bch@unc.UUCP (07/19/83)
After being gone for two weeks my vt180 is suffering (if you'll pardon the expression) terminal meltdown. Goodness this group is heating up. The following is a reply to Larry Bickford, no doubt the first of many as I catch up. >Byron summarizes his own points: "...the oldest documents available omit >discussion of some of the most doctrinally crucial points of Christianity. >It is not unreasonable that later copyists of these versions would add and >embellish on the original to fit their own beliefs or to meet some standard >of doctrinal purity of the time." >1. Why are many crucial doctrines missing? Mark presents the Suffering >Servant in a gospel of action. The Roman culture would be bored stiff with >fulfillment of prophecy, but would pay attention to mighty deeds. Matthew, >Luke, and John (whom I strongly doubt relied at all on Mark) address >different facets of Jesus's ministry, and thus would need the details. >Still, Mark provides many of the crucial doctrines, including Jesus's claim >that he would rise from the dead, that Jesus indeed died, and that the tomb >he was laid in was empty three days later. In 16:7 Mark notes that Jesus >would indeed be seen "as He said unto you." Larry quotes me, then misunderstands me. (Remember this all started with reference to the resurrection.) What is missing from Mark is the nativity (the virgin birth) and the resurrection (in the sense that the tomb is only found empty, a fact that does not certify resurrection.) Both of these, as people keep insisting, are crucial to the doctrines of Christi- anity. I said "doctrinally crucial points" not crucial doctrines. If the resurrection is happened, and is crucial to Christianity then it should have been reported in the original Mark -- whether or not the Romans would be interested in it. >2. Did later copyists embellish (for their own or others' beliefs)? If they >did, they could have done a lot better job. The probability of a "political >document" would be essentially zero - the Christians had no chance of >establishing their own political entity by any means. By later copyists, we mean those in the first or second centuries. This is an accumulative process. The early Christian documents, as has been noted earlier in the net discussion, were subject to much review, acceptance, rejection and in some cases rewriting. Early Christianity was not a single people with a single set of beliefs. There were many Christian sects with many different sets of beliefs and traditions, as there are today. By political, we aren't talking about the Christians vs. the Romans or the Jews, but the political in-fighting amongst the various Christian sects. The New Testament is not a comprehensive set of documents covering all of Christianity, but a carefully selected set of documents representing the views of the apostolic Roman Church. The process of building the New Testa- ment was one *I* view as a political process, not divinely inspired. If it was, indeed, inspired then we had all better convert to Roman Catholicism post haste as the apostolics would have considered virtually all of the folks on the net who call themselves Christians as blasphemers and heretics. >3. Do the "oldest documents available omit discussion of some of the most >doctrinally crucial points of Christianity"? The letters to the Thessalonians >are considered older and very definitely mention the Resurrection. Further, >the crucial doctrines were already out in verbal form long before Mark's >gospel - the early church's constant sermon was "Jesus risen from the dead." I don't know what the early verbal traditions of the church were, and I'm fairly sure that you don't either. I am quoted slightly out of context here in that I was referring to the oldest documents (fragments) of Mark, the oldest of the synoptic Gospels, not simply the oldest documents. Paul is an interesting person, but he picked up virtually all of his information second or third hand. His preaching of the resurrection is the preaching of faith, not of fact. Mark, on the other hand, supposedly wrote down "all that Peter knew and told." >A couple of sidelights: Frank Morison ("Who Moved the Stone?") did his work >using only the "Marcan fragment," i.e., ending at Mark 16:8. An interesting >study is "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark" by John Burgon, one of the >indefatigable Bible scholars of the last century; he presents a very strong >case that Mark 16:9-20 are indeed authentic. We aren't talking esoteric theology here, the Oxford Annotated edition of the New English Bible allows that most biblical scholars agree that the verses of Mark beyond the discovery of the empty tomb are an addition to the original text. Obviously, some will disagree -- that is the nature of speculation. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill