Footnoting Two Videos "Erik vs Bart"

Ehrman EXPOSED: A Deceptive Gospel "Contradiction"
Testify, 7 April 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc2Im2T7ha4

2:15 I think I would disagree on the assessment of those being the most reliable manuscripts.

Early and reliable do not always match up.

The early manuscipts we still have are the early ones that survived for some reason.

Some cases, the reason may well be that the Church laid a specific text aside as a faulty copy. This is how I read the discovery story of the Sinaiticus. The monks said "we don't know what this is" ... this was taken as crass ignorance, they had a very old Bible manuscript and didn't recognise it was that.

I take it as what the monks there had been saying since a few decades after the Sinaiticus was written, since it came to the Sinai monastery : "we don't know what it is" = whether it qualifies as a Bible or not.

If a Bible is not opened for 1400 years, it's probably in a better shape than Bibles that continued to be opened, most of which got torn or worn pretty quickly, within a century or two.

— · — · — · — · — · —

But if we assume there really was a broken off narrative - it's probably where Mark ceased to take dictation from Peter who was reading alternatively from Matthew and Luke and adding here and there a remark of his own ...

The thing St. Peter thought marvellous was that there was such a harmony between Matthew and Luke, and Mark taking down dictation without noticing he was reading from two scrolls was the byproduct of that - this is obviously not the Augustinian narrative about the Synoptics, but the Stromatistic one ...

IF this is the reason for such a break off, it is possible that an already extant essay about the resurrection was added to it and some did not feel it belonged to the Gospel proper. But that too would be from the pen of St. Mark and mouth of St. Peter.

— · — · — · — · — · —

Biased Bart Ehrman Hits Irony Overload (ft. Tim McGrew)
Testify, 15 Nov. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfH0fO8Vzmg

Is this mostly about the Gospel of St. John and how the narrator (but mostly not Jesus) uses the word "Jews"?

In 90, on Patmos, the Jewish heritage Christian community that heard St. John got a message from Christ that their enemies in the ethnic Jewish community (at least locally) had gone so far that in the eyes of The King of the Jews Himself, they were not Jews.

In c. 100, in the Gospel, he is himself telling them by his word choice, that for social purposes, they nevertheless had to call their enemies "Jews" ...

I suppose getting harrassed by people first protecting you against the now Roman persecution, then asking if you were serious about being Christian, then delivering you to the Romans to get persecuted and eaten by lions would tend to foster a somewhat orrery "outgroup bias" against those Jews who were doing that, and who since Jamnia were claiming the name "Jews" for themselves.

— · — · — · — · — · —

11:32 The ones mocking Jesus, btw, I think the order is Matthew (30's / 40's), Mark and Luke (50's or 60's), John (c. 100), appear only in Matthew and Mark ...

I think the real point is, the audience is getting less Jewish, therefore less likely to pick up on the first words of Psalm 21 (22 in some Bibles).