Biblical Manuscripts

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Not for posters who don't know how to stay on topic and find irrelevant problems where none exist.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with the Mark and John texts cited in the op. As far as trolls go, you might look first at your own conduct, Jonathon. I don't dispute your concern, only its relevance to this op and I would encourage you to consider how and why it is you feel the need to bring up OT problems that are substantively different to the one specified in this op. You certainly have the ability to post the larger (and legitimate) concerns in another op of your own design without hijacking this one. If others wish to discuss with you the Hebrew texts that is their prerogative. I prefer to stick with that specified by the op. Not every op a NT text's veracity is an opportunity for you to bring up Hebrew texts.

And it is completely inappropriate to suggest I'm a troll simply because I wish to my set boundaries for my own participation. That is trolling.
Perhaps you're not trolling after all, but simply have no idea how discussion boards and threads work. They often meander, sometimes into fruitful avenues, sometimes not... in no case does the simple dynamic of thread growth require policing from you or anyone else. It can also not be said that text-critical issues related to the Hebrew Bible have wandered far, if at all, from a thread titled Biblical (not specifically New Testament) Manuscripts and whose opening poster made reference to the Bible (not specifically the New Testament even if the two examples happened to be from this section). As I've already pointed out, it was you who introduced the Hebrew Bible to this thread, not me, and in your very first response to it no less... you there talk about the suspected changes not only in the gospels, but also in the Pentateuch and the Prophets. Later in the thread you asked a question, to which I responded, and you first directed me to the opening poster and now you seem to think it's not even on topic. How you think my answer to your ostensibly on-topic question is off topic is anybody's guess. Please spell my name correctly moving forward, though if you make no comments pertinent to my (on-topic) engagements with the subject of biblical manuscripts, I will not be responding to you...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Theophilos

Active member
This is very interesting. Thank you for this!
I suspect something similar may have happened with John 8 and with the extended ending to Mark.

In the first century publicly proclaiming the divinity of Christ risked persecution by both Roman and Jewish authorities. The ending to Mark may have remained as an oral tradition rather than writing it down to reduce the risk of persecution.

Likewise many people may have been scandalized by Jesus forgiving the woman caught in adultery. Jesus forgives her even though she makes no proclamation of faith or remorse. Many early texts may not have included the story for this reason.

Luke explicitly states that his account is based on oral tradition from "eye witnesses and servants of the word":
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Luke 1:1-2
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
In the first century publicly proclaiming the divinity of Christ risked persecution by both Roman and Jewish authorities. The ending to Mark may have remained as an oral tradition rather than writing it down to reduce the risk of persecution.
Insofar as the (longer) ending of Mark is primarily cribbed together from other pertinent texts within the New Testament, this hypothesis would not seem to hold, particularly in light of far more explicit proclamations of Jesus' divinity elsewhere in the New Testament that do not have such an unstable status in the manuscript tradition. I would further point out that the Greco-Roman world was polytheistic and its (non-Jewish) citizens could care less whether Christians worshipped a deity named Jesus... the problem was not this, but rather than they did so to the exclusion of the local deities who were thought to extend or withhold their blessings to the citizenry based on the devotion or not that was given to them. When things went wrong, Christians were easy scapegoats because of their refusal to participate in pagan religious rituals...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Theophilos

Active member
Insofar as the (longer) ending of Mark is primarily cribbed together from other pertinent texts within the New Testament, this hypothesis would not seem to hold, particularly in light of far more explicit proclamations of Jesus' divinity elsewhere in the New Testament that do not have such an unstable status in the manuscript tradition. I would further point out that the Greco-Roman world was polytheistic and its (non-Jewish) citizens could care less whether Christians worshipped a deity named Jesus... the problem was not this, but rather than they did so to the exclusion of the local deities who were thought to extend or withhold their blessings to the citizenry based on the devotion or not that was given to them. When things went wrong, Christians were easy scapegoats because of their refusal to participate in pagan religious rituals...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Jews were exempted from sacrifices to the emperor but they had to pay a special tax. Until the destruction of the temple, Christians generally worshipped in Jewish synagogues and were considered a Jewish sect.

As time went on Christians who openly professed the divinity of Christ were expelled from the synagogues. Romans no longer considered them a Jewish sect so failure to sacrifice to the emperor was a capital offense but enforcement depended on the whims of local officials.

There were good reasons not to write down the ending for the Gospel of Mark.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Jews were exempted from sacrifices to the emperor but they had to pay a special tax. Until the destruction of the temple, Christians generally worshipped in Jewish synagogues and were considered a Jewish sect.

As time went on Christians who openly professed the divinity of Christ were expelled from the synagogues. Romans no longer considered them a Jewish sect so failure to sacrifice to the emperor was a capital offense but enforcement depended on the whims of local officials.

There were good reasons not to write down the ending for the Gospel of Mark.
You haven't provided any good reasons to think this... as I've already pointed out, the (longer) ending of Mark is cribbed together from other New Testament texts that are stable in the manuscript tradition and even more explicit about Jesus' divine status. Your hypothesis crumbles on this point even before attempting an integration with the historical situation. Your comments related to this reflect an outdated and improperly-nuanced model of the relationship between Jews, Christians and pagans in the Greco-Roman world. The pertinent point of departure relates to Christianity's position vis-à-vis Judaism --- while it is true that the latter enjoyed a measure of imperial endorsement for their peculiar monotheistic practices, this elicited both admiration and disdain from their pagan contemporaries, at times leading to hostilities and persecution. As Johnson points out, "Jewish separation had legal protection but not universal popular approval" (113). Even that legal protection was tenuous and subject to the whims of local officials and shifts in power, as the attacks on Jews in Alexandria within a decade of Jesus' crucifixion attests (Barclay 48-55). Identification with Jews thus had the potential for both benefits and persecution, which problematizes the scenario you outline...

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Barclay, John M.G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE - 117 CE). Hellenistic Culture and Society 33. University of California Press, 1996.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. Yale University Press, 2009.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Jews were exempted from sacrifices to the emperor but they had to pay a special tax. Until the destruction of the temple, Christians generally worshipped in Jewish synagogues and were considered a Jewish sect.

As time went on Christians who openly professed the divinity of Christ were expelled from the synagogues. Romans no longer considered them a Jewish sect so failure to sacrifice to the emperor was a capital offense but enforcement depended on the whims of local officials.

There were good reasons not to write down the ending for the Gospel of Mark.

seems like a bit of a militant extension.
 
Last edited:

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
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.

He would then be quite incorrect.


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 ;)). I'm also inclined to believe God is the one ultimately responsible for His word and all the suspected changes, whether they be in the Pentateuch, the prophets, or the gospels may well be there by providence. This is akin to understand the leading of the Spirit: the Spirit never contradicts the written word; rhema never contradicts logos. So if hypothetic logos contradicts established logos then it is neither hypothetical or logos and should be discarded.

The two texts cited work.

So they remain.


Do you find there is some inconsistency with other scripture?
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
You haven't provided any good reasons to think this... as I've already pointed out, the (longer) ending of Mark is cribbed together from other New Testament texts that are stable in the manuscript tradition and even more explicit about Jesus' divine status. Your hypothesis crumbles on this point even before attempting an integration with the historical situation. Your comments related to this reflect an outdated and improperly-nuanced model of the relationship between Jews, Christians and pagans in the Greco-Roman world. The pertinent point of departure relates to Christianity's position vis-à-vis Judaism --- while it is true that the latter enjoyed a measure of imperial endorsement for their peculiar monotheistic practices, this elicited both admiration and disdain from their pagan contemporaries, at times leading to hostilities and persecution. As Johnson points out, "Jewish separation had legal protection but not universal popular approval" (113). Even that legal protection was tenuous and subject to the whims of local officials and shifts in power, as the attacks on Jews in Alexandria within a decade of Jesus' crucifixion attests (Barclay 48-55). Identification with Jews thus had the potential for both benefits and persecution, which problematizes the scenario you outline...

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Barclay, John M.G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE - 117 CE). Hellenistic Culture and Society 33. University of California Press, 1996.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. Yale University Press, 2009.

You sound like dr. Fauci.

Ummm ... we don't really know .... but we are "following the scientists".

I mean despite us taking advantage.



OK ..... we are going to biblical "peer" review; and will will figure this out.

Seriously?
 
Last edited:

Slyzr

Well-known member
And the relationship between ^^^ and what I posted is what exactly? :unsure:

Kind regards,
Jonathan

What you posted .....

I get the peer review thingy ..... and I am a protenant of such.



I get it ...... you ARE a peer review Christian apologist.

No offense but christian apologists are just that ... christian apologists.

The issue with christian apologists is they know the are apologizing for something.

But not sure what that is.....
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
What you posted .....

I get the peer review thingy ..... and I am a protenant of such.



I get it ...... you ARE a peer review Christian apologist.

No offense but christian apologists are just that ... christian apologists.
I don't wear the hat of a Christian apologist very often and certainly wasn't acting in any such capacity in the post you responded to here... my primary approach is that of an academic who brackets questions of theology altogether. It was the anomaly of one vitriolic atheist troll in the other thread that had me reaching for and dusting off that old cap... and as he has since tucked tail and run, at least from that thread, it's back on the peg.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
I don't wear the hat of a Christian apologist very often and certainly wasn't acting in any such capacity in the post you responded to here... my primary approach is that of an academic who brackets questions of theology altogether. It was the anomaly of one vitriolic atheist troll in the other thread that had me reaching for and dusting off that old cap... and as he has since tucked tail and run, at least from that thread, it's back on the peg.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Ok .......

You are now not a a Christian apologist ......

But the other guy was evil; . for not cough ... cough ... supporting Christianity.


Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

You are a some time Christians apologist ...... looking to win with peer review? .

for you not being a Christian apologist; or being a Christian apologist. (however your whim works).

So could we say ... you are an academic.

Or just an academic that some times is an academic ..... other times a Christian apologist.

That makes perfect sense ...... :rolleyes: :cool:
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Ok .......

You are now not a a Christian apologist ......

But the other guy was evil; . for not cough ... cough ... supporting Christianity.


Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

You are a some time Christians apologist ...... looking to win with peer review? .

for you not being a Christian apologist; or being a Christian apologist. (however your whim works).

So could we say ... you are an academic.

Or just an academic that some times is an academic ..... other times a Christian apologist.

That makes perfect sense ...... :rolleyes: :cool:
It's not a difficult concept... your obvious struggles to understand it above notwithstanding.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Perhaps you could clarify.
A Christian apologist, by definition, defends Christianity against its opponents... I recently did so in the face of a particularly embittered and irrational attack. I don't do this very often because I frequent these forums primarily to discuss the Bible from an academic perspective, one that sets aside theological concerns. For example, many months ago when I critiqued a claim of yours about the Hebrew of the garden narrative, I was not doing so as a Christian apologist or to defend any particular theological agenda, I did so purely from the perspective of a scholarly Hebraist. Hope this helps clarify...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
A Christian apologist, by definition, defends Christianity against its opponents... I recently did so in the face of a particularly embittered and irrational attack. I don't do this very often because I frequent these forums primarily to discuss the Bible from an academic perspective, one that sets aside theological concerns. For example, many months ago when I critiqued a claim of yours about the Hebrew of the garden narrative, I was not doing so as a Christian apologist or to defend any particular theological agenda, I did so purely from the perspective of a scholarly Hebraist. Hope this helps clarify...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I remember that ........

You warned me about challenging the "translations"
 

rakovsky

Active member
Insofar as the (longer) ending of Mark is primarily cribbed together from other pertinent texts within the New Testament, this hypothesis would not seem to hold, particularly in light of far more explicit proclamations of Jesus' divinity elsewhere in the New Testament that do not have such an unstable status in the manuscript tradition. I would further point out that the Greco-Roman world was polytheistic and its (non-Jewish) citizens could care less whether Christians worshipped a deity named Jesus... the problem was not this, but rather than they did so to the exclusion of the local deities who were thought to extend or withhold their blessings to the citizenry based on the devotion or not that was given to them. When things went wrong, Christians were easy scapegoats because of their refusal to participate in pagan religious rituals...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Makes sense, Jonathan.

The long ending of Mark must have been added pretty early in the history of Christianity
I forget all the arguments in favor of it being an early addition, but it.seems to have been put in during the first two centuries AD. I guess Mark himself could have added it or cribbed it as you said, using the other gospels written after Mark's first edition.

I think that there was not anything doctrinally problematic in it. It has one part at least that isn't in the other gospels. Namely, apparently on the night after the Resurrection, Jesus shows up to the 11 apostles like in Luke 24, but Mark 16 16 - 18 has Him say additional things not in Luke's account of that appearance but substantially the same as what Jesus said earlier during His earthly ministry. So either Luke didn't choose to include those parts during his account of the appearance, or didn't know about that part, or the author of Mark's long ending made it up.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The long ending of Mark must have been added pretty early in the history of Christianity
I forget all the arguments in favor of it being an early addition, but it.seems to have been put in during the first two centuries AD. I guess Mark himself could have added it or cribbed it as you said, using the other gospels written after Mark's first edition.
I would say about the middle of the second century at the earliest since the additions show knowledge of Luke, which I date to the early second century... this would rule out the original author, who seems to have written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

ferengi

Well-known member
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?
There are 24907 NT manuscripts - we know whats in the NT
 
Top