Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: New Testament Manuscripts

  1. #11
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,733
    Amen (Given)
    5284
    Amen (Received)
    10050
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    It is an epilogue. So why can it not be different in the ways that it is? It for some 1500 years undisputed as the word of God. Even the makers of the Codex Vaticanus left a sufficient blank column between Mark's gospel account and Luke.
    Attachment 21798
    You're unnecessarily conflating "word of God" with "original to Mark's gospel".
    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

  2. #12
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    You're unnecessarily conflating "word of God" with "original to Mark's gospel".
    Not if the epilogue was written by Mark the writer of that gospel. Why would he not have? And if not, who and why (2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16)?
    Last edited by 37818; 04-08-2017 at 03:46 PM.
    . . . 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.

  3. #13
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,733
    Amen (Given)
    5284
    Amen (Received)
    10050
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Not if the epilogue was written by Mark the writer of that gospel. Why would he not have?
    The internal evidence is fairly decisively against it, AFAICT, and the external evidence leans that way as well.
    And if not, who and why (2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16)?
    Who? No idea. Why? Possibly because he felt the gospel was incomplete stopping at Mk. 16:8.

    Regardless, begging the question is not an answer to my observation. Scripture is God-breathed whether written by Mark or not - and post-16:8 Mark is more pastiche of other post-Resurrection accounts than prophecy, so I'm not sure why you think that cite applies.
    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. Amen psstein amen'd this post.
  5. #14
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,658
    Amen (Given)
    151
    Amen (Received)
    548
    Yup:
    2 Peter 1:16 is about "prophecy of scripture" - so it can't be applied to all of scripture.

    And in the Koine Greek,
    2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    reads as more of an adjectival phrase than as a sentence: so, the inclusion of those "is"s is somewhat dubious.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  6. #15
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,576
    Amen (Given)
    236
    Amen (Received)
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    It is an epilogue. So why can it not be different in the ways that it is? It for some 1500 years undisputed as the word of God. Even the makers of the Codex Vaticanus left a sufficient blank column between Mark's gospel account and Luke.
    Attachment 21798
    Because it basically is compiled from the rest of the Resurrection appearance accounts, plus the vocabulary is not Markan.

  7. #16
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    346
    Amen (Given)
    45
    Amen (Received)
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    The earliest complete NT is from the 4th century, but we also have manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
    The Qur'an confirms the Bible Scriptures in many verses. So, they are confirming the NT we have today?

  8. #17
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    The internal evidence is fairly decisively against it, AFAICT, . . .
    What is that internal evidence against the epilogue being by Mark?

    . . . and the external evidence leans that way as well.
    And that external evidence is?
    Who? No idea.
    The accepted tradition is that it was by Mark. The external evidence supports this.

    . . . Why? Possibly because he felt the gospel was incomplete stopping at Mk. 16:8.
    Who is he you refer to?

    Regardless, begging the question is not an answer to my observation. Scripture is God-breathed whether written by Mark or not -
    How was my comment begging the question? Now as I mentioned tradition attributes the epilogue to Mark.

    . . . and post-16:8 Mark is more pastiche of other post-Resurrection accounts . . .
    Why do you think that?

    . . . other post-Resurrection accounts than prophecy, . . .
    It is either God-breathed or it is not prophecy (2 Peter 1:19-21).
    . . . so I'm not sure why you think that cite applies.
    Peter's argument was the written word is more sure v.19 that hearing God's voice from heaven, which Peter and the others with him did vs.16-18.
    Last edited by 37818; 04-10-2017 at 01:21 PM.
    . . . 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. #18
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    Yup:
    2 Peter 1:16 is about "prophecy of scripture" - so it can't be applied to all of scripture.
    No. If the writing is not prophecy it is not God-breathed holy scripture - God given holy writing. Peter's whole argument was the written vs.19-21 is more sure then the spoken v.18.
    And in the Koine Greek,
    2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    reads as more of an adjectival phrase than as a sentence: so, the inclusion of those "is"s is somewhat dubious.
    Not all writings are God-breathed. Paul was continuing his comment in reference to holy writings (v.15) which Timothy was raised on.
    . . . 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.

  10. #19
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    Because it basically is compiled from the rest of the Resurrection appearance accounts, . . .
    You admit the epilogue is in agreement. What is your evidence that it was written post Matthew, Luke and John? The agreement of those accounts does not prove that.

    . . . plus the vocabulary is not Markan.
    And you know this how?
    Last edited by 37818; 04-10-2017 at 01:37 PM.
    . . . 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.

  11. #20
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,733
    Amen (Given)
    5284
    Amen (Received)
    10050
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    What is that internal evidence against the epilogue being by Mark?

    And that external evidence is?
    Why do you ask? It's not like you haven't been presented with the evidence before.
    The accepted tradition is that it was by Mark. The external evidence supports this.
    Well, it is accepted as part of Mark's gospel. 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.
    Who is he you refer to?
    I already answered that as well as I can.
    [quote]
    How was my comment begging the question? [quote]
    You didn't actually address my observation - your response merely assumes that it is irrelevant.
    Now as I mentioned tradition attributes the epilogue to Mark.
    Well, it attributes the gospel to Mark.
    Why do you think that?
    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.
    It is either God-breathed or it is not prophecy (2 Peter 1:19-21).
    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?
    Peter's argument was the written word is more sure v.19 that hearing God's voice from heaven, which Peter and the others with him did vs.16-18.
    I have no idea how you get that interpretation, and I'm frankly not interesting in pursuing that particular rabbit trail.
    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

Posting Permissions

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