Julian

And exactly how would you define "an inspired and preserved text" and what makes your opinion correct in this matter? It smacks of No True Scotsman fallacy. What is the scientific definition of inspiration? How is it recognized? How would I, a non-believer, recognize it? You are correct despite 1000s of christian denominations which can't agree with each other? Your opinion is well into the realm of arrogance. You seem well read yet your conclusions are far from sound, based, as they are, on personal faith and not the facts. TR is very late, hopelessly interpolated, smoothed and polished. If you believe in a historical manifestation of Jesus why wouldn't the writings closer to his time be the more reliable, leaving less room for humans to add their human errors?

Your arguments are arrogant and fail to convince. Your appeals to divine inspiration will fall on deaf ears here. Not only are they contrary to consensus of the majority of scholars they are also irrational.

You may take exception to these remarks but I would still like to see you answer my questions. Explain to me why I am wrong...

Julian

meforevidence

The Book of Mark:
Mr. Zindlar writes about the Gospel of Mark and states the following: “But what about the gospel of Mark, the oldest surviving gospel? Attaining essentially its final form probably as late as 90 CE but containing core material dating possibly as early as 70 CE, it omits, as we have seen, almost the entire traditional biography of Jesus, beginning the story with John the Baptist giving Jesus a bath, and ending - in the oldest manuscripts - with women running frightened from the empty tomb. (The alleged post resurrection appearances reported in the last twelve verses of Mark are not found in the earliest manuscripts, even though they are still printed in most modern bibles as though they were an "authentic" part of Mark's gospel.) Moreover, "Mark" being a non-Palestinian non-disciple, even the skimpy historical detail he provides is untrustworthy.� At least Mr. Zindlar agrees that the book of Mark was written before the second century. The book of Mark must have been written earlier than 70 A.D. because of the fact that Jerusalem was not yet destroyed. As far as the latter verses in Mark 16, there are early writers that quote the verses that are found in other manuscripts of the book of Mark. For many centuries, there have been controversies among some Bible scholars about the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark. Your Bible probably has a footnote indicating that the last twelve verses of Mark are disputed or were added by some later scribe. This view comes from an excessive reliance on the Alexandrian manuscripts that were promoted by Westscott and Hort (The earliest writings of the Alexandrian manuscripts date from 325-350 A.D). There are several ways to disprove this claim. First, in A.D. 150, Iranaeus quoted the passage in his commentary, so it must have been around in the second century and before 150 A.D. Hippolatus, also in the second century, quoted it.
Furthermore, in the Syriac/Aramaic translation (the Peshitta), not all of the last part of Mark is missing. Most of it is admittedly, but the fact that fragments have been found of the Syriac version confirms that they must have existed. The following site shows the given words, phrases and verses found in the Syriac text: (blue exists, red was not found in Syriac Text)
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Arama.../Marqsch16.pdf.

Mr. Zindler also tries to discredit the Gospels by pointing out a particular segment of the Gospels concerning the Demon possessed man of Gadarene / Gergesene.
He points out that the writer of Mark must not have known his geography because in the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, there are different names for the “city� that this evidence was to have taken place. Let’s read the following verses:

Mark 5: 1-20
“1: And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. 2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, 3. Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains……….� Matthew 8: 28-34
28: And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with deviles, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way……..�
Luke 8:26-39
26: And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee. 27. And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils a long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house but in tombs.

Notice there are at least two different cities mentioned in the above verses. Let’s look at some information on the cities:
• Matthew's reference to the men as coming from Gadara is consistent with the discovery of coins of that city that depict a ship and contain the word "Gadara." Further, Josephus mentions that Gadara possessed territory on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. It is therefore possible to conclude.
These passages can easily be complementary passages.Our modern English Bibles interpret the Greek word "chora" in the English word "city". This is an incorrct translation. The word "chora" mean "territory" or "region." The region of the Gergesenes and the region of the Gadarenes can occupy this 10 mile stretch of land without stretching the context of the words. Mr. Zindler believes that because there are at least two different cities mentioned that this has to be a discrepancy. What mister Zindler may have done was actually read some of the more modern translations which change the word “country� or “region� into the word “city.� When one reads the original Greek text, the word is defined as “country� or “region.� The two cities were not that far from each other and so there is actually no discrepancy of the geography of the land.
As stated earlier, an important fact is that the historian Josephus wrote that the borders of Gadara extended all the way to the nearby sea.

Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky might point out that "Textus Receptus or Alexandrian texts" is a false dichotomy. I would agree. However, it is ignored. People would prefer that all remain quiet on the Western front...referring to the Western or "Peripheral" (Yuri's term) text, which is represented by such manuscripts as Bezae and the Old Syriac.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle

As I mentioned earlier, Gerasa has substantial Western support as well as Alexandrian.

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby

Yes, I agree.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

You'll find both the coins and Josephus discussed in this thread.

If you go there, you will find that the depiction of a ship may actually have nothing to do with literal seafaring but only be due to Tyche being used as a "protectress" of the city. She was apparently popular with many Greek cities because of her association with good fortune. Tyche is depicted on a ship on some Gadara coins because she was believed to be the daughter of Oceanus (personification of the oceans). Thus, no assumption of actual shipping can be made about Gadara.

You will also find that Josephus does support a region belonging to Gadara but does not support the notion that this territory extended to the coast of the Sea of Galilee.

There is a future article mentioned, however, that claims to provide evidence that the region belonging to Gadara did extend that far.

Vorkosigan

Yes, I noticed Prax has sort of slid by this material.