Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> EDWARDS

> I've been reading an interesting (to me, anyway) book, The Orthodox

> Corruption of Scripture, by Bart Ehrman.  It might have even been someone

> on this list who recommended it.  Anyway, one of the author's examples

> involves the descriptions of the descent of the spirit following Jesus'

> baptism.  In Mark, we have the spirit descending "eis" (in/into) Jesus,

> while in Matthew and Luke, we have the spirit descending "epi" (on/onto)

> Jesus.  The Markan reading is consistent with the views of the

> Separationists, who believed that the divine Christ and the earthly Jesus

> were separate entities, and that the Christ entered Jesus upon baptism and

> departed prior to crucifixion.  Ehrman seems to be making the point that

> Mark's reading was changed in Luke and Matthew to combat the Separatist

> view, since there is little other reason to change "eis" to "epi". He also

> makes the case that "epi" is original to both Matthew and Luke.   This

> would imply that, at the time Matthew and Luke were written, (1) the

> Separationists had developed their ideas, (2) their ideas were well-known,

> and (3) these ideas were opposed in at least some (Ehrman refers to them

> as "proto-Orthodox) quarters.  Therefore, assuming (1) a historical Jesus,

> (2) a 30 CE or so crucifixion, and (3) a 75-90 CE composition date for

> Matthew, we have the occurrence not only of the Orthodox Christ myth, but

> the development of competing Christologies, conflict between the advocates

> of the different Christologies, and an apparently concerted effort to

> counter the heretical Christologies.  In some ways, it appears that we

> have a lot of things happening in what seems to me to be a relatively

> short time.  Any thoughts?

> 


Achilles̃

I certainly agree with your conclusion - one of the defects shared by 
conservative xtian positions on one hand, and the position of the jesus seminar 
on the other - is that both have to squeeze a lot of development into a short 
time. 

I won't say it's impossible, but it is certainly odd. 

Fundies often claim the time period is too short for legendary development, how 
then do they explain the success of teachers in Paul's time who were apparently 
teaching that the Christ had NOT been crucified? Why does it so often sound as 
though this is a doctrine of Paul which many contemporary christians found to 
be absurd or a stumbling block? If there isn't enough time for legend to 
develop, then why believe it was enough time for even a few xtians to have 
forget all about Jesus the man???

Furthermore, if we accept the earlier dates for GoT, we have a gnostic movement 
inside xtianity within about 30 years of christs supposed death - NOT >150 
years later when they begin to be mentioned by heresy hunters. 

It just seems like the earliest xtians are too diverse to fit the hyphothesis 
that their movement originated as a result of one man who died so few years 
previously, leading me to suspect that they may have been heirs to a tradition 
with a somewhat longer history, and/or heirs to more than one mostly unrelated 
traditions. 


/Achilles_     achillesz@usa.net

Random thought for the moment:

    Human bipolarity was both binding force and driving energy for
    all human behavior, from sonnets to nuclear equations. If any
    being thinks that human psychologists have exaggerated this,
    let it search Terran patent offices, libraries, and art galleries
    for the creations of eunuchs.
           -- from Stranger in a Strange Land

• Previous message: "Traditional Referentiality"
• Next message: Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]