Greetings all. What should we do about passages like Mark 16:9-20 and John 8? These passages have little manuscript evidence backing them. If ther are to be taken as scribal errors or additions, should we read them as Scripture or even have them in the Bible?
Bart Ehrman once said something to the effect of not one single core Christian doctrine would be compromised if all the questionable passages were removed from the Bible.
Additionally, it has long been understood that one of the most effective measures for discerning what belonged in the canon and what didn't is its compatibility with the whole of scripture
(this one of the reasons the apocryphal writings are considered apocryphal ).
Do you find there is some inconsistency with other scripture?
What does Mark 16:9-20 say and John 8?Greetings all. What should we do about passages like Mark 16:9-20 and John 8? These passages have little manuscript evidence backing them. If ther are to be taken as scribal errors or additions, should we read them as Scripture or even have them in the Bible?
What does Mark 16:9-20 say and John 8?
What one must do to understand the fundamental architecture of the discipline. By the time you have gone to this amount of trouble, you are very likely to have lost interest. You cannot just ask a question here and expect someone to explain all the things you don't understand. Impossible task. Can't be done. There is a whole string of issues which must be addressed in the prolegomena before you can begin to address the particular issue raised.I've only been studying textual criticism for 5-6 years ...
Just asking is all. For all seem to have different opinions about it.So you don't own a Bible, and can't look it up?
So you don't have access to Internet, and look them up on a Bible website?
Mark 16:9-20 is called the "longer ending of Mark", and says among other things that Christians can drink poison and not die. Care to test out that hypothesis?
John 8 (really, John 7:53-8:11, IIRC) is called the "Pericope Adulterae", or "the woman caught in adultery", where Jesus tells the woman, "go and sin no more".
Therein lies the problem. What I said has little to do with textual criticism. With love, fellowship, and no ill intent I encourage care be taken not to fall prey to "tunnel vision, confirmation bias, and/or the fallacy of false equivalence. When the canon was established textual criticism was at best in infancy and was definitely not the sole means of discern what writings were inspired when deciding the canon. For example, Theo, when were the seemingly added texts added? There have been different "canons" asserted at different points in Christian history but the current canon was formally accepted in the fifth century. Were the Matthew and John texts added afterwards? If not then how and/or why did the rigorous and prayerful investigation and debate of the fifth century accept these passages?Pardon me, I've only been studying textual criticism for 5-6 years, and I've never heard of this particular "measure". When studying variants
Hmmmmm....I believe that comment was more along the lines of textual variants, not in passages which have been added to Scripture.
Ehrman's work is confined to the New Testament... textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Christian "Old Testament") is another matter entirely.A leading textual critic, Bart Ehrman, commenting on all textual concerns of the Bible...
If particular texts were not added, it means they were deleted so there is still a process of adjudication required and the fact of scribal tampering itself is not speculative. Just want to make sure that is clarified...In addition, the point remains: if the question of addition remains speculative and not definitive...
No, we shouldn't include Pilgrim's Progress and the reason is because we know it was written latter and adding it would in fact be an addition.
If you don't want the Matthew and John texts in your Bible then cut those paragraphs out of your Bibles. Worked for Thomas Jefferson.
I'm well aware of that and a lot of other things, too, which is why I corrected your erroneous claim that Ehrman was "commenting on all textual concerns of the Bible" --- he is a New Testament textual critic so please do choose your words more carefully moving forward if you don't want intervention for the purposes of clarification and/or correction.The two texts specifically and explicitly cited in the op are New Testament.
Was the op posted for a conversation or a bicker? If the former then please stop reading into what is posted things that aren't actually stated. If the latter then just let me know; I'll move on. Until then I do not see what I have brought to bear on the op taken seriously, given any conversational engagement, or disproven in regards to its validity or veracity.<sigh>
Thank you for the insult.
Incidentally, the passages in the OP were from Mark and John, not Matthew and John. Most contemporary Bibles indicate the disputed nature of these and other questionable passages and leave it to the reader to decide. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable approach to the situation. Unless you want to discuss the merits of these or other such passages, what more is there to dialogue about?If the op was posted simply and solely to make an observation about the Matthew and John passages cited then that's a short conversation and we're all done (looks like everyone agrees to the existing conditions).
I was not in error. Ehrman's comments did in fact pertain to all textual concerns of the Bible.... and more. Ehrman is a textual critic (of the New Testament) but neither is he not only a textual critic, nor were his statements limited to his abilities as a textual critic. Of his over-arching, largely-encompassing position, the only concern relevant to this op, however, are the two New Testament passages cited in the op.which is why I corrected your erroneous claim that Ehrman was "commenting on all textual concerns of the Bible" ---
Please cite the comments to which you refer and I would be glad to shift my correction over to Ehrman who, in that case, would have overstated the case. As I pointed out previously, textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible is another matter entirely...I was not in error. Ehrman's comments did in fact pertain to all textual concerns of the Bible....
Ehrman is a biblical scholar whose area of primary focus and expertise is New Testament textual criticism... of course he is not only a textual critic, nor did I make such a claim --- the emphasis was intended to distance him from textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, which is not an area in which he specializes or publishes.Ehrman is a textual critic but neither is he only a textual critic...
That depends... are you talking about these particular questionable texts or scribal interventions generally? The latter certainly compromises the reconstruction of the so-called original text to a degree significant enough that most textual critics, Ehrman included, have abandoned this as the goal of their work. At best they/we can reconstruct an earliest recoverable form that is at some remove from the putative originals... this window is relatively small for the New Testament books, but quite large for those of the Hebrew Bible.The germane point was the suspected additions do not in any way compromise the whole of the Bible. Anyone disputing that?