 175-225), C.Sinaiticus (330-360) and C.Vaticanus(300-325).
Thank you Gavriel for your response. In my up-coming defense of the PA I deal with their so called best and earlier texts as it relates to this passage, but I notice in your response, you seemed to omit the majority of independent texts of the Apostolic Churches throughout the Greek East and Latin west that support this reading that was publicly read before the congregations on October 8th.
Now, to qualify these so called texts as witnesses, you have to establish the legal chain of custody for these texts; demonstrating first how can they trace back to any official apostolic Greek church that was founded by the apostles, such as the churches of Asia Minor that John oversaw according to Tertullian /Irenaeus, or the churches of Paul that still exist in Greece. We still have the official Greek church of Alexandria established by St. Mark according to Eusebius, yet their Greek Text looks nothing like Vaticanus and Sinaticus, but basically agrees with the other Greek Texts that were commonly received.
Vaticanus was cataloged in 1481 at the Vatican – how does this text legally trace back to the official Apostolic Greek churches? How does Sinaticus which was discovered by Tischendorf in the 1800s, trace back to any official Apostolic Greek Church? P66 & P75 were found thrown out in the deserts of Egypt. Yet the origin and history of these texts are unknown. You cannot establish who authored these texts, or where they really came from, or who had access to them.
In retrospect, we know who Jerome was; who trained him and where he was from; we also know that his revision of the Gospels were based on a comparison of early Greek Manuscripts, and he clearly showed that the Latin readings in his Vulgate had to have Greek support. Jerome’s Vulgate was publicly read in the Churches of North Africa, and he personally commented on the passage under discussion stating that it was found in many Greek and Latin manuscripts.
You still haven’t answered how this so called reading found its way into the majority of independent Greek, Latin and Some Aramaic texts throughout the ancient world without anyone ever noticing. one word was changed in Jerome’s Vulgate, and the churches of North Africa rioted according to Augustine.
Marcion introduced a redacted text of Luke, and ten letters of Paul, that was shorter, but not better, and everyone noticed.
I also see that you ignored such fathers as Augustine, Ambrose and Nikon who explained why this passage was removed in some of the scriptural texts.
I am always open for an honest discussion on these issues; I have produced 5 videos challenging Ehrman, White and Wallace to refute my arguments;
This is the field of Textual Criticism, in which people like Metzger and Ehrman ranks among the foremost experts, a field that you obviously has not studied at all. You need to come up with more substantial arguments to be taken seriously. You may like to start with “The text of the New Testament” (Metzger, revised by Ehrman), pp.319- 321 and try to argue against it. That will be hard, and naive misrepresentations in animated style is not the way to do it.
Some basic points:
The oldest witnesses to John is P66 and P77 as mentioned above,lacking PA.
The Diatessaron, produced in the second century, lacks it as well.
The oldest witness containing the PA is in fact Codex Bezae from the fifth century.
PA as it appears in John is stylistically different and interrupts the flow of the surrounding passages.
No church father in the first millennium refers to PA as belonging to John’s gospel, not even those who comment on the gospels, verse by verse.
The fact that the story in isolation was known in early antiquity does not prove that it was a part of John.
That is why it is considered a free-floating story which at some point in the copying history was added to John. This, according to Metzger, “appears to be conclusive”.
gavriel said
This is the field of Textual Criticism, in which people like Metzger and Ehrman ranks among the foremost experts, a field that you obviously has not studied at all. You need to come up with more substantial arguments to be taken seriously. You may like to start with “The text of the New Testament” (Metzger, revised by Ehrman), pp.319- 321 and try to argue against it. That will be hard, and naive misrepresentations in animated style is not the way to do it.
Answer: So instead of answering my arguments, your strategy is an argument to authority? I can just as easily refer you to Dean John William burgeon and Henry Scrivener, or Dr. William Pickering who I have spoken with at length over the phone and email who supports my work. In my conversations with Dr. Pickering, he stated that Ehrman just ignores all the evidence, that he doesn’t deal with the facts of the case. Now, Erhman and Metzger have accused the Greek Orthodox Churches of corrupting the text of the New Testament, and cite the PA as one of the most famous examples of this; Since there assertion is that this passage is an interpolation, then they need to document who created this passage of scripture? who were the scribes? under which bishop at what Apostolic Church did this occur? and how did they get this passage into Greek, Latin and some Aramiac Texts prior to Jerome’s Vulgate in 384 A.D. Augustine in the Churches of North Africa quotes this passage as part of his text; Pacian in Spain quotes this passage, Ambrose in Milan quotes this passage, Didamus the blind the head of the Greek Catechism at Alexandria quotes this passage, and Jerome says he found it in many Greek and Latin Manuscripts. How did these so called scribes, that history has failed to record or make mention of get this passage throughout the Mediterranean world? Are you ever going to answer these questions?
gavriel said: Some basic points:
The oldest witnesses to John is P66 and P77 as mentioned above,lacking PA.
Answer: Please establish the legal chain of custody for P66 and P75? How do these texts legally trace back to any historic Apostolic church? Who wrote these texts? and who had access to these texts for the 1700 + years prior to their discovery? Who buried these texts in Egypt? Why did they throw them out? Just in case you don’t understand what a proper chain of custody means, let me explain. Now there’s a reason we don’t imprison people accused of crimes based on information disclosed in newspapers and other media. A fair trial means following rules and procedures designed to ensure the reliability of evidence provided to the jury meaning that the evidence is what it’s claimed to be. Evidence must also demonstrate reasonable assurance that it hasn’t been tampered with; For Ehrman would have us believe that these so called earlier and shorter editions of the biblical texts that are deficient this passage in John are closer representatives to the original text used by the Official Apostolic Greek Churches. No cop could pick up a bag of cocaine from the street, and then say its yours, and charge you with possession of cocaine. But this is what you guys are doing in accusing the Apostolic Greek Orthodox Churches of Corruption. P66 and P75 can’t be shown to legally trace back to any of Apostolic Greek Churches. Yet the Greek Orthodox Churches bishops can legally trace back all the way to the apostles who were basically Paul and John. And don’t assume this is my argument. This is the same objective criterion that Tertullian and Ireneus used against Marcion who also accused the Apostolic Churches of corrupting the text of the New Testament, and introduced a shorter text of Luke and ten letters of Paul. Ireneus and Tertullian defined how the Apostolic Churches preserved the text of the New Testament and provided the objective criterion to establish the original writings of the apostles, ruling out Marcion shorter readings, by demonstrating the text commonly received by the official churches of Paul don’t have that shorter version (That we still have to day and are still using Greek Texts). Remember Ireneus was a follower of John, through Polycarp, and Tertullian stated Polycarp was installed for Asia by the Apostle John himself. Ireneus and Tertullian referred Marcion and the other gnostics who claimed that their texts were the original writings, back to the official churches of John and Paul to see the official texts of the apostles that are publicly read before the congregation. Why do you ignore the system the Apostolic Churches set up to preserve the text of the New Testament. Irenaus and Tertullian both challenged the Gnostics to establish the legal chain for their texts, and we are challenging your apocryphal texts in the same way.
gavriel said: The Diatessaron, produced in the second century, lacks it as well.
The oldest witness containing the PA is in fact Codex Bezae from the fifth century.
Answer: We know many of the Aramiac texts don’t have it, these are in areas where even today, that women are killed for adultery, which explains their absence in these texts. We have two western fathers (Augustine/Ambrose) and 1 Greek Nikon who explains this. This was Burgon Position as well.
gavriel said: PA as it appears in John is stylistically different and interrupts the flow of the surrounding passages.
No church father in the first millennium refers to PA as belonging to John’s gospel, not even those who comment on the gospels, verse by verse.
Answer: I like how you finessed the statement above. Well Jerome Knew of Didamus the blind, and we know where Jerome put it in his translation, and his Gospels were based on an early Greek Manuscripts. Jerome said he found it in Both the Greek and Latin Texts. Jerome was trained by one of the three great capadocian fathers of Constantinople (Gregory Nazian). Mara of Amira used a Greek Text from Alexandria to create an Aramaic bible, an that version not only has the women in Adultery, but its also in John. You can still go to the official Greek Church of Alexandria and verify what reading are in its texts, and where they are at. Ireneus and Tertuallian said to go back to the official churches of the apostles to verify the text that was handed down by the apostles, so why do you go to apocryphal texts?
gavriel said: The fact that the story in isolation was known in early antiquity does not prove that it was a part of John.
That is why it is considered a free-floating story which at some point in the copying history was added to John. This, according to Metzger, “appears to be conclusive”.
Metzger statement is laughable We are well aware of hundreds of oral traditions in the churches, but none of these stories ever ended up in the text of the New Testament. Take for example the assumption of Mary, a celebrated tradition within the Greek Orthodox churches, and a dogmatic statement of faith in the Church of Rome. If scribes had so much free reign to add to the Text of the New Testament as they pleased, why wouldn’t a story such as the assumption of Mary that is revered and celebrated historically in the churches be added into the Gospel Texts. The assumption of Mary was so popular, that it even ended up in the text of Koran as noted by Sam Shamon, yet this acclaimed oral tradition never ended up in the text of the New Testament. Even the oral tradition of the “Ever Virgin Mary”, a tradition defended by Jerome, never ended up in his Vulgate edition or in the Text of the Greek Orthodox Church where it is has enjoyed strong support. Metzger has also failed to historically where in history it was added, or who were the scribes that created the passage or how to they get it into all the texts?
Calvinsx76: So instead of answering my arguments, your strategy is an argument to authority? I can just as easily refer you to Dean John William burgeon and Henry Scrivener, or Dr. William Pickering who I have spoken with at length over the phone and email who supports my work. In my conversations with Dr. Pickering, he stated that Ehrman just ignores all the evidence, that he doesn’t deal with the facts of the case. Now, Erhman and Metzger have accused the Greek Orthodox Churches of corrupting the text of the New Testament, and cite the PA as one of the most famous examples of this; Since there assertion is that this passage is an interpolation, then they need to document who created this passage of scripture? who were the scribes? under which bishop at what Apostolic Church did this occur? and how did they get this passage into Greek, Latin and some Aramiac Texts prior to Jerome’s Vulgate in 384 A.D. Augustine in the Churches of North Africa quotes this passage as part of his text; Pacian in Spain quotes this passage, Ambrose in Milan quotes this passage, Didamus the blind the head of the Greek Catechism at Alexandria quotes this passage, and Jerome says he found it in many Greek and Latin Manuscripts. How did these so called scribes, that history has failed to record or make mention of get this passage throughout the Mediterranean world? Are you ever going to answer these questions?
Answer: It is fair to appeal to the best authorities. But I also gave you a handful of the most common and best arguments. I can add more as the discussion progresses. I do not think that one needs to document who made an interpolation, in the same way as one does not have to identify the murderer to conclude that a dead body shot through the head is the victim of a crime. Neither is it necessary to state exactly when it happened. The oldest Greek Church fathers do not identify the text as a part of John.
Calvinsx76: Please establish the legal chain of custody for P66 and P75? How do these texts legally trace back to any historic Apostolic church? Who wrote these texts? and who had access to these texts for the 1700 + years prior to their discovery? Who buried these texts in Egypt? Why did they throw them out? Just in case you don’t understand what a proper chain of custody means, let me explain. Now there’s a reason we don’t imprison people accused of crimes based on information disclosed in newspapers and other media. A fair trial means following rules and procedures designed to ensure the reliability of evidence provided to the jury meaning that the evidence is what it’s claimed to be. Evidence must also demonstrate reasonable assurance that it hasn’t been tampered with; For Ehrman would have us believe that these so called earlier and shorter editions of the biblical texts that are deficient this passage in John are closer representatives to the original text used by the Official Apostolic Greek Churches. No cop could pick up a bag of cocaine from the street, and then say its yours, and charge you with possession of cocaine. But this is what you guys are doing in accusing the Apostolic Greek Orthodox Churches of Corruption. P66 and P75 can’t be shown to legally trace back to any of Apostolic Greek Churches. Yet the Greek Orthodox Churches bishops can legally trace back all the way to the apostles who were basically Paul and John. And don’t assume this is my argument. This is the same objective criterion that Tertullian and Ireneus used against Marcion who also accused the Apostolic Churches of corrupting the text of the New Testament, and introduced a shorter text of Luke and ten letters of Paul. Ireneus and Tertullian defined how the Apostolic Churches preserved the text of the New Testament and provided the objective criterion to establish the original writings of the apostles, ruling out Marcion shorter readings, by demonstrating the text commonly received by the official churches of Paul don’t have that shorter version (That we still have to day and are still using Greek Texts). Remember Ireneus was a follower of John, through Polycarp, and Tertullian stated Polycarp was installed for Asia by the Apostle John himself. Ireneus and Tertullian referred Marcion and the other gnostics who claimed that their texts were the original writings, back to the official churches of John and Paul to see the official texts of the apostles that are publicly read before the congregation. Why do you ignore the system the Apostolic Churches set up to preserve the text of the New Testament. Irenaus and Tertullian both challenged the Gnostics to establish the legal chain for their texts, and we are challenging your apocryphal texts in the same way.
Answer: The text critics have done this job and identified the best old Greek sources , and they lack PA. If you want to know how these texts can be traced back to the autographs of the second part of the first century better than most others, you need to read all of Metzgers textbook, not just the pages I referred to.
Calvinsx76: I like how you finessed the statement above. Well Jerome Knew of Didamus the blind, and we know where Jerome put it in his translation, and his Gospels were based on an early Greek Manuscripts. Jerome said he found it in Both the Greek and Latin Texts. Jerome was trained by one of the three great capadocian fathers of Constantinople (Gregory Nazian). Mara of Amira used a Greek Text from Alexandria to create an Aramaic bible, an that version not only has the women in Adultery, but its also in John. You can still go to the official Greek Church of Alexandria and verify what reading are in its texts, and where they are at. Ireneus and Tertuallian said to go back to the official churches of the apostles to verify the text that was handed down by the apostles, so why do you go to apocryphal texts?
Answer: as to Didymus as a source for PA, please consult Ehrmans position on this (Didymus was the ground for his doctoral dissertation) : “Jesus and the Adulteress” New Testament Studies 34 [1988]
Calvinsx76: Metzger statement is laughable We are well aware of hundreds of oral traditions in the churches, but none of these stories ever ended up in the text of the New Testament. Take for example the assumption of Mary, a celebrated tradition within the Greek Orthodox churches, and a dogmatic statement of faith in the Church of Rome. If scribes had so much free reign to add to the Text of the New Testament as they pleased, why wouldn’t a story such as the assumption of Mary that is revered and celebrated historically in the churches be added into the Gospel Texts. The assumption of Mary was so popular, that it even ended up in the text of Koran as noted by Sam Shamon, yet this acclaimed oral tradition never ended up in the text of the New Testament. Even the oral tradition of the “Ever Virgin Mary”, a tradition defended by Jerome, never ended up in his Vulgate edition or in the Text of the Greek Orthodox Church where it is has enjoyed strong support. Metzger has also failed to historically where in history it was added, or who were the scribes that created the passage or how to they get it into all the texts?
Answer:
No scholars think any of Metzgers statements are laughable. Your problem is that you have started a discussion with a parodic animation, that in no way renders a fair reproduction of the arguments of Metzger and Ehrman. My opinion is that one should argue against one’s opponents strongest arguments. Finally, I do not think an exact identification of when , where or by who the first interpolation took place is required. That would be an independent study.
Now, Dr Ehrman has reached out to me and asked me to direct this line of questing over to his blog where he can directly respond to my inquiry. I have already submitted my inquiry to his public blog where I am waiting for his response.Mr Gavriel, based on your responses to my questions, it appears that you don’t fully comprehend the real issue, or understand what Dr. Ehrman or Dr Metzger are saying in their works. For Ehrman nor Metzger would ever try to establish the chain of custody for such texts as P75, P66, Vaticanus or Sinaiticus for they know that the provenance of these texts are unknown. But Dr Ehrman and Metzger would surley respond by saying these are the earliest texts they have found, and that these later texts are different. Burgon pointed out that texts used allot will wear out faster than texts thrown out in Egypt or left on monastery shelves un-used. Also Lake in his famous study of the practices of scribes in scriptoriums said that “its hard to avoid the conclusion that the scribes destroyed the exemplars after making a copy”. Bardsal also pointed out even though he believed that the Byzantium Textform was later said all their presuppositions are apparently un-true. Normally when your pre-suppositions are un-true, you normally reject the conclusions. This leaves the accusation that the Greek Orthodox churches corrupted their texts is unproven therefore they must be given the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Taking this more academic turn, why in heaven did you publish the childish animation? Second, please read Ehrman’s scholarly analysis of the possible sources for PA in his 1988 article before you continue. I think he referred to it, on the blog, as late as in April this year, so I take it that he still upholds the same conclusions. I’m certainly looking forward to Ehrman’s response. But it is a fact that PA is lacking in all Greek manuscripts for eight centuries or so with the exception of C.Bezae, a freak manuscript known for all its omissions, alternate readings and additions. And few is questioning that PA probably started popping up in Johannine contexts probably from at least third century, judged from Church fathers’ writings. When a text is displaying variants, and moves around in different locations, it is normally a clear indication of interpolation. Taking all text-critical arguments together, they present an overwhelming case. Of course, in science, there are always minority voices. In this case there is a near consensus in the historical-critical camp.
The opposite view would be that PA was censored out very early and very effectively, found to be ethically offensive. That is hard to believe.
gavriel said
“But it is a fact that PA is lacking in all Greek manuscripts for eight centuries or so with the exception of C.Bezae, a freak manuscript known for all its omissions, alternate readings and additions”
Answer: Look, Jerome in the 4th Century said he found the PA in many Greek and Latin manuscripts, and in his preface to the Gospel he said he revised the gospels based on a comparison of early Greek manuscripts. He was trained by the Patriarch of Constantinople [Gregory Nazian]. Augustine & Nikon said this passage was removed from some scriptural texts, so we can document why in some apostolic texts this passage is deficient, bringing forth the testimony of Augustine, Ambrose and Nikon, yet you can not historically document, the process or the scribes that were responsible for creating the PA and inserting this passage of scripture throughout thousands of Apostolic Texts in the Greek East and the Latin West in the Mediterranean world. In Science we don’t ignore empirical evidence that goes against our theories. and we don’t use the fallacies of argument to the number, and/or argument to authority. Why are you ignoring my empirical evidence? If you keep on ignoring my empirical evidence, I will have to resort to the theological term invincible ignorance, I pray that isn’t true of you. It any normal court of law, independent witnesses over different areas overrule witnesses that disagree among themselves. Your so called best and earlier texts cannot be shown to establish a legal chain of custody to any historical apostolic Greek church. Such texts would not even make it through pre-trial hearings. You first have to prove these texts can legally trace back to an official Apostolic Greek church, but you cannot prove this. In addition you cannot prove who authored these texts or who had access to them for the 1000+ years prior to their discovery. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not the type of texts copied by the official Apostolic Greek Churches.
gavriel said“In this case there is a near consensus in the historical-critical camp” Fallacy [Argument to the number]
In an earlier post: gavriel said: The Diatessaron, produced in the second century, lacks it as well
Answer on Tatians Diatessaron: Now it’s interesting that you cite Tatians Diatessaron as a witness against the PA. So I presume you then accept Mark 16:9-20 which is found in Tatians Diatessaron. Otherwise you are just cherry picking.
As I said earlier: We know many of the Aramaic texts don’t have it, these are in areas where even today, women are killed for adultery, which explains their absence in these texts. We have two western fathers (Augustine/Ambrose) and 1 Greek Nikon who explains this. This was Burgon Position as well.
gavriel said“In this case there is a near consensus in the historical-critical camp” Fallacy [Argument to the number]
No, this is not a true example of Argumentum ad Numerum. “Argument to the number” is an appeal to the sheer number of people making a claim. Most people think god exists therefore god must exist. But gavriel is not appealing to the number as much as to their level of expertise. It could be five scholars or five hundred, the number doesn’t matter. What matters in this case is that the majority of them have reached a scholarly consensus of opinion. That is simply a statement of fact.
Nor is this statement an Argument from Authority fallacy for the simple reason that these folks are legitimate authorities. If I say Bart Ehrman has a PhD and believes in ghosts therefore ghosts must exist, that is an argument from authority. But if I say Bart Ehrman has a PhD in New Testament historical/textual studies and in his opinion Paul did not write Ephesians, that is not an argument from authority, simply a statement of fact.
Now none of this means these folks are right in their opinions of course. But if you dispute their opinions you assume a burden of justification and you have to demonstrate that they are wrong. You can’t simply dismiss them.
Stephen said
gavriel said“In this case there is a near consensus in the historical-critical camp” Fallacy [Argument to the number]No, this is not a true example of Argumentum ad Numerum. “Argument to the number” is an appeal to the sheer number of people making a claim. Most people think god exists therefore god must exist. But gavriel is not appealing to the number as much as to their level of expertise. It could be five scholars or five hundred, the number doesn’t matter. What matters in this case is that the majority of them have reached a scholarly consensus of opinion. That is simply a statement of fact.
Nor is this statement an Argument from Authority fallacy for the simple reason that these folks are legitimate authorities. If I say Bart Ehrman has a PhD and believes in ghosts therefore ghosts must exist, that is an argument from authority. But if I say Bart Ehrman has a PhD in New Testament historical/textual studies and in his opinion Paul did not write Ephesians, that is not an argument from authority, simply a statement of fact.
Now none of this means these folks are right in their opinions of course. But if you dispute their opinions you assume a burden of justification and you have to demonstrate that they are wrong. You can’t simply dismiss them.
Stephen I have simply asked gavriel to provide empirical evidence to support his assertions. I have provided historical documented testimony from Jerome in the 4th century, who stated that the passage under discussion was found in many Greek and Latin manuscripts. Jerome’s letter to Pope Damascas said his revision was based on a comparison of Early Greek Manuscripts which would be 4th century or earlier. Jerome,was trained by Gregory Nazian [The Archbishop of Constantinople], one of the three great Capadocian fathers. Jerome also stated in his In Epistle to Marcella, that his objective has been to restore the scriptures to the form of the original Greek. Jerome was very familiar with varients.
So when gavel says ” it is a fact that PA is lacking in all Greek manuscripts for eight centuries or so with the exception of C.Bezae” he is not dealing with the empirical evidence provided by Jerome who said it was found in many Greek and Latin Manuscripts. This is an empirical observation, he is not appealing to any authority. Jerome was in Rome, Constantinople, Bethlehem. He was well traveled.
Augustine, a bishop in the 4th century, and Nikon a Greek in the 9th century provide testimony that this passage was taken out of some scriptural texts. Two independent witnesses is empirical evidence. Ambrose, Augustine and Nikon explains that congregations of their day had problems with this passage because of what this passage can be mis-interpreted to mean, not that it wasn’t authentic. Remember, Adultery was met with stoning and vendetta, just like it is today in Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc..The practice hasn’t changed. That’s why there are still honor killings today. Here in the west it’s not an issue. This is a probable explanation why it was moved in the lectionary to October 8th, the day of repentence
If gavriel assertion is that this passage was an interpolation, not originally part of the Gospel text, accusing the Greek Orthodox Churches of Corruption: Then he needs to provide empirical data to document the who, what, where, when and why. Gavel saying ” Finally, I do not think an exact identification of when , where or by who the first interpolation took place is required” This is not scientific; Science is based on the Scientific method.
We are talking about thousands of Greek and Latin Churches throughout the Mediterranean. To get it into the majority of this texts in the ancient world without anybody noticing would be near impossible. You couldn’t accomplish such a task like that today. Test that hypothesis, that would at least be scientific, but saying I don’t know who did it, where it happened, when it took place, and how nobody noticed, when the change of 1 word in Jerome translation led to a riot in a church of North Africa as reported by Augustine, is just not empirical. I am not against experts, but they still have to deal with the evidence. Remember lawyers are scholars/experts as well, but they can’t walk into court and say I’m an expert and believe my client is not guilty; they still have to deal with the evidence.
Stephen, I am going to take a small jab at your logic below, but it’s all in fun, so try to find the humor in it.
First as a matter or record “Near consensus” appeals to the number, but if your saying he’s appealing to the expertise than that would be argument to the authority.
Stephen Statement: “But gavriel is not appealing to the number as much as to their level of expertise. It could be five scholars or five hundred, the number doesn’t matter. What matters in this case is that the majority of them have reached a scholarly consensus of opinion. That is simply a statement of fact”
Stephen, here is how your statement sounds:
The consensus of scientists in Einstein time circa 1905 considered Newton Correct, by your logic Einstein was wrong. lol
Jonathan your arguments about text transmission are best addressed to an expert. Fortunately for you this very site is hosted by one such. As gavriel has already explained, Prof Ehrman doesn’t normally engage over on this side. You should address your comments directly to Prof Ehrman over on his blog. I would be interested in his response myself.
As far as the informal logical fallacies, sorry but you just don’t understand. I thought my explanations were clear enough. I guess not.
An argument to authority is not fallacious if the authority is a legitimate authority.
Actually you do understand the argument to number quite well I see since you committed it yourself in your latest post. Now that is funny.
Interesting, I’ve encountered this strange idea that Einstein somehow disproved Newton before. No, Newton’s Laws of Motion are just as valid now as they were when originally formulated. Within a certain framework. What Einstein did was to incorporate Newton’s ideas into a larger framework of explanation. He didn’t disprove Newton; he absorbed him whole.
Well since I’ve gone this far… the objection to the authenticity of the ending of Mark is not just one of transmission. The writing style is different. It contradicts the preceding verse of Mark – Did the women tell anyone or not? And it clearly reflects a knowledge of the other gospels which would be weird since Mark came first.
But seriously, run your ideas by Prof Ehrman. And google ‘informal logical fallacies’.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert