JoeWallack

JW:
No, "Cosmo".



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Ya know, I liked it better when no one ever responded to me. This Interaction thing is too much work.

Go to Goodacre's page here:

http://alpha.reltech.org:8080/

Scroll down to the Codex Bezae link:

http://alpha.reltech.org:8083/cgi-bi...ml/BibleMSS/U5

When prompted for "username" and "password" type "any" for both.

I think you have to go through this Path first before the original link I gave will work. Once you are in your Browser will Save the Password for a limited time and you can go directly to the Pages. I Am also using Firefox which may make a difference.

Select "Mark" in the Table of Contents which places you at the start of "Mark" on Page 565. The Index (in English) of Text Position is at the bottom of the Page.


Joseph

spin

Eeek, telefision. Had that in childhood. Noisy box. I'm still getting over it.

JoeWallack

JW:
Here's the Image of the first 5 lines of Codex Bezae Ending at Mark 2:7 (KJV):





Joseph



http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

That helps. Thanks, Joe.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Summary:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_2:7

"Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but one, [even] God?" (ASV)


JW:
Codex Bezae has omitted "one". Ehrman thinks that "one" is Original and that Codex Bezae omitted it because it supported Patripassianism (belief that Jesus was the Father God).

JW X-Uh-Jesus:
The Apologetic reaction to Ehrman, as usual, is a General One. Focus on his Qualifications and Conclusions. There hasn't been much criticism (yet) of Specifics, such as detailed research. Note to Readers, observance of who is concentrating on Detail and who is avoiding it is often a clue as to who is right.

Considering that Codex Bezae is 5th century ish, my guess is the deletion of "one" is more likely to be "Trinity" issue motivated than Patripassianism as is the use of the nomina sacra. The trinity issue would have been much bigger at the time of Codex Bezae. Obviously using Form to determine the Original doesn't work here because of the NS.

Points of Interest:

1) The standard Christian Inventory of Textual Variation is Understated. Clearly, Ehrman's list of Significant variation would be larger than Metzger's.

2) Motivation gives Weight to observations of Textual Variation. Consistency is conducive to Probability. The Bias of individual Manuscripts can be Evaluated based on Theological changes.

3) Codex Bezae wasn't especially interesting to Christianity when it was the oldest compared to Byzantine. When Alexandrian was discovered it became much more interesting.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Unbelievable, Joe. Your last post was just full of things I agree with. To wit:

(Well, not sure I agree here or not, but it is a great observation.)

Cheers.

Ben.

JoeWallack

You Put The Words Right Into My Mouth

JW:

Significant Variant #12:

Mark 2:14

καὶ παράγων εἶδεν Λευὶν τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ἀκολούθει μοι καὶ ἀναστὰς �*κολούθησεν αὐτῷ

"And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of Alphaeus sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. (ASV)"


And Metzger commentary:
"2.14 Λευίν {A}
The reading Ἰάκωβον in Western witnesses shows the influence of 3.18, where Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου is included among the twelve."

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York "


JW:
The Specific question here is which Disciple is the Tax Collector. The Manuscript evidence indicates "Λευίν" (Levi) is likely original. However, there is spelling variation for Λευίν which can be a clue for unoriginality as Copyists were not simply copying and had to decide on a spelling for an Edit. Bezae and some OL have Ἰάκωβον (James).

Origen also confesses to us that "Levi" was likely original here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html

"It is manifest to us all who possess the Gospel narratives, which Celsus does not appear even to have read, that Jesus selected twelve apostles, and that of these Matthew alone was a tax-gatherer; that when he calls them indiscriminately sailors, he probably means James and John, because they left their ship and their father Zebedee, and followed Jesus; for Peter and his brother Andrew, who employed a net to gain their necessary subsistence, must be classed not as sailors, but as the Scripture describes them, as fishermen. The Lebes also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a tax-gatherer; but he was not of the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in one of the copies of Mark's Gospel."

"Lebes" here probably refers to the "Levi" of 2:14. The "b" sound transliteration probably just reflects the Hebrew letter "bet" which has a "v" sound when it lacks a dot in the middle.

The General problem here for Christianity is who exactly were the Disciples/Apostles of Jesus who supposedly passed on all things Jesus? The PriMary and practically soul Authority for the answer were the Gospels. Competing Christan sects claimed authority for their brand of Christianity based on supposed Tradition from a specific Apostle. Thus, supposed support for a claimed Tradition could be the specific Manuscript that your Sect Possessed (understand Dear Reader?).

The identity of the tax collector of Mark 2:14 was especially Significant to Christianity because by the end of the second century Orthodox Christianity claimed that the tax collector with the similar/parallel story in "Matthew" was "Matthew", the author of that Gospel, and probably the most important supposed Witness for Christianity.

Let's look now at how each Gospel named the tax collector and Possible reasons for the differences:

Mark:
"And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of Alphaeus sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. (ASV)"

"Mark" wrote a Gospel indicating that none of the Disciples became Apostles so it didn't matter who the Disciples in the Gospel were. The Point of "Mark" was that the Witness was the Author and none of the Disicples in the Gospel.

Matthew:
"And as Jesus passed by from thence, he saw a man, called Matthew, sitting at the place of toll: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. (ASV)"

This Community rejected "Mark's" assertion that there was no Disciple witness. The Apostolic authority for this Community came from their Gospel's "Matthew" who was the supposed tax collector in the Gospel.

Luke:
"And after these things he went forth, and beheld a publican, named Levi, sitting at the place of toll, and said unto him, Follow me. (ASV)"

This Community did not claim Authority from "Matthew" (too Jewish) thus there was no reason to Edit "Mark's" "Levi". "Luke" Believed largely in Spirit/Personal Revelation allah Paul.

John:
John has no mention of "Matthew" or "Levi". The problem with "Luke's" claim to authority by Spirit is that it was too easy to claim leading to too many competing Sects. This Community Rejected "Mark's" assertion that there was no Disciple Witness. Rejected "Matthew's" assertion that "Matthew" the tax collector was the PriMary witness by Exorcising the entire call of Levi/Matthew story. Rejected "Luke" for being too open ended. In this Gospel John is made a leading witness.



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
To the Unfaithful. I have Faith that I have terms now with Dr. (feels good to say that) Carrier to write a companion feature article for ErrancyWiki, which will be a bookend, so to speak, with the now Legendary Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth, concerning the likely original ending of "Mark". The objective will be to give the brave and truthful Skeptics a convenient and professional reference source for arguing that Christianity forged/interpolated a resurrection sighting to the original narrative. In companion with the Birth Dating error, these articles will show a serious credibility problem regarding Christianities ability to reasonably preserve what was originally written and therefore serious doubt as to the historicity of major Christian Assertians at the supposed beginning and end.

The first stage will be an inventorying and analysis of the External evidence, primarily Manuscript and Patristic, with emphasis on the Eusebius' Marinarus letter. The second stage will be an analysis of the Internal evidence considering major Themes of "Mark", support for a specific ending within the body of "Mark", style of the endings and vocabulary of the endings.

I have to confess though that I do feel like a Sith Lord here. You have Jewdie Apologists all over the place while the Skithtips can only have one Lord Master, Ehrman, and one apprentice, Carrier, at a time.



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page