Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: motivation analysis? ending of Mark, Pericope Adultera

Expand Messages
  • mr.scrivener
    ... Ending of Mark ... to be a scribal addition .... the content is foreign to the Markan theme and mostly closely resembles the theme of Paul or Luke, whose
    Message 1 of 20 , Mar 17, 2006
      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, schmuel <schmuel@...> wrote:
      > Hi Folks,
      > > Subject was: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Incongruity in the Long
      Ending of Mark
      > john1524wagner wrote:
      > >I concur with the majority of scholars who consider Mark 16:9-20
      to be a scribal addition .... the content is foreign to the Markan
      theme and mostly closely resembles the theme of Paul or Luke, whose
      doctrine is otherwise conspicuously absent from the gospels.
      > >
      > >According to Bart Ehrman, discerning the motivation of scribes is
      an essential factor in textual criticism. For example the addition
      of the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 can be attributed to
      scribes who wanted to soften the image of Jesus.
      > Yes, this is an EXCELLENT example.
      > Of the humongous pitfalls and perils of such 'motivation'
      analysis !
      > Where the analyst can pick and choose the 'motivation' that matches
      his preferences.
      > And with the Pericope, we have a 'motivation analysis' from 400 AD
      by Augustine in the other direction. And he was likely working off
      of first-person experience and/or primary sources. At face, of more
      textcrit value than Barts view, bringing his agnostic/atheist baggage
      to the fray. (You cannot separate beliefs from motivations).
      > Question: what does Bart Ehrman say about the
      Augustine 'motivation' analysis.
      > (No, I don't have the book).
      > Shalom,
      > Steven Avery
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

      This looks like a 'motivation analysis of a motivation analysis'! LOL.

      But Ehrman is extremely disappointing in his promotional
      (prewritten) 'interview', promoting his book (audio online here):


      Here he engages in a shockingly misleading presentation which leaves
      unwary non-textual-critics with the strong impression that the
      Pericope de Adultera was added in the twelfth century! He does this
      by presenting half-truths like "the Greek fathers don't mention it
      until the 12th century" and confusing the evidence from pre-4th
      century Egypt with the evidence (quite different) from the Byzantine
      period (5th to 15th century). This can't be accidental, and his
      credibility to anyone who knows the actual textual situation goes
      down the tubes, whatever position one takes. It's just a dishonest
      presentation, carefully spin-doctored.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.