FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-07-2006, 05:13 AM   #101
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

steph fisher is very silent. I wonder what Vork would make of that.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 06-08-2006, 12:53 AM   #102
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steph fisher
Regarding manuscript variants at Mark 14:62, there are none. Robert Grant cited none as there are none to be cited. It is an erroneous claim made by the subject of this thread and one repeated in his review of Tabor's book. When this mistake was identified and pointed out to him, he removed it from his review but failed to follow through with his website.
Dear Steph......

I'm a friend of Michael's, and have been editing his Mark Commentary for him. It looks to me as if Michael posted some of his new material to the wrong directory, hence the confusion.

I'll call the problem to his attention, and hopefully it will be resolved shortly. Thank you so much for the heads up.

Mickey
McMouse is offline  
Old 06-08-2006, 01:43 AM   #103
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

McMouse,
Welcome to IIDB. What exactly is the heads up you have been given? That Mark 14:61-2 of the Caesarean manuscripts do not differ from Alexandrian and 'Western' manuscripts?
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 06-08-2006, 04:56 PM   #104
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman
McMouse,
Welcome to IIDB. What exactly is the heads up you have been given? That Mark 14:61-2 of the Caesarean manuscripts do not differ from Alexandrian and 'Western' manuscripts?
Hi Ted, thanks for the welcome.

The "heads up" was that updated material I edited has not yet been uploaded onto the Mark site. Thanks to Steph for noticing.......I passed along the information to Michael.
McMouse is offline  
Old 06-09-2006, 10:55 AM   #105
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

This may be relevant for some people.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 06-09-2006, 12:09 PM   #106
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer
This may be relevant for some people.
Gotta love Jim West, the other ironic thing about his elitism, is that he is a Baptist, I thought a fundamental plank of Baptist faith was the Priesthood of all believers, based off of 1 Peter 2:5-9 and 1 Timothy 5. So if all believers are priests, they can all interpret the Bible and are all elite, maybe Jim should join the Catholic church or something
yummyfur is offline  
Old 06-16-2006, 08:29 AM   #107
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 1,037
Default Mark 14:62 Again

I'm still unclear about variants of Mark 14:62. In Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), pp 204-205, Bart Ehrman states the following regarding this verse:

Quote:
It is no wonder that one of our earliest witnesses to Mark modifies the verse by eliminating the offending words, so that now Jesus simply says that the high priest will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power with the clouds of heaven. No mention remains of an imminent appearance by One, who, in fact, never came.
Is Ehrman correct, and if so, what manuscript contains this version?
John Kesler is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 11:34 AM   #108
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kesler
I'm still unclear about variants of Mark 14:62. In Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), pp 204-205, Bart Ehrman states the following regarding this verse:
Quote:
It is no wonder that one of our earliest witnesses to Mark modifies the verse by eliminating the offending words, so that now Jesus simply says that the high priest will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power with the clouds of heaven. No mention remains of an imminent appearance by One, who, in fact, never came.

Is Ehrman correct, and if so, what manuscript contains this version?
D AKA Codex Bezae

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 12:22 PM   #109
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
D AKA Codex Bezae
Thanks, Andrew. For some reason, this page doesn't include Mark 14:62. Is there a Web site which lists ALL known NT variants?
John Kesler is offline  
Old 06-21-2006, 06:40 AM   #110
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kesler
Thanks, Andrew. For some reason, this page doesn't include Mark 14:62. Is there a Web site which lists ALL known NT variants?
There is no complete apparatus in existence, online or in print. For the best electronic one go here, pick your bible section and add 'tc' to the view. He gets his information from here. There is also http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/biblon/biblon2000.html which has fewer variations. In a few months I will have a website ready that shows more,but it's still in the works.

Julian
Julian is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:53 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.