|
Name: KRS •
Title: One leg of the argument based on a textual error •
Date posted: 03/05/07 4:40
|
Q: I haven't found a better spot to post this, if its in the wrong one, I apologize.
I checked my Greek New Testament on a few points, and it led to a major problem in the evidence compiled. The Name Yose is not actually found Mark 6:3, it seems to be a textual error for either Yoseph or Yosetos in the Byzantine family of Manuscripts (a relatively late family).
|
|
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/05/07 4:46 |
|
A: To explain that a bit more (since some people probably haven't studied New Testament Textual Criticism) this basically means that Mark wrote Yoseph or Yosetos, and a later scribe made an error and wrote Yose (as well as the other name cited). Yose has the least claim to authenticity, since it seems to be connected almost solely to the Byzantine text type. The Byzantine texttype is considered the least accurate by most New Testament scholars.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/05/07 14:02 |
A: Ah, I just double checked this, and I seem to have made an error (shows you what happens when you start working through Greek Texts at two in the morning). Yosetos was listed in BAGD as a genetive from Joses (which is more than a little odd, IMO, and I wish I had more time or more precisely a few resources, to check this out. I would have expected the genetival form to be something else, since it appears to be a first declension masculine noun, rather than a third declension noun).
At the same time, however, I found a second family that had three members from the tomb Mark 15:40, and this not the complete family, only three we know the names of. I'm curious if this affects the statistical argument, particularly since this includes the name noted as most unusual (though at least one scholar has apparently stated the opposite, and indicates that this was a common Galillian form of Yoseph, since its found in a few inscriptions in Galilee) - I can't argue to the statistical method used (since I am not a mathmatician - I did see several who noted problems in their work here, but I can't comment myself on the point).
Note, this doesn't mean I think they have proven their case, my respect for a person's scholarship drops for anyone who argues about the historical Jesus on the basis of anything found in Nag Hammadi, and I'm still not sure that its not Yoseph in the text.
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 03/05/07 14:16 |
A: What is wrong with Nag Hammadi? The texts are just as old (if not older) as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (4th century). The gnostic texts are beleived to originate from the 2nd century AD. That is a bit later than what is beleived to be the origin of the Synoptic Gospels, but also bears the advantage NOT to have been edited and revised by the modern church.
It's even contested whether the gospels are direct eyewitness accounts.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/05/07 16:49 |
|
A: There's a major flaw in your thesis, there isn't any evidence of a highly edited New Testament. The gnostic gospels are late second century or early third which makes them older than SIniaticus and Vaticanus, but not older than P66 or P68. P66 contains about half of Luke and John (due to the disrepair of the Manuscript) but it is very close to Vaticanus, and P68 is basically the same for Siniaticus in John. The departures from the second century Christian Manuscripts to the fourth century is so minute as to be insignificant.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/05/07 16:53 |
|
A: As for the gospel accounts, its contested that they aren't by eyewitnesses, with the exception of Luke who doesn't claim to be an eyewitness, but has been proven to be a first rate historian in the second volume of his work, the book of Acts. However, it hasn't been proven, and the arguments against the gospels are very hypothetical. The Gnostic gospels have basically been proven not to have been written by eyewitnesses.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/05/07 16:54 |
|
A: PS what you are describing with the manuscript evidence sounds more like the state of scholarship in the nineteenth century than the twentieth, you might want to update your sources.
|
|
Name: lightwoman •
Date: 03/09/07 7:23 |
A: It seems, then, the diminuitive nickname for (son) Joseph, whether it's Yose (as on the ossuary) or Joses as I've seen it in the NT or some other spelling variation, may have been common in Gallilee. Are there more experts who agree with this? But Jesus and his followers traveled to Jerusalem, including his family who remained there after Jesus' death - at least mother Mary and brother James did, we know; it's likely then any other family also remained. So it seems the filmmakers were pointing out that Yose was not a common nickname in Jerusalem, and that a Yose buried in Jerusalem was more likely to have originated from Gallilee... it's possible this Yose was from Jerusalem, but if the expert(s) is right, the odds then are more likely this Yose was from Gallilee, not Jerusalem originally.
Of course it still doesn't prove anything, but does add interest to the pot.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/09/07 20:09 |
|
A: We know it was common in Galilee (or at least not uncommon or rare), but we have no way of knowing if it was common in Jerusalem, or not, or precisely how popular it was. Someone named Joseph, who is commonly known as Joseh is far more likely to be referred to by his full given name in written materials or in inscriptions.
|
