bwcourtn

hello, i've recently read that the current versions that the church uses of the gospels were based on egyptian texts and that there are actually older versions (syriac maybe?)..........my question is, where can i find a translation of the oldest known canonical gospel of MARK manuscript(s)? If this is not possible, could someone explain some of the differences, especially theological deviations based on Jesus' sayings. Why is it that christians are not using the older versions' translations..........it seems that common sense would dictate that they would be closer in content to the autographs. Thanks in advance for any comments!

Dark Knight Bob

Because historically the newer texts were enforced by the ruler of that time as "the correct" version. And thus the culture around them rejected the older texts as no longer nessesary.

Such is the way with such bizarre things.

Toto

You might find some answers in this recent thread Oldest fragments of scripture

bwcourtn

sorry for not catching that thread myself..........thanks, that's pretty much what i was looking for. i find it interesting that the very earliest piece of the new testament gospels (john fragment~150 c.e.) is thought to be derived from what is considered the last written gospel out of the four canonical ones (not to mention it was discovered in egypt, suggesting the early spread of christianity). mark must have been written quiet early, indeed. as skeptical as i am, i don't find it as easy to dismiss christianity as all of you people do, even despite various new testament inaccuracies.......how could approx. 12 people be so easily deceived over one dead man........this apologetic is stronger, in my opinion, than its refutation is (though, i still wouldn't know how jesus would fit into an evolutionary world-view, which seems to have a strong case......but i'm definitely a novice in biology). thanks again!

JEST2ASK

I missed where Mark was one of the 12 :huh:
However what does any of that have to do with evolution

One step at a time if you would ... I will try to follow but my mind works only on small Leaps (of Faith) at a time

bwcourtn

no, i've just always heard that the consensus is that mark was the earliest written nt gospel.........him not being an eye-witness is irrelevant, because he supposably records what he's heard from others who were his contemporaries. i'm playing the devil's (or god's?) advocate here.

funinspace

Ponder Joseph Smith, and the delusion that became Mormonism. Or a host of others. People are quite willing to ignore reason and such, in search of some mystical truth. One of the problem is that we don't really know what this "12" saw or knew. All we know is what we have is copies 120-200 years later from documents written some 10-80 years later. 10 years is only because of Paul, other wise it would be about 30-80 years later.

easychair

I think there are a lot of websites on the Coptic Gospels. I don't know a lot about them except that sects in Ethiopia claim to be the oldest Christians.

Vorkosigan

That's a reference to the apologetic legend of Papias, recorded in Eusebius:

"For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." (Papias, ECW)

However, outside of a few religious conservatives, modern scholars do not accept this as an accurate discussion of the origins of the Gospel of Mark. For the reasons why this is inaccurate, see any mainstream introductory text. For a vigorous defense of this account as accurate, see Gundry's Mark.

Vorkosigan

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, bwcourtn, this is correct.

The oldest gospels that we have are according to the Western/Peripheral text (including the Old Syriac). See my analysis at,

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/cvers.htm

Try the Old Syriac Mark (not available on the Net), or the Bezae Mark.

There are lots of differences. The oldest texts were more Jewish-Christian, for example.

Becasuse they've been deceived.

Also, at a later point, you mentioned P52, the Rylands Papyrus, containing a few lines of Jn. But there's no proof that this Papyrus is actually so early. See,

THE RYLANDS PAPYRUS FRAUD
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm

All the best,

Yuri.