Bryan Posted August 17, 2007 Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 Bryan wrote:You're the one who's talking rot Bryan. It's the "begotten" variant at Jesus' baptism that occurs in the relatively early Codex Bezae. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "We don’t know when the alteration occurred in Mark and Luke, but it appears from the writings of St. Augustine, that even as late as 400 C.E., the wording of the text in Matthew was still “Thou art my beloved son, this day have I begotten thee”. There is convincing textual evidence to suggest that the very earliest Christians believed that Jesus was only made a ‘Son of God’ (his apotheosis) at his resurrection." http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=62804 Mea culpa. I thought you were summing up your earlier statements rather than simply spouting off another unsupported assertion. I should have known better. Note again how Dingbat skirts the issue of Marcan priority. He tells us about evidence that the text was changed, but all of his evidence has come from Luke's gospel, and the author of Luke supposedly relied on Mark. Lacking the textual evidence of such a change in Mark, Dingbat asserts that the evidence his assertions regarding Luke makes the case that the (earlier?) text of Mark was altered. 11 [22] You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased: this is the best attested reading in the Greek manuscripts. The Western reading, "You are my Son, this day I have begotten you," is derived from Psalm 2:7. http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke3.htm Should I find the same general idea expressed anonymously at a message board, to give it more weight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DingoDave Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Another pompous and dismissive reaction from Bryan to a point of view that he doesn't like the sound of. I wouldn’t expect anything less from him by now. I quoted those articles because I thought they offered a clear and concise summary of the adoptionist positon. After all, this is only an Internet forum, not a theological seminary or university. I was not putting forward those articles as being written by Bible scholars in their own right, although Robert Price certainly is. However, the contents of those articles are most certainly based on the research and the conclusions of professional Bible scholars. I have made a list of some books, which support the proposition that the doctrines of the early church evolved and became more elaborate as time passed, and that what we now know as orthodoxy, was almost certainly not the same as the views held by the original Jerusalem Christians. The book list I have provided is by no means exhaustive, but I hope it will suffice to show why Bryan’s arrogant dismissal of the adoptionist position is inappropriate and incredibly biased towards his own ‘orthodox’ preconceptions. I suggest that Bryan, rather than simply ridiculing the articles cited; actually try to refute their arguments? If the virgin birth narratives were indeed part of the original gospel stories, then Bryan could start by explaining to me why there are all those adoptionist verses in the canonical gospels, the epistles, and apocryphal literature? Or how about explaining why these adoptionist verses were quoted by so many of the early Church fathers? Or how about explaining why I should prefer to accept the preposterous doctrines of a bunch of fourth century Catholic Bishops, rather than the infinately more plausible thesis that the canonical Gospel stories are simply a confusing mish-mash of legends and wives tales, which steadily grew more outlandish with the passing of time? A useful web page, which provides a list of authors who have examined the evolution of the gospel myths and doctrines can be found here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html Bryan claims to believe that the creator of the universe had sex with an adolescent Jewish girl in first century Palestine, in order to produce a god-man hybrid who was destined to become a perfect human sacrifice in order to appease the gods? He claims to believe that this god-man was killed, then came back to life, and that after promising to return within the lifetime of his followers, flew away into the sky never to be seen again. This supposedly all happened 2000 years ago! Bryan apparently believes that there are hordes of invisible people living in the sky who are watching our every move? He claims to believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood, and then telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat a piece of magic fruit? And then he has the audacity to accuse me of being as stupid as a box of rocks? How’s that for irony? Anyway, here’s a suggested reading list for anyone interested in discovering more about the early development of the Christian religion. Paula Fredrikson ‘From Jesus to Christ’ Robert Price ‘The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How reliable is the Gospel Tradition’ ‘Deconstructing Jesus’ ‘The Pre-Nicene New Testament’ Robert Eisenman ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians’ ‘James The Brother of Jesus’ Walter Bauer ‘Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity’ Bart Ehrman ‘The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture’ ‘Misquoting Jesus’ ‘The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings’ ‘The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader’ ‘Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It Into the New Testament’ Hyam Maccoby ‘Revolution in Judea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance’ ‘Judaism in the First Century’ ‘The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity’ G.A. Wells ‘The Jesus of the early Christians: A study in Christian origins’ Gerd Ludemann Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity Burton Mack ‘Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth’ ‘A Myth of Innocence’ Helmut Koester and James M. Robinson ‘Trajectories Through Early Christianity’ S. G. F. Brandon ‘The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church’ ‘Jesus and the Zealots’ Helmet Koester ‘Introduction to the New Testament’ ‘History and Literature of early Christianity vol 2’ ‘Ancient Christian Gospels, their history and development’ Michael Wise ‘The First Messiah: Investigating the Saviour before Jesus’ David Strauss ‘Life of Jesus’ James D Tabor ‘The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity’ John Dominc Crossan ‘The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus’ ‘The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant’ ‘Jesus. A Revolutionary Biography’ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DingoDave Posted August 22, 2007 Report Share Posted August 22, 2007 Bryan wrote: Note again how Dingbat skirts the issue of Marcan priority. He tells us about evidence that the text was changed, but all of his evidence has come from Luke's gospel, and the author of Luke supposedly relied on Mark. Lacking the textual evidence of such a change in Mark, Dingbat asserts that the evidence his assertions regarding Luke makes the case that the (earlier?) text of Mark was altered. The adoptionist reading was attested as being present in both Matthew and Luke by the early Church theologians who quoted these gospels. Mark was written by a gentile, for a gentile audience, and contains mistakes in both Palestinian geography and customs, which no Jewish author is likely to have made. Both Luke and Matthew correct Mark in certain places where he got things wrong. If Mark had been written for non-Jewish, non Palestinian Christians (as most scholars believe), then it is not surprising that the subsequent Christian communities who used this gospel, may have tried to obscure the clearly adoptionist phraseology which can be found in all the gospels and epistles. The original Jerusalem Christians apparently used an earlier version of our gospel of Matthew, which did not include the virgin birth stories. “Their own [Ebionite] version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic in Palestine, as did his earliest followers. It would make sense that a group of Jewish followers of Jesus that originated in Palestine would continue to cite his words, and stories about him, in his native tongue. It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus' birth to a virgin - a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew's Gospel as well.” -Bart Ehrman, "Lost Christianities", p102 It’s strange that the Gospel of Mark begins at Jesus’ baptism and, ends with an empty tomb, isn’t it? If the doctrines of the virgin birth and bodily resurrection had been in vogue at the time when Mark wrote his gospel, then he was very remiss not to include them wasn’t he? The author of Mark obviously knew nothing of a virgin birth, or physical post resurrection appearances of Jesus, or he certainly would have included such important elements in his gospel. It is generally accepted among Bible scholars, that the post resurrection narratives in Mark were not part of the original document, but were added later. Many scholars believe that these stories must have also been added to the other gospels, as the Jesus legends grew steadily more elaborate among the pagan communities into which they spread. Bryan wrote: 11 [22] You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased: this is the best attested reading in the Greek manuscripts. The Western reading, "You are my Son, this day I have begotten you," is derived from Psalm 2:7.http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke3.htm The term “Best attested”, does not mean that this reading is the earliest, or most original version of the text! It simply means that there are more manuscripts with this reading in existence today, than any other alternative reading. It says nothing about how old they are. It says nothing about how many alternative variations once existed, or how common they once were relative to one another. The fact that we possess more examples of this reading is not at all surprising, considering that this is the version which the Catholic Church wished to preserve, and considering that being found to be in possession of ‘heretical’ scriptures was punishable by confiscation of property, torture, or death by hideous means. In view of these facts, it is not surprising that we currently possess a preponderance of the ‘orthodox’ version of this text. In the oldest surviving manuscripts of Luke’s gospel, the voice from God quotes the words of Psalm 2:7 "You are my Son, today I have begotten you". That’s a fact. Deal with it. Luke 3: 22 And the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." * *Footnote: Other ancient authorities read today I have begotten thee -Revised Standard Version Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2smart4u Posted August 22, 2007 Report Share Posted August 22, 2007 Bryan wrote:The adoptionist reading was attested as being present in both Matthew and Luke by the early Church theologians who quoted these gospels. Mark was written by a gentile, for a gentile audience, and contains mistakes in both Palestinian geography and customs, which no Jewish author is likely to have made. Both Luke and Matthew correct Mark in certain places where he got things wrong. If Mark had been written for non-Jewish, non Palestinian Christians (as most scholars believe), then it is not surprising that the subsequent Christian communities who used this gospel, may have tried to obscure the clearly adoptionist phraseology which can be found in all the gospels and epistles. The original Jerusalem Christians apparently used an earlier version of our gospel of Matthew, which did not include the virgin birth stories. “Their own [Ebionite] version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic in Palestine, as did his earliest followers. It would make sense that a group of Jewish followers of Jesus that originated in Palestine would continue to cite his words, and stories about him, in his native tongue. It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus' birth to a virgin - a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew's Gospel as well.” -Bart Ehrman, "Lost Christianities", p102 It’s strange that the Gospel of Mark begins at Jesus’ baptism and, ends with an empty tomb, isn’t it? If the doctrines of the virgin birth and bodily resurrection had been in vogue at the time when Mark wrote his gospel, then he was very remiss not to include them wasn’t he? The author of Mark obviously knew nothing of a virgin birth, or physical post resurrection appearances of Jesus, or he certainly would have included such important elements in his gospel. It is generally accepted among Bible scholars, that the post resurrection narratives in Mark were not part of the original document, but were added later. Many scholars believe that these stories must have also been added to the other gospels, as the Jesus legends grew steadily more elaborate among the pagan communities into which they spread. Bryan wrote: The term “Best attested”, does not mean that this reading is the earliest, or most original version of the text! It simply means that there are more manuscripts with this reading in existence today, than any other alternative reading. It says nothing about how old they are. It says nothing about how many alternative variations once existed, or how common they once were relative to one another. The fact that we possess more examples of this reading is not at all surprising, considering that this is the version which the Catholic Church wished to preserve, and considering that being found to be in possession of ‘heretical’ scriptures was punishable by confiscation of property, torture, or death by hideous means. In view of these facts, it is not surprising that we currently possess a preponderance of the ‘orthodox’ version of this text. In the oldest surviving manuscripts of Luke’s gospel, the voice from God quotes the words of Psalm 2:7 "You are my Son, today I have begotten you". That’s a fact. Deal with it. Luke 3: 22 And the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." * *Footnote: Other ancient authorities read today I have begotten thee -Revised Standard Version <{POST_SNAPBACK}> DingoBoy, put the computer away and go get your chores done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.