Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New Testament Manuscripts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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?

    Comment


    • #17
      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, 08:21 AM.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . 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 KJV

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

      Comment


      • #18
        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 unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . 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 KJV

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

        Comment


        • #19
          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, 08:37 AM.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . 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 KJV

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

          Comment


          • #20
            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
            sigpic
            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

            Comment


            • #21
              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 unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . 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 KJV

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

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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
                  sigpic
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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 unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . 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 KJV

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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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 unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . 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 KJV

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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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 unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . 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 KJV

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

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X