Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
02-25-2005, 08:30 AM | #41 | |
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
Quote:
|
|
02-25-2005, 08:44 AM | #42 |
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1
|
Critical Text Versus The Majority Text
Hi Haran:
Haran >> I've been evaluating the textual evidence for the longer ending of the book of Mark. It seems very likely to me that the book of Mark originally stopped at 16:8 (though a seemingly odd place to end). Textual criticism can show that the longer ending of Mark was in existence pretty early on, but I'm wondering if "higher criticism", something I am not as well read in, can tell us anything more. In other words, does it appear that the longer ending of Mark has influenced the endings of Matthew, Luke, or John in any way, or that they have influenced it? Your question is based upon the wrong supposition that the Gospel of Mark stopped at 16:8. The solution to this situation becomes easy to recognize once we look at the broader picture. The shorter version of Mark 16 is present only in the Critical Text. The Textus Receptus and the Majority Text contain all twenty verses that you see in your Bible today. You might find it interesting that the Received Text and Majority of the manuscripts disagree in Mark 16:8, as the TR adds the word “quickly.� Also, the Critical Text borrows Mark 16:9-20 from the Majority Text, and then adds “and in their hands� in Mark 16:18. Some of the differences between these original manuscripts can be found here: ( http://www.studybibleforum.com/spages/Alexandrian.htm ). Basically, the Critical Text (you are leaning heavily upon) is derived from the Alexandrian (Egyptian) manuscripts. The Received and Majority Texts are based more upon the Bysantine (Antioch) body of manuscripts. My personal view is that the final page of the Gospel of Mark was deliberately mismanaged by the Egyptian scribes who were unhappy with the contents. If you will think about this carefully then the truth will be known, as the majority of the manuscripts having Mark 16 with 20 verses came from a variety of sources. It is mathematically impossible for all of them to agree if scribes were randomly adding their own ending to the Gospel of Mark. This is the part of Mark they did not want to see: “Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it.� Mark 16:9-11. What label do Christians today place upon those who refuse to believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins to be raised on the third day? (1Cor. 15:3+4, Rom. 10:9)? You and I refer to that group as ‘unbelievers.’ And yet, Christ sent the Twelve out to preach to the unsaved in Matthew 10:5-7. How do you explain the fact that the Son of God sent unbelievers out to preach the gospel to the unsaved? The difference is that Christ was preaching the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, etc.) to Israel only (Matt. 15:24) while on the earth. The ‘gospel’ we preach today is “Christ and Him crucified� (1Cor. 2:2) from the Pauline Epistles, and the good news he refers to as “my gospel� (Rom. 2:16, 16:25, etc.). Your Bible contains the 20 verses of Mark 16, because all of them appear in the Majority of the manuscripts. Therefore, we should conclude that there was no corruption of God’s Word in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, except where the manuscripts disagree. In Christ, Terral |
02-25-2005, 10:02 AM | #43 | |||||||
Regular Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 415
|
[Edited to Add:] Please pardon my lack of hospitality; greetings and welcome.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(Witnessing snipped) Quote:
By your reasoning, you must surely consider the Comma Johanneum to be a spurious addition with absolutely no authority to stand among the Scriptures. |
|||||||
02-25-2005, 10:26 AM | #44 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Spaniard living in Silicon Valley
Posts: 539
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
02-25-2005, 10:51 AM | #45 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Spaniard living in Silicon Valley
Posts: 539
|
Quote:
A couple of examples from the top of my head, since this seems to have attracted some interest: Quote:
Matthew gets it right: Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
02-25-2005, 10:55 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Spaniard living in Silicon Valley
Posts: 539
|
Quote:
|
|
02-25-2005, 11:02 AM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Spaniard living in Silicon Valley
Posts: 539
|
Quote:
My impression is that he was indeed struggling with the language, but that does not mean that he was a Palestinian Jew. There are many other possibilities. His ignorance of Palestine geography seems to go against this idea. |
|
02-25-2005, 11:05 AM | #48 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
02-25-2005, 11:36 AM | #49 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
Quote:
Andrew Criddle |
|
02-25-2005, 12:20 PM | #50 | |
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|