The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon
 


Actually Irenaeus's volume 1 is an assault on Gnosticism. And it's a classic that has been used for centuries by theologians and scholars.


I know this...

Though it seems Irenaeus was against anyone that did not preach the same doctrine as he...

In his writing on Marcion, Irenaeus whines about Marcion removing the geneology of Jesus from his version of Luke... Perhaps that is because Lukes version doesn't line up with others...

Luke lists over 70 generations... Matthew only lists 42...

And this...

Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself.


As you know i also believe the OT God is not the same as the one true God Jesus spoke of...

Obviously this belief Marcion had stemmed from this passage...

5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

SO...

Again i ask... Are the early church "Fathers" trustable? Knowing full well that they have likely ordered executions of the worst kind against these people just because of a different point of view?





posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Well yeah, false doctrine leads people astray. Its dangerous, of course he was rabidly against it. He was twice removed from the apostle John. His spiritual father was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and a matryr for the faith. And Polycarp was the direct disciple of John. I don't care who you are today your seminary or theological school isnt that good. Lol



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

He was twice removed from the apostle John. His spiritual father was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and a matryr for the faith. And Polycarp was the direct disciple of John. I don't care who you are today your seminary or theological school isnt that good.


Polycarp does not quote from the Gospel of John in his surviving letter, which may be an indication that whichever John he knew was not the author of that gospel, or that the gospel was not finished during Polycarp's discipleship with John.
Polycarp

It is recorded by Irenaeus, who heard him speak in his youth, and by Tertullian, that he had been a disciple of John the Apostle.
Polycarp
Irenaeus was not a disciple of Polycarp, but just someone who heard him speaking.
Polycarp may have mentioned someone named John but there is nothing to indicate it was the Apostle John.
Apostolic Succession was a later invention, so Policarp would not have been making such a big deal out of who he knew, if he had actually known the Apostle John, unlike the later bishops such as Irenaeus, who were obsessed with proving their legitimacy.
edit on 19-6-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


(First paragraph)


Irenaeus

P.S. Make aure to check out the portion under the subheading "apostolic authority".


1st semester seminary students call all tell you who John's disciple was. Why are you so raging pissed that Marcion was a heretic? Why do you care?

edit on 19-6-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Make aure to check out the portion under the subheading "apostolic authority".
Irenaeus was later than Polycarp. By the time Irenaeus was Bishop, there was the idea of Apostolic Succession, which he used to support his own authority.

1st semester seminary students call all tell you who John's disciple was.
In your opinion. How many semesters of seminary did you take to know this, or is this just a phrase to demean people that you picked up from one of your cult leader's YouTube videos?

Why are you so *** *** that Marcion was a heretic? Why do you care?
What I care is that you take him and invent (actually, stole and claim as your own invention) this theory how you link Marcion to the NT texts that are used for figuring out the proper reading, or figuring out what the original probably was.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Just goes to show that the bible is not God's infallible word if it has missing sections and mistranslations. Plus all four gospels contradict each other, John being the worst as Jesus refers to himself as both equal to God and less than God.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Jules
Just goes to show that the bible is not God's infallible word if it has missing sections and mistranslations. Plus all four gospels contradict each other, John being the worst as Jesus refers to himself as both equal to God and less than God.


Actually you're wrong on that last statement...

Jesus never once makes himself equal with God...

Paul made Jesus equal with God, and John made the statement in narration....read john 5

Jesus did not... ever

He knew better...




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

Paul made Jesus equal with God

If you mean Acts, you should say, "Paul, according to whoever wrote Acts".
I am not aware of Paul, in his own writings, equating Jesus with God.
In Philippians, Paul says that Jesus found himself in the form of god, then emptied himself to be one who was subservient to God.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon
 

Paul made Jesus equal with God

If you mean Acts, you should say, "Paul, according to whoever wrote Acts".
I am not aware of Paul, in his own writings, equating Jesus with God.
In Philippians, Paul says that Jesus found himself in the form of god, then emptied himself to be one who was subservient to God.


Not in acts...

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

That... is a straight up lie..




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

That... is a straight up lie..

So, according to you, Jesus could never have been "in the form of God", whatever that means exactly?
That fits with Hebrews 1, where it says that the son existed in heaven with God before the world, as the "reflection" of God.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon
 

That... is a straight up lie..

So, according to you, Jesus could never have been "in the form of God", whatever that means exactly?
That fits with Hebrews 1, where it says that the son existed in heaven with God before the world, as the "reflection" of God.


I suppose that depends on what one believes is true...

In Genesis it says we are made in the "form" or image of "God"... But i'm not a fan of Genesis

And besides its not that part of the verse im speaking of... At least that part holds true according to Genesis..

Jesus never made himself equal with God... he always says God is greater then himself...

Same as he never claimed to be God... but the son of God

Though i also believe that verse in Hebrews as well... Because how else would he have the knowledge he had even from an early age... In that same book from Irenaus even he said "Jesus taught from the age of 12"... this idea was also found in many other ancient writings of the time... and even earlier... the "infancy gospels" are an interesting read on the subject actually.

Jesus was the son of God, in that he "remembered" being with the Father... the true God. This is why he could not dismiss anything he knew as truth... He lacked the ability to lie because he knew the truth from the father...

He kept his memory when he incarnated into this life... no one else does...




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


What the original was? What the... *bangs head on wall*

I HAVE THE BOOK! How many times do I need to say that before your brain processes the information? Anyone can get the same book for less than 30$ on Amazon. And no kidding Irenaeus came after Polycarp, I said that twice in this thread already. What flavor of crack are you smoking man? Sorry, random internet theologian, Irenaeus swings a MUUUUUCH heavier bat than you do. I'm gonna stick with what he has to say.

Be mad, I don't care. You're totally trolling. Now you're repeating info I have posted multiple times.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
The Textus Receptus is the most logical explanation that I have observed in my 83 years of life. Yes it is true that there are older manuscripts than what is being used today in many bibles but after weighing the balance of this old argument consider this. There are well over 5000 Greek manuscripts used in the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) and most all major points of literature are in agreement with this Majority of the Greek Texts.

William Tyndale understood and wrote eight languages. He was so proficient in each of the eight languages it was as though each language was his birth place. Tyndale translated from the Textus Receptus the first new testament from Greek to English. His work stands today as the most accurate of all English bibles. In fact I use the Geneva 1560 bible today as my study bible. The Geneva 1560 bible is a mirror of the Tyndale new testament as well as the 1611 King James bible.

Now what is my point here? My point is that oldest is not necessarily the most accurate. A manuscript of these proportions takes many hours of scribal work and proof reading and when you can produce over 5000 thousand pieces of scribal work that agree what would your verdict be? The manuscripts that Wescott and Hort used had many blatant errors and did not agree with each other much less the Majority Text. They were also believed to be the product of Gnostic tampering to discredit the deity of Jesus. As you well know the Gnostic's hated the doctrine of Christ Jesus and this is where the verses of Mark were stricken out of his literature.

Martin Luther wanted to remove entire books from the cannon of the New Testament but did not have his way with his tampering and looking at Luther and his hatred for certain books of the bible shows me that the Gnostic's were of the same temperament and were as guilty in deed as Luther was in his mind. I am firmly convinced that the Tyndale translation is accurate and Godly.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Now you're repeating info I have posted multiple times.

You can't make a connection between Marcion and texts used to translate into New Testaments in general use today.
You are just throwing out false claims and pretending that you have something to back them up.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

They were also believed to be the product of Gnostic tampering to discredit the deity of Jesus.

Who believes that.
I'm not aware that this is a current belief by the mainstream biblical scholars.
Maybe this was something held a hundred and fifty years ago and some sects of Christianity have made no progress in the time since.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
The so-called Majority Text is NOT the same as the Textus Receptus, and, to many scholars, neither is especially close to the original NT text.

The Majority Text is simply the readings from the period which produced the most surviving old manuscripts .... unfortunately that period is mostly the 11th-13th centuries, and the manuscripts had already accumulated most of the defects that scholars complain about.

The Textus Receptus, as a text tradition, refers to printed editions, not manuscripts, printed in the century before the publication in 1611 of the King James Version and in the three or four decades following. These editions were, largely, based on whatever manuscripts the editors could beg, borrow or buy from churches and monasteries, which mostly meant that they were not the best manuscripts; the first printed Greek New Testament, edited by Erasmus in 1515, for example, used about a dozen manuscripts, most of them only part of the NT so that there was hardly any portion of the NT for which Erasmus had two manuscript texts to compare (and it is believed that, in the Book of Revelations, his manuscripts were so incomplete that he had to back-translate several verses from the Latin Vulgate because he had no Greek text to work with). The term "textus receptus" itself -- it means the same as "best seller" -- was used in 1633, well after the KJV publication, in the second Elzevir edition to describe its predecessor first edition of 1624 - and the second edition had changes from the first edition (and the third edition of 1641 had more changes), so the term clearly did not mean it was a perfect text. There were about twelve major editions that are counted among TR editions (actually Reuss counted at least 124 Greek NT editions published before 1611).

The Majority Text and the Textus Receptus, although differing from each other in several hundred places, both represent the medieval text, not the ancient text. Critical editions of the last two centuries have endeavored to reconstruct or reproduce the ancient text - as close to the original texts as possible - using the oldest manuscripts, the ancient versions translated early in Christian history (such as the Syriac and Ethiopic versions), the quotations and comments in early Christian writers (such as Eusebius), etc.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   


TextWho believes that. I'm not aware that this is a current belief by the mainstream biblical scholars. Maybe this was something held a hundred and fifty years ago and some sects of Christianity have made no progress in the time since.
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You are probably correct in saying that the mainstream biblical scholars do not believe that the Gnostic's influenced the omission in manuscripts but mainstream religions today are far removed from yesterday and sadly so are our modern scholars. These two manuscripts are an example of our modern scholars from which almost all modern translations come from. I am quoting this from Yahoo Groups internet--

The Vaticanus Manuscript (B)
"The word “Vatican” in Latin means “Hill of Divination.” (Deu 18:10 KJV) There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, The Vaticanus manuscript was found in the Vatican library in 1481. It was rejected by the King James Translators because it was very corrupt and unreliable. The following portions of Scripture are missing from the Vaticanus: Genesis 1:1-46; 28; Psalms 106-138; Matthew 16:2-3; Mark 16:9-20; The Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) and everything after Hebrews 9:14. These were intentional omissions because the manuscript was found in excellent condition with no pieces missing. In the Gospels it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences. These omissions were intentional since there was room left on pages to write these in. The Vaticanus manuscript was written on expensive Vellum and was in good condition when found which means that the missing areas were not due to missing sections but intentional omission."

The Sinaiticus Manuscript (a) Aleph
"The major characteristic of this manuscript is that it is a literary mess. There are mistakes, erasures, sentences written on top of other sentences plus many words are omitted. It contains nearly all the New Testament, the Apocryphal Books plus two other false books, “The Shepherd of Hermes” and “The Epistle of Barnabas.” Every page contains corrections and revisions by at least ten different people. Corrections on the manuscript were made as late as the sixth or seventh century A.D. With so many revisions and corrections done to this manuscript, it made it totally worthless. It was found in a garbage can in St. Catherine’s Monastery in 1844 by Constantine Tischendorf. The manuscript was so bad, the monks were going to burn the manuscript just for heat. It too omits Mark 16:9-20."

It is sad when religionists will use this kind of work in a Christian bible. This is the work that Wescott and Hort base their work upon and the Jehovah Witnesses base their bibles upon. This foundation was that which Tyndale and King James scholars rejected. You are right when you say that modern scholars embrace this work. Wonder why?


“On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.” --- Dean Burgon



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Shoonra

Hi Shoonra

You wrote: QUOTE

There have been entire books written about the ending of Mark. This is hardly news.

In the two (only two) oldest mss of Mark (the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus codices), ends abruptly with verse 16:8 ("they spoke to no one because they were afraid.").

Similarly the ancient versions in Syriac, and Sahidic and some others end at this point. Scholars and others are divided on whether the Gospel originally ended at this point or whether there had been more but somehow the manuscript being used had lost its last page (or two).

Medieval copies frequently had what is called the Longer Ending, which is what appears in the KJV (it includes a verse about snake handling). There are stylistic differences between the Longer Ending and the rest of the Gospel of Mark, so some people suspect it was written by someone else, possibly centuries after the original Gospel was written...."

UNQUOTE

You're right on with your intro : but note that in Koine Greek the word YAP ('gar' i.e. 'because of,' or 'for') is ALWAYS 2nd position in a sentence - but can never END a sentence, much less a whole Book !!

EPHOBOUVTO YAP (=ephobounto gar) = lit. 'they (fem.) were afraid because..."

The purpose of the line might have been to explain away why no one had ever heard of the empty tomb story prior to the 3rd Greek canonical gospel's ('according to Mark' whoever h was) writing (c. 75CE).

In the Greek Gospel of Peter (whoever wrote that fragment) we have the weird sentence 'and I Peter and my brothers were in hiding behind closed doors FOR FEAR OF THE JUDAEANS because they accused us of trying to destroy the Shrine of the Temple [i.e. in Jerusalem] by Fire..."

See also the 4th canonical Greek gospel ('according to John the Elder' whoever he was) chapter 20:19 where FEAR OF THE JUDAEANS is also mentioned in the post-arrest, post-trial, post-execution part of the Passion Narratives

"...then on the night of the 1st day of the week, the Disciples having gathered-together with their doors locked FOR FEAR OF THE LEADING MEN OF THE JUDAEANS', that ho Iesous appeared and manifested himself to them saying, 'Shalom alechem!"

So perhaps the continuation of the mangled Greek of 'Mark' chapter 16:8 would be something like, 'And the women said nothing to no man - they were afraid because [of the Judaeans who were seeking to arrest his followers...] etc.

Either way, the book ends in the middle of a sentence, which would be a Koine Greek literary impossibility in the 1st century - although perhaps not so impossible to-day with all the avant garde writers and would be writers out there in the wild who would happily perpetrate such a corny thing --i.e. for some kind of cheap effect....

Professor Burkitt opined back in the 1930s that the end of the scroll (or last pages of the codex?) was lost due to wear, thus the original ending was not known even by persons who literarily borrowed from Mark (e.g.' Matthew', or' Luke', whoever they were) since end pieces are usually the first thing to go with ancient MSS (being the most exposed to the air and wear-tear through repeated handling) - you'll notice that both 'Matt' and 'Luke' follow 'Mark' until 16:8 and at that very point begin to diverge - and as anyone who has bothered to take the time to read the accounts side by side, the four 'canonical Greek gospels' do NOT match each other very closely after that point.

Of course you'd actually have to lay out the accounts side by side to know that, and Christians are more or less foridden to look TOOO close at their texts - most of whom cannot even read Koine Greek or know anthing about the grammatical position of YAP ('gar') in a Greek sentence !!



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

. . . the Gnostic's influenced the omission in manuscripts . . .

Who exactly are these Gnostics and what was their "influence"?
They were pretty much done away with in the Forth Century.
This is just a fantasy to make it seem like parts were removed, instead of what probably really happened, which was that parts were later added.
edit on 20-6-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   


TextThe so-called Majority Text is NOT the same as the Textus Receptus, and, to many scholars, neither is especially close to the original NT text.
reply to post by Shoonra
 


• Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
• Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
• Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Pe#ta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible(AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by theRoman Catholic Church.
• Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
• Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.

You say that "The term "textus receptus" itself -- it means the same as "best seller" -- was used in 1633, well after the KJV publication, in the second Elzevir edition to describe its predecessor first edition of 1624 -"

You are mistaken to believe that. The 1611 King James bible was not based upon the Textus Receptus as well as Tyndale's 1535 New Testament. Tyndale's 1535 New Testament was the first Greek to English translation to be printed and it was based upon the Received Text (Textus Receptus) of Erasmus. Erasmus's Greek was the work of which Tyndale, KJV, and the Geneva bibles were all a mirror copy. The main difference between Tyndale's NT and the KJV and Geneva bibles was the marginal notes. Of course Tyndale was burned at the stake for his work and never completed the old testament.

As for your understanding of ancient and or medieval texts are concerned, you cannot go much further back to ground zero than what you have now. Your oldest manuscripts in which you put all of your faith in are two or three at the most. The Vaticanus Text is at about 325 and the Sinaiticus text is at about 370 which are described in the above blog.

Out of about 1500 undamaged Greek copies there are only two or three that omit Mark 16:9-20-- That means that if I were a judge of scholarship that I would bet with the Majority texts or as called Textus Receptus. The odds in this case would be about 1,500 to 3 -- What would you bet?? Would you take the 3 which are a few years older than the 1,500 ?? Don't be foolish.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join