Orthodoxy & Scripture 2: Writing the New Testament

[Antonysmarvels]

Marcium in 139 ad forced the Christians to move from the vengefull Jewish god of the old testament to a loving god of Jesus, His great two literary works, the Antithesis and later the Canon of books {which later become the new testament...

[protochris]

I don't know why people always use the "eye of the needle" quote to prove the translation was first in Aramaic. The words in NT Greek are very close: kamila for Camel and Kamilo for rope or cable. The confusion was created from the Greek, not the Aramaic. It's probably that the word Kamilo was used for rope and someone confused it with a male camel.

[Wh47n0w1517]

@protochris

The more logical would be the Camel and not the Rope. The eye of the needle was a gate and where the Camel could not carry anything so it could enter through the gate, the Camel had to be off loaded to enter through the gate. Think about what Jesus was telling the rich man to do before following him.

[trotsafrikaner]

Great video! God bless!

[greglee20]

There is good reason to believe that Revelation was written before 70 AD. A great defense of this is by Kenneth Gentry "Before Jerusalem Fell". There are other scholars who have believed this as well. Manly because of the internal evidence.

[davidpwithun]

@greglee20  I've seen some of the arguments before, and I think there are some good reasons, but I'm not convinced yet. I'll check out the book you recommended. Thanks!

[psevdhome]

By the way you are slightly wrong about Revelations not being included in the lectionary. Because it is marked as the "Great Reading" for some feasts. The Great Reading is probably most familiar to us from the night of Easter, when the Acts of the Apostles are read in their entirety. I do not know if you are familiar with this custom, but here in Finland we do practise it. It is quite solemn actually and a great way to spend the fast before the Easter service too ;) Thanks for a great video!!!

[davidpwithun]

I appreciate that correction. I found out about the Finnish Church's use of the Apocalypse after I made this video.  The Coptic Church, I've read since I made this video, has a tradition very similar to that as well. The omission wasn't intentional, believe me!

[psevdhome]

I didn't say we read the Apocalypse actually, and I'm not aware that it is read anywhere, my point was that it is a designated reading for some feasts, though I do not know which. What I meant when I mentioned my church's custom, was that we read the Acts of the Apostles on Easter, after vespers but before matins, entirely, and the apocalypse is designated by the typikon to be read in a similar fashion, but I donät know on which feast. If I find it out, I shall tell you.

[HighCarro]

Speaking of dates!

I believe that Marks gospel was written down within 37 AD! This is because Mark never named Caiaphas by name, he only said high priest! I believe that Caiaphas was High priest under the time Mark wrote the gospel! And thats why Mark never named him by name!

[davidpwithun]

Very interesting; I'll have to look into it more. Thanks for posting this!

[HighCarro]

You are welcome!:) Search for Rudolf Pesh, it was he who came up with this theory! =) Sorry for my English, But I hope that you understand me!:P

God bless you!

[davidpwithun]

I think Matthew is the only one written entirely in Aramaic. Others include various Aramaic expressions ("Maranatha" is one of the most prevalent) and Semitic phrases, expressions, and ideas, but were not necessarily written in a Semitic language.

[poolerboy0077]

You start your video by asserting that the majority of scholars accept Markan priority. How can you possibly claim to know what the majority of scholars accept?

[davidpwithun]

Because I keep updated on current scholarly works and research. The current near-consensus is for Markan priority. I actually say in my video that I disagree with the scholarly consensus, so it's actually an argument against my own position that a clear majority of scholars opposite it.

[poolerboy0077]

Right but my question is how do you know the consensus? Is there some kind of survey or opinion poll? Or are you taking a few scholars' words on what the consensus is?

[davidpwithun]

I'd say it's pretty much common knowledge at this point. You're basically asking me why I think the sky is blue. All I can do is tell you to step outside and look up. That's the case here -- do the research. Take a look at the scholars for yourself and tell me what you think.

And I still have to wonder why this matters? I wasn't using scholarly consensus to bolster my own thoughts on the subject, but to present a balanced argument against them.

[maghdhd]

Thanks for the videos. They were both very clear and to the point..

[thekingmaker10]

Please speak more on Markan Priority, and specifically whether you think there is any credence to the idea of a "Q Gospel".

Also, please touch on the ending of Mark's Gospel, and which, in your opinion is the legitimate ending.

[davidpwithun]

My problem with Markan priority is that it seems to be based on a lot of questionable assumptions, such as that the Gospel of Mark must date to after AD 70 because it contains a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (which happened in that year). This, of course, entirely discounts the possibility of that statement actually being a prophecy as it claims to be. Basically, the scholars who support Markan priority seem to automatically dismiss the possibility of Christ's Truth and Divinity.

[thekingmaker10]

I discussed Markan Priority with my pastor, and he said that most scholars accept it because Mark is more rudimentary in general, and is just a "no frills" narrative. He also said that while a majority of scholars accept Markan Priority, those also accepting the existence of a "Q Gospel" are clearly a minority.

[davidpwithun]

Your pastor is correct about Mark being a little abbreviated and this being one of the main arguments for Markan priority. So far as I have seen, though, it seems to be a majority of scholars who accept a Q Gospel. There is the theory of an early Passion Narrative and Birth Narrative which often go along with Q Gospel theories that are very hotly debated, though. In the end, I think these are all ways to dodge around the evidence that points to Matthean priority.

[thekingmaker10]

I also notice this about some scholars. When they use Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple as a basis for a date written subsequent to the event, then they must be saying the Gospel is a lie. There is no other way to see it. It clearly states that Jesus predicted this 40 years before it happened. They are claiming that Jesus did not say it, because if he did, then the date the temple was actually destroyed is irrelevant because it gospel could have been as soon as he uttered it.

[davidpwithun]

Exactly. I agree with you completely, which is why I automatically throw arguments like that in the garbage. Unfortunately, a lot of modern Biblical scholarship is based on the logical fallacy of assuming what you want to prove. They all start with presumptions and most of those assumptions have an inherent anti-Christian bias.

[davidpwithun]

The Gospel of Q seems to me to primarily be a way of explaining away, or dodging around, the inconsistencies and issues that holding to Markan priority creates. I think that it also buys into the famous "historian's bias," namely, their unavoidable over-reliance on texts. This reliance is understandable, as texts (and a little archeology) are all we have to work with, but the problem is attributing too much importance to texts (vs. oral traditions) when reconstructing an illiterate world.

[davidpwithun]

On the ending of the Gospel of St. Mark: I think it's doubtful that either ending is the original one written (or intended) by Mark. I think Bruce Metzger's theory that the original ending of Mark was lost is probably the best theory. V.8 is clearly not the end of the Gospel; even in English it's an uncomfortable ending, but in Greek it's like stopping mid-sentence. Although the current arguments and evidence are hardly conclusive, it is doubtful that Mark 16:9-20 was the original ending.

[davidpwithun]

I also want to add that, in spite of the fact that it is probably not original to St. Mark himself, it was most certainly added very early, at least in the manuscripts of Alexandrian origin. It is also an undoubted part of Holy Scripture due to its acceptance by the Church as such. The Holy Spirit guides the Church (John 16:13, etc.), and the Church has long accepted these verses as divinely inspired Holy Scripture. These verses are read at Matins on Ascension Thursday in the Orthodox Church.

[thekingmaker10]

I have actually seen Bibles that do not include verses 9 - 16. The one I use includes these verses, as well an additional, shorter ending that appears in some manuscripts, but it footnotes both of them as being disputed as to their inclusion in the original text.

[davidpwithun]

That's very sad that some Bibles are now not including those verses. The footnote doesn't sound bad, but I think it's important, as I've said previously, to acknowledge that these verses are Scripture whether they were in St. Mark's original or not. Calling them into question now, after Christians have used them for about 1700 years, seems a little suspicious; it casts doubt on the rest of Scripture, in some ways. That's why I think we need to be careful when declaring doubt of these verses.

[thekingmaker10]

I am not certain I completely agree that we can know with a text is inspired simply because a particular church group accepts it. Remember, there are over 2 billion Christians on Earth, less than 10% of whom are members of an Orthodox patriarchate. I recognize orthodoxy as the most original form of Christianity, but I don't believe they are the only Christians. Also, there is a big difference between the Holy Spirit "guiding us" versus "dictating every single thing we do". Your thoughts?

[davidpwithun]

I understand your concerns. When I say "the Church" in my statement, I am referring to the Orthodox Church, sure, but, at that time, the Orthodox Church was pretty much the only Church (the Roman Catholics hadn't broken off yet and, obviously, the Protestants hadn't broken from the Roman Catholics yet either). So we're not talking about a "particular church group" but THE Church, as yet without any major schisms or divisions (I'm oversimplifying a bit, but I hope you understand).

[davidpwithun]

Maybe a good way to think about it is: these verses were accepted as Scripture by Christians before the majority of Christians accepted the Revelation of John.

I think maybe this will be a little easier to explain once I finish my next video, which is going to talk about the formation of the canon of the New Testament... basically, who decided what would be in and what out and how and why they made those decisions. You might be surprised at some of the history of the Bible that I"ll cover.

[davidpwithun]

I think your numbering is off a little, too. Orthodox make up about 15-20% of Christians. No big deal. :) Thank you very much for your thoughts, again. I think you'll really enjoy my next video.

[OrthodoxyIsTruth]

Rated, favorited, and commented!

Glad I found your channel.

God Bless.

[davidpwithun]

Thanks very much!

[davidpwithun]

I also want to point out that I just realized I put the wrong date for the martyrdoms of Sts. Peter and Paul. The year should be 67, not 62. St. James the Just was martyred in 62. I apologize for the mix up.

[davidpwithun]

Wow; this is very interesting. I appreciate you posting this here and I hope the people who watch my video will read your comments. I will definitely get a hold of a copy of the book you recommend. I am familiar with a debate amongst scholars about Revelation's dating being either late 60s or late 90s; Irenaeus' remarks have always been the deal-closer for me, but a reinterpretation of them may very well sway me in the other direction. Again, thanks very much for these comments!