Sven

Maybe. I'm not yet convinced of your argumentation.

But even if this were true - anyone without a preconceived conclusion that there could be no error would simply mark this as a contradiction and move on. Christians, on the other hand, construct the absurd concept of a trinity out of this and remain confident that there are no contradictions. :banghead:

I simply can not believe in things which are illogical. That's about it. If your god exists and likes me believing in him/them, it's not my fault that he did not explain himself/themselves better.

Steven Avery

Hi Iasion,

Knowing your debating style I didn't expect you to simply say --

"I was wrong when I said that the Comma was put in the
Bible way after the 4th century"

Now of course we disagree strongly about Cyprian (folks can simply read again carefully the Marty Shue site). And you do not discuss the fact that Jerome was referencing earlier manuscripts in his comment, or the import of the Council having the Comma in the 5th century for hundreds of Bishops, or the mechanism of how the wealth of 4th century references (which you previously denied) would simply 'pop up' from nowhere.

That is par for the course.

So since you came up with your own little construct, I will simply work with your wording and ask a question or two.

What MSS and versions are these ?
Specifics please.

Would you list the "many" MSS and the "other versions"
in the 4th century. Are we talking about dozens of manuscripts ?

We clearly disagree on FIRST, yet the important issue is that there are MANY quotes and references. How did they arise out of nowhere in your theories ? Try to offer a consistent theory.

That is simply not true, although it would be a whole nother thread. Where do you get this stuff ?

Anyway, thanks for showing the forum your inability to really discuss salient evidences like how

a) how a dozen or so ECW quotes "pop up" in the fourth century,
b) the very specific Vulgate reference when Jerome was working with
early references.
c) how the Council of Carthage, hundreds of bishops, simply accepted
your supposed recent addtion.

Anyway, I really enjoyed researching in depth these various evidences. If anyone else really wants to discuss them, instead of looking for fallback defensive positions for errant claims, we could have a thread.

The moderators are welcome to pull these posts out for a 'Johannine Comma - early evidences' thread.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

While I don't claim to be a census expert, (which I will assume is the heart of this) I have glanced at the material. And I simply see all sorts of viewpoints different than your fiat declaration here.

Here we simply have completely different perspectives. I see the NT prophecies as a combination of fairly easy-to-understand Hebraic perspective (eg Psalm 110 & Isaiah 53) and some that are in the realm of midrash. They are all beautiful and harmonious. And good historians, like the late David Flusser, (and even scholars like Lawrence Schiffman to a lesser degree) would acknowledge that the NT gives us a good window for 1st-century Judaism. I find that the skeptics and mythicists are generally quite weak in this area. Our poster Notsri especially has been continually correcting their misunderstandings on this forum for years.

This is a type of criticism/analysis desperation.
The NT is perfectly fine on this.

There is a legitimate question here. And my view is that 1st-century Nazareth was very possibly much closer to the Kinneret. (One of those 'wrong places' things... like with the Exodus and Ur of the Chaldees and much more). However James Tabor afaik who works with the archaeology (in the region) and language sees no difficulty on this NT language (I haven't studied closely the language but we did discuss the similar case of polis as a city or town and Josephus confirmed the NT usage). So I am all ears to learn more.

Jack, you are stretching your credibility here. Maybe you have some ill-fitting chronological point or something you want to make ?

(snip) your next one due to your language.

A kudo for the 'apparently'. We see on this forum how hard Till struggled to try to strait-jacket the language of the accounts. I enjoy those types of discussions and really see little difficulty.

The doozy-paloozas are often just blunders like the pig marathon from Gerash, or Jesus not going to the feast, or the synagogues of Judea. My remembrance is that the main one in the trumpeted claim of Mark not knowing geography was of this nature (and then from that error the mythies start to build other ideas like Mark did not know Israel, and he was writing theater in Rome).

There are many of these errors, some huge, all discomfiting, and they pop up here and there. They are historical, geographical, logical, doctrinal and even grammatical.

And some are actually a bit subtle and sometimes the error is in modern version translation rather than the underlying Greek text (I remember one of those came up in chronology issues vis a vis the demoniac accounts).

I posted on the JW forum for awhile and again and again he would post these supposed errors and they were simply modern version errors. It becomes a joke. Even the supposed 'smackdown error' on the errancy wiki is some dumb thing like this. Where the unbelievers are trying to tell me to use a modern corrupt version rather than the historic Bible so they can point out the fabricated errors. Balderdash.

And yet JW does have a point. If a 'Christian apologist' has such a skewered perspective that he rejects the historic Bible for the modern corrupt texts he is in a very tuff position. And is fair game. However for a skeptic (who likely asserts that the whole NT is a fake anyway) to insist that I use some abjectly corrupt text is the height of arrogance and nonsense. Simply because a few duped textcrit 'scholars' went haywire a century ago ? No way.

My Bible is pure and I don't kowtow to an unholy alliance of unbelieving textcrit confusion and skeptic alienation to try to wrest it away.

And those errors were actually forced into the errant versions, often against overwhelming textual historical evidence, by theories that must fabricate such errors into the text. The whole thing is a rigged game.

Now back to your post.

In general the errors I mention are simply textual blunders, without redeeming social value. The ones you raise are more in the nature of interesting and provocative questions that spur us to study more excellently the word of God. And that is always very fine.

Acts 17:10-11
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

JoeWallack

Greetings, I Am Swiftus Maximus, your host, for Christianized Rome's favorite Game Show, Lying For Idolars. Okay, our Contestants are the defending champion, Irenaeus of Lyons, yes, "Lyons" and the challenger Porphyry. Okay, since you are the defending champion Irenaeus, you go first:

Irenaues:
I'll take Paulpourri for The 500.

Swiftus:
Okay, who was it who said:

"As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,”33583358 2 Cor. iv. 4. and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus—according to Paul’s custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words—“In whom God,” then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], “hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not,” he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, “God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world.” And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, “the God of this world,” as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, “the unbelievers of this world,” because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large.

2. From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.viii.html


Irenaeus:
Umm, me?

Swiftus:
Correct. However, under the rules of Lying For Idolars, since you answered truthfully, you lose your turn. Porphyry, uh Porphyry. Oh that's right, Porphyry was never told about today's show not to mention the fact that he's no where near Rome right now anyway. Well that's his problem. Okay Irenaeus, your turn.

Irenaeus:
I'll take Papais Tall Tales for a Gazillion.

Swiftus:
What is Papias referring to when he says "The Sayings of Jesus"?

Irenaeus:
The Acts of Jesus.

Swiftus:
Incorrect. Okay, a Gazillion points. Still your turn.



JW:
In perhaps the greatest Compilation since Mishnah Torah we have previously demonstrated that the Manuscript evidence as well as Patristic Identification of the Issue makes it Likely that "Mark" Originally ended at 16:8. Now let's start to consider Patristic Quotation of the ending of "Mark" but pay special attention to the Quality of the Quote.

Continuing with the Patristic Evidence for the Origenal Ending of "Mark" let's look at Origen next even though most would list Irenaeus first.

Origen was relatively honest by Church Father standards (a short Puttristic) because he wrote before Christianity gained Control. He may have been the most scholarly Church Father, relative to his time, of all time. Naturally then, the subsequent Church had to brand him a heretic (surprise) and even went to the trouble of maintaining the text of exactly how Origen's origenal writing was Edited.

In Contra Celsus, probably Origen's most famous work, Origen tries (unsuccessfully) to defend the assertions of Christianity, including the most important Assertion, that Jesus resurrected. Keep in mind that Contra Celsus was probably written after Irenaeus' Against Heresies where Irenaeus' supposedly refers to the Long Ending.

In Book II

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen162.html

Origen quotes from "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" to provide supposed post resurrection evidence:

"CHAP. LIX.

He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention; but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails." We ask him what he means by the expression, "was of no assistance to himself?" For if he means it to refer to want of virtue, we reply that He was of very great assistance. For He neither uttered nor committed anything that was improper, but was truly "led as a sheep to the slaughter, and was dumb as a lamb before the shearer;" and the Gospel testifies that He opened not His mouth. But if Celsus applies the expression to things indifferent and corporeal, (meaning that in such Jesus could render no help to Himself,) we say that we have proved from the Gospels that He went voluntarily to encounter His sufferings. Speaking next of the statements in the Gospels, that after His resurrection He showed the marks of His punishment, and how His hands had been pierced, he asks, "Who beheld this?" And discrediting the narrative of Mary Magdalene, who is related to have seen Him, he replies, "A half-frantic woman, as ye state." And because she is not the only one who is recorded to have seen the Saviour after His resurrection, but others also are mentioned, this Jew of Celsus calumniates these statements also in adding, "And some one else of those engaged in the same system of deception!""


"CHAP. LXII.

Now it followed from all the predictions which were uttered regarding Him --amongst which was this prediction of the resurrection --and, from all that was done by Him, and from all the events which befell Him, that this event should be marvellous above all others. For it had been said beforehand by the prophet in the person of Jesus: "My flesh shall rest in hope, and Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, and wilt not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption." And truly, after His resurrection, He existed in a body intermediate, as it were, between the grossness of that which He had before His sufferings, and the appearance of a soul uncovered by such a body. And hence it was, that when His disciples were together, and Thomas with them, there "came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger," etc. ["John"]"


"And in the Gospel of Luke also, while Simon and Cleopas were conversing with each other respecting all that had happened to them, Jesus "drew near, and went with them. And their eyes were holden, that they should not know Him. And He said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk?""


"CHAP. LXX.

But how is it that this Jew of Celsus could say that Jesus concealed Himself? For his words regarding Him are these: "And who that is sent as a messenger ever conceals himself when he ought to make known his message?" Now, He did not conceal Himself, who said to those who sought to apprehend Him, "I was daily teaching openly in the temple, and ye laid no hold upon Me." Bat having once already answered this charge of Celsus, now again repeated, we shall content ourselves with what we have formerly said. We have answered, also, in the preceding pages, this objection, that "while he was in the body, and no one believed upon him, he preached to ail without intermission; but when he might have produced a powerful belief in himself after rising from the dead, he showed himself secretly only to one woman, and to his own boon companions." Now it is not true that He showed Himself only to one woman; for it is stated in the Gospel according to Matthew, that "in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there had been a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord had descended from heaven, and come and rolled back the stone." And, shortly after, Matthew adds: "And, behold, Jesus met them" - clearly meaning the afore-mentioned Marys -"saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him."


JW:
Origen does not quote from "Mark" for post resurrection evidence when he had specific reason to which is Evidence that Origen either was unaware of the Long Ending or was lying when he responded to Celsus' charge that Christianity changed the Original Gospel:

"CHAP. XXVII.

"After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the. followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.""


JW:
Nice Evidence, conveniently preserved by Christianity itself that there was One Original Gospel like "Mark" which was Edited to support Christian Assertions.

So Schmuelman!, which do you think it was? The most famous Christian Bible scholar of his time, Ignorant of the Long Ending or Lying? Respond if you dare!

Origen's Silence regarding the Long Ending fits nicely with the previous observations of Manuscript and Patristic Identification evidence indicating that in Origen's time he probably took for granted that "Mark" ended at 16:8 and may not have even seen it as an issue. This helps explain the lack of manuscripts of this time as well as the Destruction of Celsus' writings. They all made clear that "Mark" ended at 16:8 and that Christianity had Dishonestly Forged 16:9-20.

So even though Origen is Silent on the Long Ending the Honest Reader must rate the Quality of his testimony as High as Origen's writings give the appearance of a Judge, who wants to Objectively determine the Truth.

On the other side, let's look at Irenaeus.

Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons")

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7435_1989248

"5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way.117 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in "the spirit and power of Elias,"118 "Prepare ye the way of me Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and mother God, but one and the same; under rations aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding119 this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; "120 confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."121 Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein."


The applicable quote is:

""So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;"

Compare to 16:19:

"So the Lord Jesus, after speaking with them, was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God."

Thus Irenaeus, an important late second century Father, explicitly refers to the Ending of "Mark" and pretty much quotes 16:19. This also ties to Tatian, so by the middle to late 2nd century we have Evidence that the Long Ending was known. My guess is that Irenaeus' quote of the Long Ending is Original to Against Heresies.

We have the following reasons though to be Skeptical that Irenaeus' reference is Original to Against Heresies:

1) The extant manuscripts are few and Late [joke]all coming after Erasmus[/joke].

2) There are no extant Greek manuscripts (only fragment quotes).

3) The extant manuscripts are based on a Latin translation which is generally thought to be a poor translation (difficult to understand what is trying to be said or even what language it was translated from). The Latin translations have textual variation (surprise).

4) The manuscript and Patristic evidence indicates it was Likely that Irenaeus' writings were Edited by the Church.

5) It's Likely that forged Greek fragments of Irenaeus have been presented as authentic.

6) The supposed quote of 16:19 is only known to exist in the Latin:

"In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus: Et quidem dominus Iesus, posteaquam locutus est eis, receptus est in caelos, et sedit ad dexteram dei."

"At the end, moreover, of the gospel Mark says: And so the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was received into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of God."

There is no known Greek fragment of this.

We also have the following reasons not to give much weight to Irenaeus' supposed quote of the Long Ending as evidence of its being Original:

1) Irenaeus never identifies the Ending of "Mark" as an issue.

2) Irenaeus shows no interest in Textual Variation acting largely as an Advocate, even by Patristic standards, simply choosing whatever he thought was the best evidence for his position and ignoring other alternatives. It's easy to picture Irenaeus selecting the Long Ending based on what it said and not based on its Textual history. Note that in the quote above Irenaeus does the same for his quote of the beginning of "Mark":

"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"

It's generally thought by modern Bible scholarship that "Son of God" is not Original but a second century addition. And:

"as it is written in the prophets"

Again, it's generally thought by modern Bible scholarship that "prophets" (as opposed to "Malachi") is not Original but a second century addition. So we may have two other examples in the same quote that Irenaeus simply choose from a second century variation and ignored the earlier wording.

And so comparing the Silence of Origen to the Identification by Irenaeus, which has more Weight? That of Origen, the Judge or Irenaeus the Advocate?

Now, shall we continue? If you dare!



Joseph

TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.

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

Jack the Bodiless

praxeus:
So, because apologists have a "viewpoint" that the Bible must somehow be inerrant, you see no reason to actually resolve this contradiction? The facts are quite straightforward. And I suggest you do more than "glance" at the material, or you might be left with the impression that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice...
As you seem to be admitting that this is the case (that is essentially what "midrash" means), how do you imagine that skeptics are "weak"? It is quite obvious that Matthew is ripping out OT verses which have absolutely no prophetic intent.
Again, why do you use the word "desperation" to describe the most obvious and straightforward interpretation of John 7, when it is the apologist who must invent ad-hoc excuses?
It's the gospels that are chronologically "ill-fitting": did Jesus go immediately into the wilderness after his baptism, or did he go to the wedding at Cana? Are you going to metaphorically pull something out of the "Alexandrian texts" hat here, or are you simply going for a bluff with the apparently baseless "ill-fitting" comment?
What I said here was "The Sun went out for a while and zombies wandered the streets of Jerusalem, but only one person noticed?". No profanities here, and the problem is clearly insurmountable. Such an event could hardly have escaped comment from numerous historical sources, it would have been the most widely-visible miracle associated with Jesus, yet not even the other gospel authors noticed. I will assume you dodged this because you had no answer to it.
Again, no "struggle", the accounts are plainly contradictory. The contradiction remains until the apologist struggles free of it: or essentially admits defeat on the inerrancy issue by citing human fallibility (hence error). Is this what you wish to do here?
...Which seems rather likely, given that BOTH Gerasa and Gadara are somewhat distant from Galilee, Tyre is definitely south of Sidon, Mark seems ignorant of Jewish customs regarding the trial of Jesus... and so on. But it still appears that none of the issues I have raised on this thread can be blamed on "not using the Alexandrian texts".
Even when they reveal that the Bible is false?

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

As I've pointed out before I find JW's grade school Creative Writing
class stuff mostly unreadable.

=============================================
SUMMARY

We went through this JW Ending-of-Mark thing before in May 2005
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=125251 (05/05)
On The Apostolic Preaching (Let Sleeping Dogmas Lie) - Authorship

This next post on that thread has the full text of nine ECW citations,
and there was a bit of back and forth banter. That was at least a fairly dedicated thread so it was easier to follow.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...2&postcount=31
Last 12 Verses of Mark - Ealy Church Writers (05/05)

From a related thread.. the scholarship links
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...0&postcount=57
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (06/05)

This post links to our other threads (2003) and a bit more.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...7&postcount=25
Mark 16:9-20 - The Ending of Mark (12/05)

The earlier thread is why I kept my post on this thread to a short summary.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...9&postcount=93 (09/06)
last twelve verses of Mark - hiding evidences

===============

Now if anybody can tell if Joe is adding anything NEW on this thread, please give a holla. Even anything cogent.

I realize there is a lot of hand-waving.
That is not worth more attention.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery


================================================

Steven Avery

Except that folks who studied the area, who really knew what was what and didn't have an NT perspective, indicated that the -

"country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee"

included a port on the Kinneret, and you can see the hills (southeast corner of Kinneret.. yes at one time I was wrong in theorizing the southwest). I realize your pals here belligerently insisted that this be absolutely proved to their satisfaction (eg. they wanted the precise tombs) and especially wanted to do preposition-parsing of Josephus as a counter-argument. The thread was a big and is an example of the desperation I referenced (like camel domestication anachronisms). The fellow who knows the area tells you there was a Gadera port there ... he isn't even an NT guy .. and you still come back with this .. even knowing the Bible says "the country of the Gadarenes".

Oh, and Gerash is not "somewhat distant" .. it is 35 miles. A marathon and a 1/3. About halfway to Amman Jordan. The "country of Gerash" is nowhere near Kinneret.

Mark 7:31 (KJB)
And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon,
he came unto the sea of Galilee...

The attacks on Mark are based on this type of stuff from
the modern versions. Error begets error.

As for customs, you would do well to take Mark's understanding of 1st-century Israel over that of the skeptics and mythies who come
up with stuff like this.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Doug Shaver

What did you believe about the Bible before you began your studies of the manuscript and historical evidence?

Jack the Bodiless

praxeus:
...OK, good call! A pity, however, that it still indicates unfamiliarity with the geography of the region (as the Decapolis was beyond the Sea of Galilee, to the southeast).

Furthermore, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that as this reference to Tyre and Sidon is less precise than the "modern" version, it's probably been "fudged". Which is more plausible: that a verse has been blurred to conceal an error, or that one has been modified to introduce an error?

What is your actual rationale for the existence of the Tyre/Sidon problem in the Alexandrian text?

Steven Avery

Hi Doug,

Basically I was using the NIV and didn't even realize the huge differences. Didn't know about the corruptions, the manuscript issues or even the historical attempt to supplant the reformation Bible.

For many years I thought the NIV was excellent.

When I studied and I asked around there was no sensible counter,
and I junked the modern versions.
(I never had a period where I was a confirmed modern textcrit).

At that point I was using the NKJV. Later I switched (with some
other turns) to the King James Bible. That had more to do with
issues of inspiration and perservation, purity and perfection than
the blunderama issues of the alexandrian text. From a straight
apologetics standpoint the NKJV does not have the various
errors that come up here all the time (eg. Tyre and Sidon is
right in the NKJV).

Shalom,
Steven