Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: New Testament Manuscripts

  1. #21
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,811
    Amen (Given)
    718
    Amen (Received)
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Why do you ask? It's not like you haven't been presented with the evidence before.
    None of that evidence proves the epilogue is not part of the original of that gospel.
    Well, it is accepted as part of Mark's gospel.
    Not by everyone today.
    The external evidence (that it is missing in some MSS, and replaced with an alternate ending in others) indicates that there is some uncertainty in tradition on just how Mark's gospel ends.
    Only one Latin ms has the shorter ending by itself. All the Greek mss which have the shorter ending conflate vs. 9-20 ending right after it.
    I already answered that as well as I can.
    OK.
    How was my comment begging the question?
    You didn't actually address my observation - your response merely assumes that it is irrelevant.

    Well, it attributes the gospel to Mark.

    Because it does? I'm not sure how to answer that. For good measure, it also throws in a reference to Paul surviving a snakebite and refers to the tradition that John drank poison with no ill effects.
    Those two comments assume the long ending is post those events and not part of the original gospel of Mark.
    I will grant that prophetic scriptures are God-breathed, just like all other scripture. Again, if someone else wrote the ending, does that necessarily mean it was not God-breathed? Moses did not write the end of Deuteronomy (it references his own death, after all). Does that mean it was not God-breathed?
    "Apples and oranges," so to speak.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  2. #22
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,638
    Amen (Given)
    4104
    Amen (Received)
    2569
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    . . . plus the vocabulary is not Markan.
    This is whole "vocabulary"-argument is so dumb (whenever it's used, and not just here) I'm not even sure why actual scholars even use it. It's not like we have enough surviving Markan literature (or literature from any other NT author for that matter) to tell us whether or not a certain word is a part of that writers vocabulary or not.

  3. #23
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,625
    Amen (Given)
    3984
    Amen (Received)
    6730
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    This is whole "vocabulary"-argument is so dumb (whenever it's used, and not just here) I'm not even sure why actual scholars even use it. It's not like we have enough surviving Markan literature (or literature from any other NT author for that matter) to tell us whether or not a certain word is a part of that writers vocabulary or not.
    As I understand it, the issue in the text at hand is not so much unique words (which could be attributed in large part to the unique (to Mark) subject matter), but the different way things are phrased compared to the rest of the book and the awkward transition from 16:8 to 16:9.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  4. #24
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,638
    Amen (Given)
    4104
    Amen (Received)
    2569
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    As I understand it, the issue in the text at hand is not so much unique words (which could be attributed in large part to the unique (to Mark) subject matter), but the different way things are phrased compared to the rest of the book and the awkward transition from 16:8 to 16:9.
    Well, in that case they should be more clear about it being an issue of phrasing rather than vocabulary.

  5. #25
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,284
    Amen (Given)
    160
    Amen (Received)
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    This is whole "vocabulary"-argument is so dumb (whenever it's used, and not just here) I'm not even sure why actual scholars even use it. It's not like we have enough surviving Markan literature (or literature from any other NT author for that matter) to tell us whether or not a certain word is a part of that writers vocabulary or not.
    That's a good point, and one that I think is often ignored when it comes to what is Pauline and what isn't (I hold to the 7 undisputed, plus 2 Thessalonians and Colossians). With regard to Mark, stylistically, the text is different. The transition is awkward, counteracting what had just happened at the empty tomb. The attempt to create a mish-mash of resurrection appearances from the rest of the gospels is what gives me evidence that it's not original.

  6. #26
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,811
    Amen (Given)
    718
    Amen (Received)
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    That's a good point, and one that I think is often ignored when it comes to what is Pauline and what isn't (I hold to the 7 undisputed, plus 2 Thessalonians and Colossians). With regard to Mark, stylistically, the text is different. The transition is awkward, counteracting what had just happened at the empty tomb. The attempt to create a mish-mash of resurrection appearances from the rest of the gospels is what gives me evidence that it's not original.
    Why? Please give a specific.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  7. #27
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,284
    Amen (Given)
    160
    Amen (Received)
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Why? Please give a specific.
    Mark ends with the sentence "and they told nothing to anyone (lit. no one) for they were afraid," with the ending of the sentence in Greek being γαρ. We know it's acceptable to end a sentence with γαρ, as it appears in a few other works. Beyond that? The narrative shows knowledge of the story of Mary Magdalene in Luke-Acts. The other issues are external evidence: several church fathers show no knowledge of the addition.

    Mark 16:19 uses the phrase "μὲν οὖν," which appears nowhere else in the entirety of the gospel. It also uses the term φαίνω, which is never used in Mark, but does appear in Luke-Acts to describe Elijah's appearance during the transfiguration.

    This is not just a position taken by liberal scholars who may desire to undercut the validity of the gospels. Very conservative evangelical scholars hold this position as well.

  8. #28
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,811
    Amen (Given)
    718
    Amen (Received)
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    Mark ends with the sentence "and they told nothing to anyone (lit. no one) for they were afraid," with the ending of the sentence in Greek being γαρ. We know it's acceptable to end a sentence with γαρ, as it appears in a few other works. Beyond that? The narrative shows knowledge of the story of Mary Magdalene in Luke-Acts. The other issues are external evidence: several church fathers show no knowledge of the addition.

    Mark 16:19 uses the phrase "μὲν οὖν," which appears nowhere else in the entirety of the gospel. It also uses the term φαίνω, which is never used in Mark, but does appear in Luke-Acts to describe Elijah's appearance during the transfiguration.

    This is not just a position taken by liberal scholars who may desire to undercut the validity of the gospels. Very conservative evangelical scholars hold this position as well.
    Ok. Given that to be a consensus. But how does any of those distinctions prove Mark did not write it?
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  9. #29
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,284
    Amen (Given)
    160
    Amen (Received)
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Ok. Given that to be a consensus. But how does any of those distinctions prove Mark did not write it?
    There's no such thing as proof in anything outside the mathematical sense. But, when you have a series of non-Marcan words, all of which appear in other texts, an awkward transition in contradiction to other elements of the gospel, then it's fairly likely that Mark either ends at 16:8 or a lost ending exists.

  10. #30
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,811
    Amen (Given)
    718
    Amen (Received)
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    There's no such thing as proof in anything outside the mathematical sense. But, when you have a series of non-Marcan words, all of which appear in other texts, an awkward transition in contradiction to other elements of the gospel, then it's fairly likely that Mark either ends at 16:8 or a lost ending exists.
    Maybe not.

    It is a modern interpretation that Mark did not write that epilogue, while the modern basis for it dates from the 4th century. It is a modern. The long ending was the accepted reading.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •