[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Rodahi's opinion is that my claims about Mark are false. Yet, without addressing my evidence, he denies that the true translation of Mk 1:41 says that Jesus felt compassion.

Ish's claims are false. I have presented textual evidence demonstrating this fact.

Ish: Rodahi ignores the evidence

What evidence? Does Ish mean the OPINIONS of Aland and Metzger?

Ish: and ignores the fact that Mark presents a Jesus who, all the way though Mark, heals, drives demons from people, acts as a servant, has compassion on hungry people, does without food himself so that he can teach, and teaches good things.

Ish can put a Christian spin on what "Mark" actually says if he wants. That changes nothing. Notice he STILL has not quoted "Mark" to back up his (false) claim.

Ish: Apparently we will simply continue in our own views.

As I said earlier, Christian apologists NEVER change their minds once they are made up.

Ish: I hope you see the evidence in a more positive light some day, Rodahi, because Jesus died for the bad things you do as well.

According to ancient literature, Jesus lived in Palestine almost two thousand years ago. He was executed as a troublemaker.

Arrogant Christians believe they know what is "bad" and what is "good." They have a great deal to learn from non-Christians. The question is, Will they ever learn?

rodahi

For some reason, Rodahi insists on personal attacks against me like this. One would think he could at least be creative and find a new one.

Actually, he would probably be rather embarrassed by the implications of his put-down if he really knew me.

Ish

Rodahi fails to completely understand textual criticism and the problems with his theories as stated in his last post. I am afraid that I do not have the time to teach him, though he wouldn't listen if I did.

However, I'll attempt to address a few final points which he continues to fumble, and then I'll leave the thread to him to rhetorically label all my evidence "false" and "wrong" and for others to decide for themselves.

If anyone is misrepresenting things, it is Rodahi, who seems to be arguing a subject that he doesn't thoroughly understand.

First, I presented Metzger's quote in refutation of Rodahi's claim that "being angry" was changed. I guess he chose to overlook this.

Second, Beare's point is worthless to my position because I do not believe in the priority of Mark. I even provided a link by reputable scholars against the priority of Mark.

Here, Rodahi either off-handedly rejects or does not understand that this quote applies directly to the MSS that support his chosen variant. It is certainly not irrelevant.

Rodahi seems to think that when it comes to these "additions, transpositions, omissions, etc." that all MSS are created equal. They are not.

Textual Criticism has determined that the type of text exhibited by Codex Bezae is unusually full of these types of errors. This has been determined by comparing the earliest papyri MSS to the later texts. The papyri that exhibit readings similar to Codex Bezae show that the type of text exhibited in Bezae had been highly corrupted over time.

On the opposite side of the coin, the MSS which support the reading "feeling compassion" comprise a textual type known as the Alexandrian type. This text type is known for its purity. Again, this is determined by the earliest papyri MSS that date back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The Alexandrian text shows little modification all the way up to the various witnesses that I list...much less modification than Bezae.

In other words, evidence shows the Alexandrian witnesses behind "feeling compassion" to be more textually pure than the one Greek Codex Bezae of the inferior "Western" text which reads "being angry".

Like it or not, Rodahi, this is what the textbooks say. So, you either ignore or reject this information. I suppose you'll attribute it to Aland's and Metzger's "Christian Bias". However, they are the two major textual scholars behind the major editions of the Greek New Testament today: Nestle-Aland 27th and United Bible Societies 4th.

As far as I know, the Jesus Seminar uses their Greek editions. Perhaps Rodahi knows of another edition of the Greek New Testament?

Since the Jesus Seminar seems to have willy-nilly picked the variants they use in their "Scholar's Version", I'd like to see a critical edition of its underlying Greek. Do you know if they have produced one, Rodahi? Not that you'll answer this question...

For my above stated reasons, this is not irrelevant. The reason Rodahi accuses me of not telling readers that "NO ONE KNOWS for certain what the original texts said" is because he doesn't understand what was meant by this statement. As I state above, the earliest papyri allow us to compare the texts to determine purity or corruption. This is why Aland mentions "establishing or restoring the original text."

Yet again, Rodahi fails to recognize a relevant quote.

The translations that support his chosen variant are Old Latin versions. These two early church fathers comment (before the time of Rodahi's variant's witnesses) that there were many corrupted Old Latin versions. This echos what modern textual criticism has discovered (as I mentioned above), that Codex Bezae is a corrupted text (which is seen by comparison to early papyri MSS).

As a matter of fact, Jerome's problem with others corrupting the text prompted him to produce the famous Latin Vulgate from the most ancient greek witnesses he could find at the time. The ancient witnesses that he used were apparently Alexandrian texts.

This is a failure to understand textual criticism as explained above.

Actually, he left out the two church fathers which date to the 4th century. Also, I was being kind by not listing the dates of the other MSS.

Rodahi shows his lack of knowledge here, for several of the other witnesses date at or before his MSS, yielding that much more support to "feeling compassion" (e.g. Syriac(s), Syr(p), Syr(pal), Coptic(sa), Georgian, Ethiopic, Latin Vulgate, among a few others.

Seems that there is a little more support for "feeling compassion" than he thought, but then if he really understood the issues, he would know this.

From the above explanation it should now be obvious that textual scholars have very valid reasons for saying that the Alexandrian readings carry the most weight. It's silliness to suggest that these reputable scholars simply pick the reading that "suits them" without good reason.

So, if the website agrees with what I say then it must be irrelevant? I love that kind of logic.

I rest my case and turn it over for whatever ill-informed spin will befall it.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 12, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
For some reason, Rodahi insists on personal attacks against me like this. One would think he could at least be creative and find a new one.

Actually, he would probably be rather embarrassed by the implications of his put-down if he really knew me.

It is not a "put-down." It is my opinion of Ish's attempts to be cute. He may not be as cute as he seems to think.

rodahi

Ish: Rodahi fails to completely understand textual criticism and the problems with his theories as stated in his last post. I am afraid that I do not have the time to teach him, though he wouldn't listen if I did.

I understand textual criticism as well Ish does. There are no problems with my analysis and evaluation of "Mark." There is no problem with the quotes I have presented which support my argument.

Ish's arrogance is obvious. He,like some other Christian apologists, wishes to give the impression that he has superior knowledge. To this point, he has failed to demonstrate this. And, further, he has had to be corrected several times when he has misrepresented or overstated the facts. Should this be attributed to his ignorance, his dishonesty, his lack of attention to detail, his zealous defense of the indefensible, who knows? I could present examples here, but I am afraid I don't have the time, and I don't think he would understand the implications.

rodahi

I agree. The way Ish wiped the floor with your arguments and left you without a response save to attack his character was the heigth of arrogance; this Ish character is in serious need of repentance. But what do you expect from apologists, huh?

You sound like one of those people who believes in absurd things like dead people coming back to life and virgin births and the idea that Ish has come close to making a good argument. Your comment is what I expect to hear from apologists. Crow all you want--it is what apologists do. Many can't seem to do much else.

rodahi

b]Ish: However, I'll attempt to address a few final points which he continues to fumble, and then I'll leave the thread to him to rhetorically label all my evidence "false" and "wrong" and for others to decide for themselves.[/b]

I have said on several occasions that "others" are quite capable of deciding for themselves. I have not “fumbled” anything.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: I also have a substantial scholarly problem with the underlying Greek variants chosen by his translations. I have picked one example which illustrates the difference between our views: Was Jesus "feeling compassion" or "being angry"? Here, the solid textual evidence is on the side of the majority of translations which have Jesus "feeling compassion", and I can't seem to get Rodahi to address this issue with any substance much less acknowledge that the evidence is against his position.
Rodahi: Ish misrepresents the facts here. There are two variant readings in "Mark" 1:41: I have presented my argument why I think "moved with anger" is the original and why "moved with compassion" is a later change in the text. Since he ignores this fact, I will present the argument again in another way. For example, please read what Frank W. Beare has to say...


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

Ish: If anyone is misrepresenting things, it is Rodahi, who seems to be arguing a subject that he doesn't thoroughly understand.

No, Ish. You said that I had not "addressed" the issue. I most certainly have. You misrepresented the facts.

Ish: First, I presented Metzger's quote in refutation of Rodahi's claim that "being angry" was changed. I guess he chose to overlook this.

Ish doesn't seem to be aware of reality. Many scholars simply disagree with Metzger's OPINION in this case. So do I. There has been no refutation, except in the mind of Ish.

Ish: Second, Beare's point is worthless to my position because I do not believe in the priority of Mark. I even provided a link by reputable scholars against the priority of Mark.

What you are saying is this: "I have made up my mind and nothing is going to change it. I have quoted Metzger and that's that."

I, along with virtually all critical scholars, think that the narrative known as "Mark" contains the most primitive tradition of Jesus' words and actions. Ish takes the minority position BECAUSE it helps him avoid having to deal with the embarrassing implications of what "Mark" says.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Aland has this to say about the "Western" text type and Codex Bezae in The Text of the New Testament: "...innumberable additions, transpositions, omissions, etc. Undoubtedly the achievement of the original editor was significant, but only as a reviser who altered radically the text of his early exemplar in numerous passages. These alterations can make no claim to consideration as original."
Rodahi: ALL of the extant MSS have many ?additions, transpositions, omissions, etc.? The Aland quote is irrelevant.


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

Ish: Here, Rodahi either off-handedly rejects or does not understand that this quote applies directly to the MSS that support his chosen variant. It is certainly not irrelevant.

Here Ish wishes to make it appear that ONLY Codex Bezae has been edited by Christians. The fact is, ALL the MSS he listed have been edited.

Ish: Rodahi seems to think that when it comes to these "additions, transpositions, omissions, etc." that all MSS are created equal. They are not.

ALL extant major MSS of the NT contain variants, additions, transpositions, omissions, errors, and obscure words. If Ish doesn't know this, then he is ignorant of the facts. To say that one MS is somehow "better" than another is absurd. This is Christian propaganda. Unfortunately, acknowledged experts like Aland and Metzger perpetuate the propaganda. Why? Because they, like Ish, are Christians themselves with Christian bias.

According to Bart D. Ehrman, "Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. If often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem. I say that many interpreters would liketo ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending the textual basis of the Christian scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not." 1997 Lecture delivered at Duke

Ish: Textual Criticism has determined that the type of text exhibited by Codex Bezae is unusually full of these types of errors. This has been determined by comparing the earliest papyri MSS to the later texts. The papyri that exhibit readings similar to Codex Bezae show that the type of text exhibited in Bezae had been highly corrupted over time.

ALL extant major MSS of the NT have been "corrupted over time."

Ish: On the opposite side of the coin, the MSS which support the reading "feeling compassion" comprise a textual type known as the Alexandrian type. This text type is known for its purity. Again, this is determined by the earliest papyri MSS that date back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The Alexandrian text shows little modification all the way up to the various witnesses that I list...much less modification than Bezae.

1. There is no such thing as a "pure" NT MS.
2. No two MSS of the NT are identical.
3. The first attestation of the "compassionate" Jesus is dated to the FOURTH century, as does the first attestation of the "angry" Jesus.
4. The first attestation of a portion of "Mark" is P45. It dates to the third century. Since it is a partial MS, it attests only to portions of "Mark" from the 4th chapter through the 13th.
5. If Ish knows of a MS other than P45 that attests to "Mark" that definitively dates before the fourth century, he needs to present it.
6. It is debatable which MSS are closer to the archetype of "Mark." (There are no originals.)

Ehrman: "It is difficult to know what the authors of the Greek New Testament wrote, in many instances, because all of these surviving copies differ from one another, sometimes significantly." Ibid

Ish: In other words, evidence shows the Alexandrian witnesses behind "feeling compassion" to be more textually pure than the one Greek Codex Bezae of the inferior "Western" text which reads "being angry".

This is circular reasoning. The Christian "experts" have decided which MSS are the "purest" and anything which deviates from these is "less pure." In other words, if a MS contains something that goes against Christian "orthodoxy," it is automatically suspect and labled "impure." This the position of Aland and Metzger. Christians perpetuating Christian "purity."

Ish: Like it or not, Rodahi, this is what the textbooks say.

Every one of those "textbooks" was written by a biased Christian. They were not written by scientists.

Ish: So, you either ignore or reject this information. I suppose you'll attribute it to Aland's and Metzger's "Christian Bias".

Precisely! THEY are Christians, not scientists.

Ish: However, they are the two major textual scholars behind the major editions of the Greek New Testament today: Nestle-Aland 27th and United Bible Societies 4th.

YES! And that IS the problem! They get to decide. Why not scientists?

Ish: As far as I know, the Jesus Seminar uses their Greek editions. Perhaps Rodahi knows of another edition of the Greek New Testament?

Forward to the Scholar's Version: "The Scholars Version is a translation from the original languages, usually Greek but also Coptic, and occasionally Latin, Aramaic, or Hebrew."

Ish: Since the Jesus Seminar seems to have willy-nilly picked the variants they use in their "Scholars Version", I'd like to see a critical edition of its underlying Greek.

I think the Scholars Version contains less Christian bias than the most popular translations.

Ish: Do you know if they have produced one, Rodahi? Not that you'll answer this question...

Ish has declared himself to be the "teacher" here. Perhaps he should direct the question to himself.

I am not sure the Jesus Seminar considers such a question as critically important as a Christian apologist.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: "...and elsewhere in the East a manuscript was written which was to become the ancestor of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D, 05, of the fifth century). In neither of these instances was the primary motivation of the revision philological. It was prompted rather by ecclesiastical or theological interests. The text of the exemplar (or exemplars, probably a different one for each group of New Testament writings) was revised not so much with a concern for establishing or restoring the original text as for determining the "best" text from a particular editorial perspective."
Rodahi: Again, this is irrelevant. What Ish does not tell his readers is that NO ONE KNOWS for certain what the original texts said.


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

Ish: For my above stated reasons, this is not irrelevant. The reason Rodahi accuses me of not telling readers that "NO ONE KNOWS for certain what the original texts said" is because he doesn't understand what was meant by this statement. As I state above, the earliest papyri allow us to compare the texts to determine purity or corruption.

This is bullshit. The earliest papyri of "Mark" ONLY tell Christian "experts" what was written on the MSS in the third (P45), fourth, fifth centuries, and later. The words "purity" and "corruption" are misplaced. There is no way of knowing which of the extant MSS is similar to the archetype BECAUSE no MS of "Mark" dates closer than CENTURIES to the first written records. No one knows what is "pure" and what it not, except self-appointed "experts."

Ish: This is why Aland mentions "establishing or restoring the original text."

This is a presupposition. It presupposes an original that is similar to the one in the NT. This cannot be proven with the available evidence. As a matter of fact, there may not have been an original similar to the one in the NT at all.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Now, as to those Old Latin versions, the church father "Augustine complained, for example, in his De doctrina christiana (in a passage written before 396/397) that anyone obtaining a Greek manuscript of the New Testament would translate it into Latin, no matter how little he knew of either language (ii.16). This agrees with Jerome's complaint about the variety of texts found in the Latin manuscripts of his time (ca. 347-419/420)..." (Aland, Text)
Rodahi: This is more irrelevant verbage. It has no bearing on the variant reading of ?Mark? 1:40-45.


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

Ish: Yet again, Rodahi fails to recognize a relevant quote.

Nope. Ish fails to realize that his quote does not demonstrate what he thinks it does.

Ish: The translations that support his chosen variant are Old Latin versions. These two early church fathers comment (before the time of Rodahi's variant's witnesses) that there were many corrupted Old Latin versions.

This is irrelevant for the following reason: It DOES NOT speak to the variant in question.

Ish: This echos what modern textual criticism has discovered (as I mentioned above), that Codex Bezae is a corrupted text (which is seen by comparison to early papyri MSS).

ALL extant major MSS of the NT are "corrupt." The early papyri MSS are corrupt.

Ish: As a matter of fact, Jerome's problem with others corrupting the text prompted him to produce the famous Latin Vulgate from the most ancient greek witnesses he could find at the time. The ancient witnesses that he used were apparently Alexandrian texts.

Let’s see, should we consider Jerome a scientist or a Christian apologist? I think the latter is the more correct consideration.

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 14, 2001).]

Excuse the intrusion here.. but ..

Why do Christians think Jesus is God? Because he is said to be conceived of the Holy Spirit.

How then did the Holy Spirit "conceive" in Mary those things? The prophetic sayings of old testament prophets which "came to pass" in the days of Jesus. What was "conceived" in her (lineage) was "of" the Holy Spirit of prophecy out of the mouth of those who had taught it from one generation to the next.

How was Jesus "sent" to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel? He was "sent" just as John the Baptist, through Levitical priesthood order. This was not a debatable point with the Pharisees for they recognized him as "rabbi", and "master teacher".

Why did the Pharisees and Sadducees not accept Jesus as the son of God? Scripture says after they debated this point, and Jesus explained how all sons of Israel were sons of God, both the just and the unjust, the Pharisees agreed and went on to other debatable points.

What was the fear of the Pharisees about Jesus popularity among the Jewish citizenry? Jesus gave hope of salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike. The Pharisees debated the circumcision with Paul and also the resurrection. The contention was "law of the Jews" compared to "law of God". Paul pointed out to the Gentiles that salvation was to both Jew and Gentile through obedience to the commandments(law of God), not according to the law of circumcision. The law of circumcision was covenant law of Jews that prohibited uncircumcised Gentiles receiving lot or portion in land. The inheritance of the Gentiles was salvation apart from law of the land and therewith the Gentiles need not be circumcised. Even if they were circumcised, by law, the Gentiles still would not receive any land. So Paul asked the Gentiles why they desired to lose their freedom in Christ and go under law of the Jews. In other words, it made no sense as the Jews, according to Paul, only wanted to make merchandise of the Gentiles in their boasting of Jewish law of circumcision, and circumcision meant "the whole law of the Jews", and the forced laboring under it. Religious superiority was important to the Jews and maintaining their control of the people who were forced to bear the burden of it.

Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel only. Jews. No christians around at that time. The purpose of Jesus ministry was not to bring peace but a sword of division. To set father against son, mother against daughter. To separate the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares. The harvesting of the people for or against the law of God. The Pharisees were those who "sat in Moses seat". But the Levites were chosen out of all the tribes of Israel for that position of priesthood forever. So, the Pharisees are shown to have changed the law of God. Another reason the expediency for removing Jesus as people were beginning to take notice and actually listen to what he was saying. Religious and political intrigue are within all these things, especially concerning the Herodians. The three "unclean spirits like frogs" are symbolizing the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians. These also the Dragon,Beast and False Prophet who were acting in authority to speak for God. (remember, the Levites only had authority to do the speaking) Malachi 2:1-9 is reminder.

So we see that Jesus was sent through lineage of Levites as pertaining to the priesthood and these things "conceived" of the Holy Spirit out of the mouths of the old prophets who prophecied these things for the latter days of which Jesus was in.

How then was Jesus "raised up", "resurrected from the dead"? Jesus said I am the resurrection and the life, in referencing the words that he spoke. And it was the "words of life" which were raised up through the mouth of Jesus while he was still alive and through the body of people who taught the gospel after he had died. Just as Moses had raised up the serpent(Jacob) in the wilderness, so then would Christ be raised up among his brethren. And thus Jesus "appears" to those who look for his coming in the words that he spoke. The understanding comes into the mind thus the saying "put on the mind of Christ".

So now since I've rewirtten the bible, any more questions??