JoeWallack

The Word According To Garp, Mork, Mark. An Inventory of Significant Editing in the First Gospel:



Father O’Roarke: Welcome, welcome to Judas Ford used Autos. I’m your Holy square Host, Father O’Roarke.

Tatoo: Do they know they’ll have to pay the full sticker price Boss?

Father O’Roarke: Shhh, Tatoo. Friends, do you recall the 1966 Tarsus convertible? Ford, did, seven times. But seriously folks I’m not asking you to buy these cars on faith alone, I’m begging you to buy these cars. Please buy these cars. Take this 1999 Dodge Saint Regis. Please. Take it! Look at this resurrected 2000 Christler LeBarabba which we guarantee will be the last car that you’ll ever need (for the two thousandth straight year). See what we’ve done. Look at the changes we’ve made such as expanded leg room so that even a camel could sit comfortably.

Tatoo: I’m cramped in here Boss.

Father O’Roarke: Be quiet Tatoo.

Tatoo: I can’t move my legs Boss.

Father O’Roarke : Shut up Tatoo!

Tatoo: Let me out of here boss, let me out of here!


JW:
The purpose of this Thread is to Inventory Significant Editing in the First Gospel, Mark. Apologists commonly argue that Editing of the Christian Bible is relatively minor in significance. From the best known Internet Apologist, JP Holding:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html#agree

"Is any matter of the Christian faith affected by any variant reading? This is the most important issue for the average believer, and the good news is this: No doctrine of Christianity is in the least dependent on ANY textual variant."

This Thread will demonstrate that JP Holding is wrong. Editing of "Mark" not only affects "doctrine of Christianity" it affects some of the most important doctrine.

Before we start, let The Reader understand, that I would be glad to discuss this Issue Directly with JP Holding. Elas, he refuses to participate on all my Forums that have no censorship while he prevents me from participating on all his Forums which have censorship. Understand Dear Reader?

As we begin our Textual Analysis let's use a very Christian Textbook, Bruce Metzger's A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament. Note that this work is misleading as it gives an Implication that it is an Inventory of all Textual Variation. Actually though it's only what the authors consider Significant and there is far more variation than what is shown. Some is not shown because the meaning of the variation is considered insignificant such as the spelling of names and some because the witness for variation is considered too weak.

Also consider that Metzger's protege and heir apparent, Bart Ehrman, perhaps now the greatest Textual Critic of the Christian Bible that the world has ever known, is now a Confessed Agnostic as a result of his study of Textual Variation! [Understatement]So maybe Ehrman knows something here.[/Understatement]

Significant Variant #1:

My favorite significant variant and one that Christianity traditionally Fails to identify is that "Matthew" and "Luke" are themselves priMarily Editing of "Mark". In my now famous Mark's View Of The Disciples Thread I Demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that "Mark's" primary purpose was to Discredit "The Disciples" as Witnesses to "Mark's" Jesus. "Matthew" and "Luke" Edited "Mark" to rehabilitate "The Disciples" as The Witnesses to their Jesus. In a follow-up Thread I Am going to isolate "Matthew" and "Luke" stories of the Disciples not found in "Mark" to demonstrate how few there are (showing lack of supposed historical witness and necessity of reliance on "Mark" for the basic Narrative) and that when not copying "Mark" the portrayal is Positive (showing Intent to Spin "The Disciples" The other Way).


Significant Variant #2:

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...pter=1&verse=1

ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ

Beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ son of God.


And Metzger commentary:

"1.1 Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ] {C}
The absence of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in א* Θ 28c al may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the nomina sacra. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed)1 to expand titles and quasi-titles of books. Since the combination of B D W al in support of υἱοῦ θεοῦ is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets."

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:
By not describing Jesus as "son of God" at the Start of the Gospel this helps Raise the issue of When and How "Mark's" Jesus became "son of god" and also helps create conlict with the supposed virgin birth narratives in "Matthew" and "Luke".



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:

Significant Variant #3:

Mark 1:2

καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ

As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet


And Metzger commentary:

"1.2 ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ {A}
The quotation in verses 2 and 3 is composite, the first part being from Mal 3.1 and the second part from Is 40.3. It is easy to see, therefore, why copyists would have altered the words “in Isaiah the prophet” (a reading found in the earliest representative witnesses of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text) to the more comprehensive introductory formula “in the prophets.”

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:
An important Christian Doctrine is that the Jesus Story is reasonably Prophesied in the Jewish Bible. "Mark" though, in order to present such prophecy fulfillment here to fit his Jesus story, has to Combine Unrelated words from two different Prophets and Deceptively present it as from one Prophet.


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

DavidfromTexas

LOL!!!

Your proclivity to spouting unfounded superlatives prevents anyone from taking you seriously. Bart Ehrman... "perhaps the greatest Textual Critic of the Christian Bible that the world has ever known"? Ha ha!

Let me guess... you must be one of Ehrman's publicists, correct?

"now a Confessed Agnostic"... as if that means something?


Christians take great comfort in knowing that textual variation is a by-product of the means by which Providence insured that the original text would be preserved for all generations. You may not understand how this is so because anyone who grovels at the feet of someone like Ehrman is usually too blind to see it.





Exaggerating again? Or perhaps you have an inflated sense of self-importance?


LOL!!!

Beyond a reasonable doubt?!?!?

What is this? A court room? Yeah... it's a court room with a jury that is stuffed by atheists and agnostics! Now THAT is how we get a verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt".

If you really want to be famous, then I suggest that you pretend that you really believe, then go to seminary, get the requisite degrees, call yourself a "scholar", then find a way to get yourself hired as part of faculty, then write a book that reveals who you really are... THAT is the way to get people groveling at your feet. If Ehrman did it, then you can certainly do it too!


Wow!

What revelataions! Perhaps you have some sort of inside track on this... Where did you get it?

You must have special access to people in the know, correct? Or perhaps you just have superb intuition, and it is time that you get credit for it, correct?

AN AMAZING DEDUCTION!


???

What "conflict" are you talking about? If the title was added later, as Metzger suggests that it could have been, then "Mark's Jesus" never had the title in the first place. That is all that you can say. If you are implying that Matthew and Luke were somehow compelled to deal with the issue of "son of God" simply because the later manuscripts of "Marks Jesus" had the phrase "son of God" within it, then you need to prove that Matthew and Luke had access ONLY to the later manuscripts with the added the title. Are you prepared to do that?

If so, then perhaps you could become as famous as Ehrman, except that your fame would be based upon a REAL contribution, not rhetoric.

gregor

DfT

VARVES

(anyone unfamiliar with David should have visited the EvC forum several weeks ago)

Julian

Ah! Your standard argument. I must admire the depth and quality of that response. It really shows us the depth of your knowledge and your ability to refute an argument. Who can stand before such words of power?
I see. So the fact that there are no two manuscripts that are alike, the fact that even the experts can't say for sure what the word of god really says, the fact that christians use a number of different bibles, this is how he preserved the text? The fact that it is an unsolvable mess gives you comfort?

Why am I not surprised...

Julian

DavidfromTexas

Just as predicted...

You do not see it... and such is not a surprise.

Julian

So, please, share with us your level of expertise in the field of textual criticism. Present some evidence to show that you are right.

Julian

Jack the Bodiless

Do you have specific evidence that Ehrman sought to deceive in this fashion, or is this simply libel?

JoeWallack

JW:

Significant Variant #4:

Mark 1:4

ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ

Came John the baptizing in the desert and


And Metzger commentary:

1.4 [ὁ] βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καί {C}
In view of the predominant usage in the Synoptic Gospels of referring to John as “the Baptist” (ὁ βαπτιστής occurs in Mk 6.25 and 8.28, as well as seven times in Matthew and three times in Luke), it is easier to account for the addition than for the deletion of the definite article before βαπτίζων. The omission of καί in a few Alexandrian witnesses is the result of taking ὁ βαπτίζων as a title.

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 Significance of this one is arguable. According to Christian Doctrine, the Christian Bible is consistent with other sources of history for the time period. The translation of what Metzger is saying above is that there is textual support for:

"Came John baptizing in the desert."

Without "the" before "baptizing" baptizing appears to be just a verb rather than part of a name or title. From the Christian Zhubert:

"Word Detail Page
Verb to baptize, to dip in or under water Strongs
Parsing Present Active Participle Nominative Singular Masculine
Context in Mark 1:4 αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης ὁ ... ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ"

JW:
Sounds like a Verb to me. Adding "the" before baptizing makes the description match up better with Josephus' account:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant18.html

"2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him"

JW:
Admittedly, "Mark's" Baptist John would sound like Josephus' Baptist John
without the baptist title or name but there are details Josephus gives which differ from "Mark" so "Mark" having the same title Josephus references makes the connection clearer than it otherwise would be.

What I find instructive here is that in "Matthew's" related story that was Copied from "Mark":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_3:1

"And in those days cometh John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, saying," (ASV)

we have "βαπτιστὴς" vs. "Mark's" "βαπτίζων" with the conjewgation "Nominative Singular Masculine" or a Noun. "Matthew" has no known Textual Variation here. So if someone was arguing about how "John" was originally described in the Christian Bible, they could argue that "Matthew" originally said "John the Baptist". But this isn't very good evidence here since there is evidence that "Mark" originally did not write "John the Baptist" and "Matthew" Copied "Mark" but did some Editing.

The point is that whatever the Textual Evidence is for what a specific author wrote is only Primary evidence for what that author wrote and not necessarily Primary evidence for what was Originally written. So you can't just Assume that whatever a Christian Bible author wrote is what was Originally written. Understand Dear Reader?



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

DavidfromTexas

Finally, some sense in this discussion...

Agree with the above.