/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Textual criticism is for flags and atheists

It's just speculation to think that the smallest text would equal the earliest.

Also the early church theologians explained that the ending was cut short, so when the gospel is finished, people in the congregation can speak out how they were saved by Christ.

>>700667

>>700672

>>700675

>Gets met with an argument they dont know how to answer

>Immediately accuses OP of being a Muzzie Fag

That Barabbas poster was right lol.

>>700677

Thank you for a sensible answer.

I thought Mark was proven to be the earliest? Because Luke and Matthew are based off of it. The open ending makes sense but I think we should have kept it that way in the modern Bible too.

>>700682

so were the prophets…what's your point

>>700679

>I'm not a muslim but a recent muslim troll is totally right lel

Anyways, read this:

https://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2017/04/irenaeus-and-mark-16.html

https://thetextualmechanic.blogspot.com/2016/04/did-justin-martyr-make-reference-to-mark.html

>>700679

The earliest sources regarding the canonicity of the gospels state that Matthew was the first, which makes sense because the book's audience is primarily Jewish that would've died during the 70AD war.

I suggest reading Michael Kruger's Canon Revisited (there are interviews of him on youtube if you're interested) for further details on the origination of the NT.

>>700664

>how'd they know

Mark's spurious ending (assuming its an interpolation) basically summarizes matthew and luke's endings.

Mark mentions:

>jesus planning to meet in galilee

>2 men seeing jesus on the road

>a meeting with the 11 discussing the great comission

>ascension

Matthew:

>jesus actually going to galilee

>great comission

>ascension from galilee

Luke:

>2 travellers (cleophas and his buddy on the road to emmaus)

>great comission to the 12

>ascension on the road to galilee at bethany. (The bethany bit is the most spurious of anything mentioned – the other synoptics and john all mention jesus in galilee; this excludes that)

If anything, because its different but also similar, even if it is spurious to the original mark, its still an independant witness to a fairly self-same synoptic post-resurrection tradition that echos in luke and matt. Basically, even if its an addition, its an addition of legit material.

>>700699

He's jokingly referring to the board owner for /v/ (also named Mark) who's a Jew. Note the :^)

tigga Mark says Jesus ressurected.he just cuts abruptly the things that followed, and another inspired writer wrote the rest.

Mark 16:1-8

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they come to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen. And they said one to another: Who shall roll us back the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And looking, they saw the stone rolled back. For it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed with a white robe: and they were astonished. Who saith to them: Be not affrighted. you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen: he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee. There you shall see him, as he told you. But they going out, fled from the sepulchre: for a trembling and fear had seized them. And they said nothing to any man: for they were afraid.

Only verse 9 afterwards is regarded by critics as not being written by Mark.

>>701769

Genesis 1 is an overall view from a universal perspective, Genesis 2 is from a more narrow humanistic perspective with more detail. They're complementary, not contradictory.

>>701851

thank you for this correction