Re: motivation analysis? ending of Mark, Pericope Adultera
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, schmuel <schmuel@...> wrote:
>Ending of Mark
> Hi Folks,
> > Subject was: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Incongruity in the Long
>to be a scribal addition .... the content is foreign to the Markan
> john1524wagner wrote:
> >I concur with the majority of scholars who consider Mark 16:9-20
theme and mostly closely resembles the theme of Paul or Luke, whose
doctrine is otherwise conspicuously absent from the gospels.
> >an essential factor in textual criticism. For example the addition
> >According to Bart Ehrman, discerning the motivation of scribes is
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'
> Where the analyst can pick and choose the 'motivation' that matcheshis preferences.
>by Augustine in the other direction. And he was likely working off
> And with the Pericope, we have a 'motivation analysis' from 400 AD
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).
>Augustine 'motivation' analysis.
> Question: what does Bart Ehrman say about the
> (No, I don't have the book).This looks like a 'motivation analysis of a motivation analysis'! LOL.
> Steven Avery
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.