Posted on 03/28/2011 12:48:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
From what I’ve read from the article, erdhman is not digging up anything that hasn’t been known and debated by bible scholars since before he was born.
Apparently also trying to force a 21st century writing standards on 1st century writing. Pretty lame and clearly seeking attention and book sales.
Curiously, “Mark” *is* the secretary... to Peter.
Probably chain of authorship:
1. A primitive version of Matthew is penned by Levi/Matthew.
2. Mark is penned by John Mark, under the authority of Peter.
3. Paul wrote most of his letters over a period of several years.
4. Luke and Acts are penned by Luke, using Matthew and Mark as sources.
5. John writes his apocalypse.
6. John publishes a series of liturgical readings.
7. Matthew is redacted to include nearly all of Mark, including over-writing much of the original work.
8. Upon John’s death, his community assembles the readings into a single volume.
Why not presume that Mark is based on Matthew? Because the parts of Matthew which are identical to Mark are stylistically very different than the parts that are not. Not only does this suggest Matthew has two different sources, but if Mark is based on one of those sources, then Mark and one source of Matthew represent the same work, which leads us right back to Mark representing one of two sources of Matthew, but that someone improbably “disunited” the two sources and published one of them. That seems stranger than supposing that Mark’s gospel was used to expand on certain of Jesus’ teachings, and the passion and death of Christ.
Why presume John was compiled from several different readings? Read it. Repeatedly, the gospel finishes a passage, and then tells a chronologically overlapping passage, with no transition. This is not substantially different then simply saying “John wrote the Gospel of John,” because it was almost all written by John*, but merely explains most of what has confused textual analysts.
(*John 1:1-18 is based largely on a pre-existing prophesy, which John interjects into to explain its fulfillment through Christ; the story of the adulteress spared stoning and the “Johannine comma,” an explanation of the trinity, are also missing from the most ancient manuscripts and may therefore represent additions. They could, alternatively, have been redacted by certain ancient communities for posing doctrinal problems which were later resolved, allowing their re-introduction; if the story of the adulteress is not written by John, someone brilliantly mimicked his writing style. )
Yawn. Nothing new. When this “new” screed is out of print, and the copies are mouldering away on some forgotten bookshelf in a library, the BIBLE will still be here and believed.
“Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer, and when this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again next year, as if nothing had ever been written on the subject”.
-—Bishop Horne 1831
It sure is nice to have these people who know more than God himself to really tell us the truth.
Also it would depend on how good of foragers they were done by, If you can forage a hundred dollar bill so there are no mistakes, about the only thing it would do would be to lower the value of the dollar.
But since we are talking about truth, a good forger would be worth his hire because if he forged from the truth, it would be the truth.
Controversy gets people in the spot light easier than anything else, in fact thats the only way many people can get in the spot light at all, and thats where they want to be.
It all comes down to what/who is your “ultimate authority”, or your definitive source of truth.
It could be the Word of God, or it could be yourself, picking and choosing, based on your own authority, what you choose to follow and believe from the Word.
Gen 3:5 “... and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil”
re: “I believe the proper way to read the bible is not through reason weighed against the black and white text, but to enter into prayerful communion with G-d and be inspired to EXPERIENCE the “word” of G-d, which is IN SPIRIT as it was in those who were inspired to write scripture.”
I think you have to use both reason and prayerful communion. We never need to be afraid of studying the Biblical text academically - i.e. archeology, language translation, and context.
I would rather err on being too stringently following the Biblical text than just reading it from a subjective “experiential” point of view. That’s how cults and heresy come about. Words, language, context, all these things mean things. Yes, there is emotion, but you need to use your head, too.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.