Did Ish say he would prove it from "Mark"? (I may have missed this and if so, ignore the rest of this post)
I do not think this is a sensible challenge Rodahi: You choose "Mark" on the supposed basis that it is the oldest of the Gospels. Now although there may be majority support for this position, there is significant scholarly dissent in the matter and both I and Ish have already stated our unwillingness to go with the assumption that "Mark" is the earliest Gospel.
Futhermore whether "Mark" is the earliest Gospel is not actually revelant unless you equate "earliest" with "most accurate". And while you may not hesitate with this equation, I'm sure many scholars who date "Mark" earliest would not agree with it.
Mark is not a good choice for working out what Jesus' "Message" was: as you know it does not contain the Q passages. Surely we should consult Jesus' teachings to find out what his teachings were? -As opposed to selecting a source (Mark) which contains comparatively few of his teachings?
I suggest Matthew perhaps as a choice for the subject matter of this challenge, considering it contains the largest amount of Jesus' teachings.

I have offered the detailed opinion of an eminently qualified scholar who has serious problems with the Scholar's Version and accuses it of mistranslation.
In addition I have offered the attestation of all other major Bible translations which unanimously agree against the Scholar's Version.
Perhaps they are all wrong whereas the one Scholar's Version is right? -Perhaps Kim is right in dating P46 and everyone else who looked at it was wrong? Rodahi, you considered an argument from the opinion of major authorities sufficent in that debate. Why do you no do so here? Perhaps it is because you personally would prefer it if the Scholar's Version is correct?

No I will not offer a translation that best suits my Christian presuppositions. I have previously in this thread been using the NIV: I simply chose this because it was first on the list of translations at the internet site I use for Bible translations. I am quite happy to use any of the translations I currently have access to. You can choose whichever one you like:

NIV, NASB, DARBY, YLT, Good News, Holy Bible, Living Bible, The Gospels in Modern English, RSV, Worldwide English, KJV, NKJV, KJ21, The Amplified Version.

Rodahi, your last quotes may not be from the JS Version (actually, since the Editor in Chief was Funk, maybe I should call it the Funky Version! ), but they are no less riddled with what you don't think is non-Christian bias. I thought we were done with MacDonald... Oh well, he makes the same bad word choices that Ehrman does, so let's take a look. BTW, you realize these quotes are the work of one individual and not a consensus of scholars like the translations we are using, right?

Anyway, Ehrman's translation of verse 41 uses the phrase "becoming angry" instead of the normal "feeling compassion". How can the same greek word translate in two such different ways?! Well, it doesn't. Ehrman uses a textual variant that few others do. The variant he uses is the greek word ORGISTHEIS. The problem with this variant is that it has little good support. It's most prominent witness is Codex Bezae, a Western text of the 5th or 6th century! Others may not know what this means, but Rodahi does because he's read Aland and Metzger and is familiar with textual criticism. I think. Regardless, it is not considered a reliable MS by most respectable textual scholars. To support Ehrman's reading, we can only add four Old Latin MSS with the same reading.

However, the greek word SPLAGCHNISTHEIS ("feeling compassion") is behind the overwhelming majority of translations. There is also a reason for this. It's witnesses are older, more diverse, and more numerous. Among it's supporters are Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Regius, Freer, Sangallensis, Koridethi, a couple of Uncials, many miniscules, the majority of Byzantine MSS, the majority of Lectionaries, the Latin Vulgate, syriac, coptic, armenian, ethopic, old church slavonic, and a couple of church fathers - Basil and Ambrose.

If you don't believe me, look it up in the UBS4 or NA27. The evidence for "feeling compassion" as opposed to Ehrman's "becoming angry" is overwhelming.

I'll spare more details, but will mention that Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, gives three considerations that "impressed" the majority of the committee behind the UBS4th, prompting them to chose "feeling compasion" as best reflecting the original text.

Ehrman has impressive credentials, but his agenda is obvious. He's a prolific writer, just take a look at some of his books and you'll see that he has already made up his mind about Christianity. He believes that the ancient biblical texts were intentionally corrupted early in their history. Frankly, he makes vain attempts to turn textual criticism, as we know it through the classic Aland and Metzger textbooks, upside-down to make his theories work.

Ish

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rodahi:
My challenge is still on, Ish. Present textual evidence from "Mark" demonstrating that "Jesus main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he domonstrated constantly."

Tercel: Did Ish say he would prove it from "Mark"? (I may have missed this and if so, ignore the rest of this post)

Since virtually all critical scholars consider "Mark" to be the earliest narrative, I see no reason to doubt that it is. The fact is, it appears to contain the most primitve Jesus tradition.

Tercel: I do not think this is a sensible challenge Rodahi: You choose "Mark" on the supposed basis that it is the oldest of the Gospels. Now although there may be majority support for this position, there is significant scholarly dissent in the matter and both I and Ish have already stated our unwillingness to go with the assumption that "Mark" is the earliest Gospel.

I chose "Mark" because it probably contains the most primitive stories about Jesus. You and Ish, as Christian apologists, can believe what you wish.

Tercel: Futhermore whether "Mark" is the earliest Gospel is not actually revelant unless you equate "earliest" with "most accurate". And while you may not hesitate with this equation, I'm sure many scholars who date "Mark" earliest would not agree with it.

This puts you in the awkward position of having to admit that an NT narrative may not be historically accurate, only because you don't like what the narrative says.

Tercel: Mark is not a good choice for working out what Jesus' "Message" was: as you know it does not contain the Q passages.

Of course you say this. The narrative DOES NOT support Ish's irresponsible and highly inaccurate claim.

Tercel: Surely we should consult Jesus' teachings to find out what his teachings were? -As opposed to selecting a source (Mark) which contains comparatively few of his teachings?

Surely we should read what virtually all critical scholars think is the most primitive narrative of Jesus' words and actions.

Tercel: I suggest Matthew perhaps as a choice for the subject matter of this challenge, considering it contains the largest amount of Jesus' teachings.

I don't find your suggestion a surprise at all, Tercel. The problem is, SOME Christian community considered "Mark" to be an important narrative report of Jesus' message. Just because you don't like it that doesn't mean it is any less accurate than "Matthew" or "Luke." As a matter of fact, it may paint a fairly accurate picture of the primitive Jesus tradition.

The challenge to Ish is still on.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Tercel: You did ask me to prove that the Scholar's Version is an inaccurate translation. I have done so, and I await a refution of my arguments (if one exists).
Rodahi: You have not proven anything, Tercel. You offered your opinion as well as that of another person. That does not qualify as "proof."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: I have offered the detailed opinion of an eminently qualified scholar who has serious problems with the Scholar's Version and accuses it of mistranslation.

He pointed out places where he disagreed with the translation. He certainly has a right to his opinion.

Tercel: In addition I have offered the attestation of all other major Bible translations which unanimously agree against the Scholar's Version.

Wrong! You presented a few places where the Scholar's Version differed from other versions. Most of the numerous passages I quoted DID NOT deviate from any other translation.

Tercel: Perhaps they are all wrong whereas the one Scholar's Version is right?

No. Perhaps they reflect more Christian bias in their translation than the Scholar's Version. I have never used the term "right." Again, ALL translations are problematic.

Tercel: -Perhaps Kim is right in dating P46 and everyone else who looked at it was wrong?

Perhaps he is, but I don't think so. It would take an incredible set of circumstances for Kim to be correct and everyone else to be wrong.

Tercel: Rodahi, you considered an argument from the opinion of major authorities sufficent in that debate.

If you have followed the discussion of the dating of P46, you will note that the issue is still open. Evidence is still being presented. Certainly, if ALL paleographers think one thing and ONE unknown commentator named Kim thinks something else, I think the OPINION of the paleographers should be considered better informed and, hence, more credible than the OPINION of Kim.

Tercel: Why do you no do so here?

Because you have presented an example of a false analogy.

Tercel: Perhaps it is because you personally would prefer it if the Scholar's Version is correct?

Perhaps not. For most of the passages I quoted, the KJV would have been sufficient to validate my argument.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tercel: If I do decide to offer textual evidence, rest assured, it shall not come from the Scholar's Version.
Rodahi: I knew that! You will offer a translation that best suits your Christian presuppositions, no matter how absurd.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: No I will not offer a translation that best suits my Christian presuppositions. I have previously in this thread been using the NIV: I simply chose this because it was first on the list of translations at the internet site I use for Bible translations. I am quite happy to use any of the translations I currently have access to. You can choose whichever one you like:
NIV, NASB, DARBY, YLT, Good News, Holy Bible, Living Bible, The Gospels in Modern English, RSV, Worldwide English, KJV, NKJV, KJ21, The Amplified Version.

Any version would suffice to validate my argument. The problem is, most translations reflect Christian bias. The Scholar's Version has less bias than the translations on your list.

rodahi

Touche! That's quite an accusation there, Rodahi. I'm not even sure what you are talking about. I said nothing about Q. What claim of mine is "irresponsible" and "highly inaccurate"? Talk about "poisoning the well"!

Frankly, your choices of translations are "irresponsible" and "highly inaccurate" as I show in detail above. Since these translations are poor, your challenge seems to have refuted itself.

When using a more accurate translation, anyone will see that the Jesus was tireless in performing good deeds even when he was pushed to the limit: his prayer time was interrupted (1:35-37), he sometimes had no time to eat (3:20), because he yielded to perpetual calls for service, his friends thought he was unbalanced (3:21), he was pursued when he sought rest (6:31-34). Yet, he healed "many" anyway. The crowds "listened to him with delight" (12:37). Though one town wanted him to stay, he headed on to another to spread the good news there. All one has to do is read a translation without the anti-Christian bias to see Jesus' benevolence.

Because many did proclaim him the Messiah, the Son of David, the leaders would have been fearful of this claim. This made Jesus dangerous in their eyes, not Jesus' healings and teachings of love and care (12:29-31). Finally, if one does not understand that Jesus was the Messiah, then one does not completely understand Jesus' actions.

So, most Jews were looking for a warrior king like Bar Kokhba and most (but not all) missed their compassionate and loving Messiah.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 07, 2001).]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
[I]Tercel: Mark is not a good choice for working out what Jesus' "Message" was: as you know it does not contain the Q passages.[I]
Rodahi: Of course you say this. The narrative DOES NOT support Ish's irresponsible and highly inaccurate claim.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Touche! That's quite an accusation there, Rodahi. I'm not even sure what you are talking about. I said nothing about Q. What claim of mine is "irresponsible" and "highly inaccurate"? Talk about "poisoning the well"!

As you well know, you claimed: "Jesus' main message was one of love for one's neighbors which he demonstrated constantly." I consider this claim irresponsible and highly inaccurate. If you disagree, produce textual evidence from "Mark" (the narrative that depicts the most primitive tradition of Jesus' words and actions) that supports your claim.

rodahi

Sorry, I edited my post and didn't get finished with it before you replied. In my view, this ends the challenge because Jesus performed compassionate healings, feed hungry people, kept moving to other towns to spread the good news, taught people to love each other, and ultimately died for everyone (you and I too).

Ish

"So, most Jews were looking for a warrior king like Bar Kokhba and most (but not all) missed their compassionate and loving Messiah."

Ish
The jews were not looking for a military leader. Isiah clearly states the "Lion shall lie down with the sheep and the swords shall be beaten into plow shares" that did not happen and that is why Jews do not believe in Christianity there is nothing ambigous in this case

Ish: Frankly, your choices of translations are "irresponsible" and "highly inaccurate" as I show in detail above. Since these translations are poor, your challenge seems to have refuted itself.

Mere words, Ish. Nothing more.

Ish: When using a more accurate translation

Says you.

Ish: anyone will see that the Jesus was tireless in performing good deeds even when he was pushed to the limit

No, Ish. I quoted the text. You have not.
You are putting a Christian spin on what "Mark" actually said. The text clearly demonstrates the fact that Jesus was reluctant as a healer and that he sometimes avoided those who asked for help. Also, healing was expected of a self-appointed prophet--it was not viewed as "a good deed" and it had nothing to do with love.

Ish: his prayer time was interrupted (1:35-37), he sometimes had no time to eat (3:20), because he yielded to perpetual calls for service, his friends thought he was unbalanced (3:21) he was pursued when he sought rest (6:31-34). Yet, he healed "many" anyway.

No, Ish. He avoided people when HE chose to. Why don't you quote the text? Why don't you support your claim: "Jesus main message was one of love for one's meighbor which he demonstrated constantly." Putting a Christian spin on what "Mark" actually said doesn't cut it.

Ish: The crowds "listened to him with delight" (12:37). Though one town wanted him to stay, he headed on to another to spread the good news there.

If he was constantly spreading a message of love, why did he leave the townspeople that asked him to stay? What was his hurry, Ish? Could it be that he thought the End was near and was in a hurry to spread THAT message?

All one has to do is read a translation without the anti-Christian bias to see Jesus' benevolence.

No, Ish. All one has to do is read ANY translation to see the falseness of your claim.

Ish: Because many [I]did proclaim him the Messiah, the Son of David, the leaders would have been fearful of this claim. This made Jesus dangerous in their eyes, not Jesus' healings and teachings of love and care (12:29-31).

I have already stated that chapter 12 is the ONLY place in "Mark" where Jesus says anything about neighborly love. He does so in about three or four sentences. That is a tiny fraction compared to the remaining 16 chapters of text.

Ish: Finally, if one does not understand that Jesus was the Messiah, then one does not completely understand Jesus' actions.
So, most Jews were looking for a warrior king like Bar Kokhba and most (but not all) missed their compassionate and loving Messiah.

The Jesus depicted in "Mark" IS NOT a "compassionate and loving" man. Any person who takes the time to read the narrative can plainly see this.

Why didn't you quote "Mark?" Are you THAT uncomfortable with it?

rodahi