Yet another very interesting episode. I love these interviews about specific subjects. Even mythvision doesn't really do this sort of thing at this level of detail.
Jacob, I hope you will invite Clare back to discuss her fascinating and compelling theory that "Q" began as a document about John the Baptist: (her book is titled: "Baptist Traditions and Q.")
@@mcosu1there's Dr McDonald's theory of Q+-which can still be harmonised with the good arguments for Luke using Canonical Gospel of Matthew. Papias blatantly says there were MANY greek translations of whatever the historical Matthew wrote in a semitic language (definitely not what Canonical Matthew is a direct translation of)
Burton Mack's Q approach is interesting (and compelling imho). It's largely based on the work of Kloppenborg and the Jesus seminar and it seems that James Tabor has a Q approach that mirrors Mack's. All this to say that I don't think whether Q existed is a binary question. Like most texts it may have been composed and expanded gradually, with variant versions etc. It may not have even been a single text, and it may have been an even fuller text than we recognise, if the author of Mark had access to a version of it. Tabor and Mack both specifically point out the John the baptist material in Q, though, and imho whether the author of Mark had access makes a big difference since John the baptist is the first character to appear in that gospel, and is an important figure in the context of the narrative.
Early church father Oregin believed the book of Hebrews was written by Paul originally in Hebrew. This adds to the theory that Hebrews , James , 1-2 Peter may have been excluded because they could have been written in Hebrew .
Marcion (of Pontus) was an opponent of Christianity, who "was a Christian heretic. Although Marcion is known only through reports and quotations from his orthodox opponents, especially Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem (“Against Marcion”), the principal outlines of his teaching seem clear. His teaching made a radical distinction between the God of the Old Testament (the Creator) and the Father of Jesus Christ (the God of Love)." "Sometime after his arrival in Rome, Marcion fell under the influence of Cerdo, a gnostic Christian who held that the God of the Old Testament embodied justice while the God of the New Testament embodied goodness, and further developed this ideology." "According to Marcion, that distinction had been obscured at the very earliest stages of the Christian movement, and, among the Apostles, only St. Paul had understood it. Because the corruptions that had consequently been introduced into the life and message of the church and into the very text of the New Testament (in his mind) had to be expunged, Marcion edited his OWN versions of the biblical books......" "Marcion was excommunicated from the church in 144 as a heretic, but the Marcionite movement he headed became both widespread and powerful."(online Encyclopedia Britannica) The June 22, 1989 Awake !, under "Samples of Gnostic Belief ", made this comment: "Marcion (second century) differentiated between an imperfect “Old Testament” God inferior to Jesus and Jesus’ Father, the unknown “New Testament” God of love." "The idea of an “unknown god is a fundamental theme of gnosticism,” explains The Encyclopedia of Religion. This unknown god is identified as “the supreme Intellect, inaccessible to the human intellect.” The creator of the material world, on the other hand, is inferior and not absolutely intelligent and is known as the Demiurge." The book "All Scriptures" (pub in 1990 C.E.), said that "it was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept." "Marcion constructed his OWN canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical."(see 1 Tim 6:20, 21) The Sept 1st, 2007 Watchtower said this: "Less than 50 years after the apostle John’s death in about 100 C.E., a rich young man named Marcion publicly asserted that the Old Testament should be rejected by Christians. According to English historian Robin Lane Fox, Marcion argued that “‘God’ in the Old Testament was a ‘committed barbarian’ who favoured bandits and such terrorists as Israel’s King David." "Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God.” Fox writes that these beliefs “became ‘Marcionism’ and continued to attract followers, especially in the Syriac-speaking East, far into the fourth century." One final comment is that the "God of the Old Testament" is the same "God of the New Testament", or accurately stated as "the God of the Hebrew Scriptures " is the same "God of the Christian Greek Scriptures", in which the Bible is just ONE book, for when a person comes to KNOW God (see John 17:3), whose name is Jehovah (see Ex 6:3, KJV), they realize that he is a "God of faithfulness, who is NEVER unjust."(Deut 32:4; 2013 New World Translation; see also John 5:30)
@@termsofusepolice Or the canon wasn't conceived as a 'list' because closeness to the apostolic age rendered the authentic easily, universally acknowledgeable. Of course there was a general consensus based upon what was agreed upon to be included as liturgical readings, read, aporeciated as truth. Do you think such a consensus didn't exist BEFORE it was written down? And then became a consensus AFTER it was written down??? Lol. Duh. (Read "Shape of the Liturgy" by Dom Gregory Dix.)
Here is some information about the Muratorian fragment, that was published in the Watchtower magazine (Feb 15, 2006, published by Jehovah's Witnesses), that may help sincere individuals in understanding more of what it is. The article says that "the Muratorian Fragment is part of a manuscript codex of 76 parchment leaves, each measuring 11 by 7 inches [27 by 17 cm]" or just slightly smaller than the standard size of "notebook paper", which is 8.5 inches. X 11 inches. "Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672-1750), a distinguished Italian historian, discovered it in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy. Muratori published his find in 1740, thus its name-Muratorian Fragment. It seems that the codex was produced in the eighth century in the ancient monastery of Bobbio, near Piacenza, northern Italy. It was moved to the Ambrosian Library at the beginning of the 17th century." "The Muratorian Fragment consists of 85 lines of text found on leaves 10 and 11 of the codex. The text is in Latin, evidently copied by a scribe who was not very careful. But some of his errors have been identified by comparing it with the same text included in four 11th- and 12th-century manuscripts........It seems that the original was composed in Greek many centuries before the Fragment text, which is a Latin translation of the Greek." "Here is a clue that helps in dating the original. The Fragment mentions a non-Biblical book, the Shepherd, and states that a man named Hermas wrote it “very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome.” Scholars date the final writing of Hermas’ Shepherd between 140 and 155 C.E. Thus, you can see why the Greek-language original of the Latin Muratorian Fragment is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E." "The direct and indirect references to Rome suggest that it could have been composed in that city. But the identification of the author is debated. Clement of Alexandria, Melito of Sardis, and Polycrates of Ephesus have been suggested. Most scholars, however, point to Hippolytus, a prolific author who wrote in Greek and lived in Rome during the period in which the contents of the Muratorian Fragment were likely composed." "The text is not merely a list of the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures (commonly but inaccurately referred to as "the New Testament", my addition). It also comments on the books and their respective writers. If you read the text, you would see that the first lines of the manuscript are missing, and it also seems to end abruptly." "It starts by mentioning the Gospel of Luke, and the document states that the writer of this Bible book was a physician. (Colossians 4:14) It states that Luke’s is the third Gospel, so you can see that the missing initial part likely made reference to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. If that is your conclusion, you would find support in the Muratorian Fragment, which says that the fourth Gospel is that of John." "The Fragment confirms that the book of Acts of Apostles was written by Luke for the “most excellent Theophilus.” (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Then it goes on to list the letters of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians (two), to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Galatians, to the Thessalonians (two), to the Romans, to Philemon, to Titus, and to Timothy (two)." "The letter of Jude and two letters of John are also mentioned as inspired books. The apostle John’s first letter was already alluded to, along with his Gospel. Apocalypse, or Revelation, concludes the list of the books considered inspired." "It is significant that the Fragment mentions an Apocalypse of Peter but states that some felt that it should not be read by Christians. The writer warns that counterfeit writings were already circulating in his day. The Muratorian Fragment explains that these should not be accepted, “for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.” "The document also mentions other texts that were not to be included among the holy writings. That was either because they were written after the apostolic period, as was the Shepherd of Hermas, or because they were written to support heresies." "You may have observed from the foregoing that the letter to the Hebrews, Peter’s two letters, and that of James are not mentioned in this catalog of authentic Bible books. However, noting the workmanship of the scribe who copied the manuscript, Dr. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman observed that it is “reasonable to suggest that the Fragment may have contained other references now lost, and that James and Hebrews (and 1 Peter) may have been among them.”-The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon." "The Muratorian Fragment thus confirms that most of the books now found in the Christian Greek Scriptures were already considered canonical in the second century C.E. Of course, the canonicity of the Bible books-that is, their right to be included in the divine library-does not depend on their being mentioned in a certain ancient list." "What gives evidence that the Bible’s books are the product of holy spirit is their content. They all support the authorship of Jehovah God (see Ex 6:3, KJV) and are in complete harmony. The harmony and balance of the 66 canonical books of the Bible testify to their unity and completeness. Thus, (a sincere person should) accept them for what they truthfully are, Jehovah’s Word of inspired truth, preserved until our day.-1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17."
Affiliate Link: amzn.to/4f3oLFt
Do invite her back. She has much to offer.
Excellent interview.
Yet another very interesting episode. I love these interviews about specific subjects. Even mythvision doesn't really do this sort of thing at this level of detail.
Jacob is the best
Jacob, I hope you will invite Clare back to discuss her fascinating and compelling theory that "Q" began as a document about John the Baptist: (her book is titled: "Baptist Traditions and Q.")
Interesting. I wonder how many Jesus traditions originated with John. The problem is that there may not be a Q
@@mcosu1there's Dr McDonald's theory of Q+-which can still be harmonised with the good arguments for Luke using Canonical Gospel of Matthew. Papias blatantly says there were MANY greek translations of whatever the historical Matthew wrote in a semitic language (definitely not what Canonical Matthew is a direct translation of)
Burton Mack's Q approach is interesting (and compelling imho). It's largely based on the work of Kloppenborg and the Jesus seminar and it seems that James Tabor has a Q approach that mirrors Mack's.
All this to say that I don't think whether Q existed is a binary question. Like most texts it may have been composed and expanded gradually, with variant versions etc. It may not have even been a single text, and it may have been an even fuller text than we recognise, if the author of Mark had access to a version of it.
Tabor and Mack both specifically point out the John the baptist material in Q, though, and imho whether the author of Mark had access makes a big difference since John the baptist is the first character to appear in that gospel, and is an important figure in the context of the narrative.
Thank you Dr Rothsch, thank you Jacob. Very educational
Thanks for an interesting interview. This is new territory for me.
Great interview. Please invite her back for a longer talk!
Incredibly interesting. Thank you.
Excellent content
Love to hear her ideas on her latest project “ The Epistle of Barnabas “..
Early church father Oregin believed the book of Hebrews was written by Paul originally in Hebrew.
This adds to the theory that Hebrews , James , 1-2 Peter may have been excluded because they could have been written in Hebrew .
Very interesting! Would not Marcion's canon list be dated earlier?
Marcion (of Pontus) was an opponent of Christianity, who "was a Christian heretic. Although Marcion is known only through reports and quotations from his orthodox opponents, especially Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem (“Against Marcion”), the principal outlines of his teaching seem clear. His teaching made a radical distinction between the God of the Old Testament (the Creator) and the Father of Jesus Christ (the God of Love)."
"Sometime after his arrival in Rome, Marcion fell under the influence of Cerdo, a gnostic Christian who held that the God of the Old Testament embodied justice while the God of the New Testament embodied goodness, and further developed this ideology."
"According to Marcion, that distinction had been obscured at the very earliest stages of the Christian movement, and, among the Apostles, only St. Paul had understood it. Because the corruptions that had consequently been introduced into the life and message of the church and into the very text of the New Testament (in his mind) had to be expunged, Marcion edited his OWN versions of the biblical books......"
"Marcion was excommunicated from the church in 144 as a heretic, but the Marcionite movement he headed became both widespread and powerful."(online Encyclopedia Britannica)
The June 22, 1989 Awake !, under "Samples of Gnostic Belief ", made this comment: "Marcion (second century) differentiated between an imperfect “Old Testament” God inferior to Jesus and Jesus’ Father, the unknown “New Testament” God of love."
"The idea of an “unknown god is a fundamental theme of gnosticism,” explains The Encyclopedia of Religion. This unknown god is identified as “the supreme Intellect, inaccessible to the human intellect.” The creator of the material world, on the other hand, is inferior and not absolutely intelligent and is known as the Demiurge."
The book "All Scriptures" (pub in 1990 C.E.), said that "it was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept."
"Marcion constructed his OWN canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical."(see 1 Tim 6:20, 21)
The Sept 1st, 2007 Watchtower said this: "Less than 50 years after the apostle John’s death in about 100 C.E., a rich young man named Marcion publicly asserted that the Old Testament should be rejected by Christians. According to English historian Robin Lane Fox, Marcion argued that “‘God’ in the Old Testament was a ‘committed barbarian’ who favoured bandits and such terrorists as Israel’s King David."
"Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God.” Fox writes that these beliefs “became ‘Marcionism’ and continued to attract followers, especially in the Syriac-speaking East, far into the fourth century."
One final comment is that the "God of the Old Testament" is the same "God of the New Testament", or accurately stated as "the God of the Hebrew Scriptures " is the same "God of the Christian Greek Scriptures", in which the Bible is just ONE book, for when a person comes to KNOW God (see John 17:3), whose name is Jehovah (see Ex 6:3, KJV), they realize that he is a "God of faithfulness, who is NEVER unjust."(Deut 32:4; 2013 New World Translation; see also John 5:30)
Muratorian wasn't "the first canon." It's just the earliest we know of written down. Down beclown ypurselves a la Ehrman
So there were earlier NT canon lists in circulation... we just have no evidence of their existence because they weren't written down. lol
@@termsofusepolice Or the canon wasn't conceived as a 'list' because closeness to the apostolic age rendered the authentic easily, universally acknowledgeable.
Of course there was a general consensus based upon what was agreed upon to be included as liturgical readings, read, aporeciated as truth. Do you think such a consensus didn't exist BEFORE it was written down? And then became a consensus AFTER it was written down??? Lol. Duh.
(Read "Shape of the Liturgy" by Dom Gregory Dix.)
See- "The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake"
Here is some information about the Muratorian fragment, that was published in the Watchtower magazine (Feb 15, 2006, published by Jehovah's Witnesses), that may help sincere individuals in understanding more of what it is.
The article says that "the Muratorian Fragment is part of a manuscript codex of 76 parchment leaves, each measuring 11 by 7 inches [27 by 17 cm]" or just slightly smaller than the standard size of "notebook paper", which is 8.5 inches. X 11 inches.
"Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672-1750), a distinguished Italian historian, discovered it in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy. Muratori published his find in 1740, thus its name-Muratorian Fragment. It seems that the codex was produced in the eighth century in the ancient monastery of Bobbio, near Piacenza, northern Italy. It was moved to the Ambrosian Library at the beginning of the 17th century."
"The Muratorian Fragment consists of 85 lines of text found on leaves 10 and 11 of the codex. The text is in Latin, evidently copied by a scribe who was not very careful. But some of his errors have been identified by comparing it with the same text included in four 11th- and 12th-century manuscripts........It seems that the original was composed in Greek many centuries before the Fragment text, which is a Latin translation of the Greek."
"Here is a clue that helps in dating the original. The Fragment mentions a non-Biblical book, the Shepherd, and states that a man named Hermas wrote it “very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome.” Scholars date the final writing of Hermas’ Shepherd between 140 and 155 C.E. Thus, you can see why the Greek-language original of the Latin Muratorian Fragment is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E."
"The direct and indirect references to Rome suggest that it could have been composed in that city. But the identification of the author is debated. Clement of Alexandria, Melito of Sardis, and Polycrates of Ephesus have been suggested. Most scholars, however, point to Hippolytus, a prolific author who wrote in Greek and lived in Rome during the period in which the contents of the Muratorian Fragment were likely composed."
"The text is not merely a list of the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures (commonly but inaccurately referred to as "the New Testament", my addition). It also comments on the books and their respective writers. If you read the text, you would see that the first lines of the manuscript are missing, and it also seems to end abruptly."
"It starts by mentioning the Gospel of Luke, and the document states that the writer of this Bible book was a physician. (Colossians 4:14) It states that Luke’s is the third Gospel, so you can see that the missing initial part likely made reference to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. If that is your conclusion, you would find support in the Muratorian Fragment, which says that the fourth Gospel is that of John."
"The Fragment confirms that the book of Acts of Apostles was written by Luke for the “most excellent Theophilus.” (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Then it goes on to list the letters of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians (two), to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Galatians, to the Thessalonians (two), to the Romans, to Philemon, to Titus, and to Timothy (two)."
"The letter of Jude and two letters of John are also mentioned as inspired books. The apostle John’s first letter was already alluded to, along with his Gospel. Apocalypse, or Revelation, concludes the list of the books considered inspired."
"It is significant that the Fragment mentions an Apocalypse of Peter but states that some felt that it should not be read by Christians. The writer warns that counterfeit writings were already circulating in his day. The Muratorian Fragment explains that these should not be accepted, “for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.”
"The document also mentions other texts that were not to be included among the holy writings. That was either because they were written after the apostolic period, as was the Shepherd of Hermas, or because they were written to support heresies."
"You may have observed from the foregoing that the letter to the Hebrews, Peter’s two letters, and that of James are not mentioned in this catalog of authentic Bible books. However, noting the workmanship of the scribe who copied the manuscript, Dr. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman observed that it is “reasonable to suggest that the Fragment may have contained other references now lost, and that James and Hebrews (and 1 Peter) may have been among them.”-The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon."
"The Muratorian Fragment thus confirms that most of the books now found in the Christian Greek Scriptures were already considered canonical in the second century C.E. Of course, the canonicity of the Bible books-that is, their right to be included in the divine library-does not depend on their being mentioned in a certain ancient list."
"What gives evidence that the Bible’s books are the product of holy spirit is their content. They all support the authorship of Jehovah God (see Ex 6:3, KJV) and are in complete harmony. The harmony and balance of the 66 canonical books of the Bible testify to their unity and completeness. Thus, (a sincere person should) accept them for what they truthfully are, Jehovah’s Word of inspired truth, preserved until our day.-1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17."