Location of pool of Bethesda confirmed.

[Thistle]

I get what you are saying, but there are a number of issues here.

I understand that.

The first, and most important to me, is what actually happened.

I think people who accept the received text would agree.

I believe the ending of Mark was made up, composed from bits of the other gospels, and so gives us no help in trying to decide what actually happened on that first Easter.

Yes I understand, but that's just a long way of saying that you subscribe to the critical text. It's not really a helpful observation in tipping the needle One Direction or the other.

As the earliest gospel, the rest of Mark is perhaps the best resource we have in that regard; the ending is useless.

That's up for discussion. It's the opinion of Edgar J Goodspeed of the University of Chicago that the original gospel was what he calls the oral gospel of Matthew. And that Mark was a distillation of this oral gospel that Christian's memorized in a fixed not fluid formulation before any gospel was committed to writing. I would not dismiss this possibility out of hand as Goodspeed was one of the preeminent Bible scholars of the 20th century heading the theology department at the University of Chicago.

What guarantee do we have that the canon is right?

This is a whole other extremely involved discussion. But it certainly is not going to turn on whether or not the received or the critical text should be accepted.

If it was all under God's control, why did he not have the ending of Mark written when the rest of the gospel was written? Why did he not get it right, right from the start?

You were casting the issue as right or wrong based purely on the placement I've text that one side of this discussion would accepts as inspired. I would suggest to you that that is an artifact of the way critical scholarship has developed. It's not a matter of "getting it right the first time."

Noting your later comment, you seem to just take authenticity of the Bible as an article of faith.

From what perspective? If you were Christian you accept Christian doctrine and there are still a lot of us who except the doctrine of inerrancy. It doesn't mean we don't engage the critical text, it means that we have to ultimately decide what we believe.

It says it in the Bible so it must be true. That is fine for Christians, but why would anyone else think Christianity is true?

Obviously Christians are aware of this issue, which is why they would be foolish not to forthrightly and honestly engage this discussion.

Any argument based on scripture is necessarily circular - the Bible is true because the Bible is true. And having been posting on CARM for many years, the only arguments I have seen that do not rely on the Bible are based on personal feelings, which again fail to convince unbelievers.

Except for the fact of the resurrection.

 

[The Pixie]

That's up for discussion. It's the opinion of Edgar J Goodspeed of the University of Chicago that the original gospel was what he calls the oral gospel of Matthew. And that Mark was a distillation of this oral gospel that Christian's memorized in a fixed not fluid formulation before any gospel was committed to writing. I would not dismiss this possibility out of hand as Goodspeed was one of the preeminent Bible scholars of the 20th century heading the theology department at the University of Chicago.

I found Goodspeed's book online; I have just had a quick look, but it looks pretty good - especially for a book written in 1937. Chapter 10 deals with the gospel of Mark.

As far as I can see, he thought the "oral gospel of Matthew" was a collection of saying, and further that its content does not appear in Mark.

And when we compare the fragments of this Oral Gospel that we have found in Paul, Acts, Clement, and Polycarp with Mark, to our amazement not one of the fragments reappears in Mark. We may therefore conclude without hesitation that, whatever the origin of the Gospel of Mark, it did not originate through the writing-down of the Oral Gospel. It does not contain the fragments of that gospel that have come down to us, nor any of these fragments.​

You were casting the issue as right or wrong based purely on the placement I've text that one side of this discussion would accepts as inspired. I would suggest to you that that is an artifact of the way critical scholarship has developed. It's not a matter of "getting it right the first time."

And yet at one time there was a version of Mark that lacked the ending. Was that the correct version, the version God wanted? Or was the later, revised version the one God wanted?

From what perspective? If you were Christian you accept Christian doctrine and there are still a lot of us who except the doctrine of inerrancy. It doesn't mean we don't engage the critical text, it means that we have to ultimately decide what we believe.

Okay.

Obviously Christians are aware of this issue, which is why they would be foolish not to forthrightly and honestly engage this discussion.

Except for the fact of the resurrection.

How do you know it is fact? Because the Bible says so?

 

[Thistle]

I found Goodspeed's book online; I have just had a quick look, but it looks pretty good - especially for a book written in 1937. Chapter t10 deals with the gospel of Mark.

As far as I can see, he thought the "oral gospel of Matthew" was a collection of saying, and further that its content does not appear in Mark.

And when we compare the fragments of this Oral Gospel that we have found in Paul, Acts, Clement, and Polycarp with Mark, to our amazement not one of the fragments reappears in Mark. We may therefore conclude without hesitation that, whatever the origin of the Gospel of Mark, it did not originate through the writing-down of the Oral Gospel. It does not contain the fragments of that gospel that have come down to us, nor any of these fragments.​

Thank you for correct in my memory on that point. But misstatement not with standing, the idea is that there's a lot of reliable information circulating concurrent with the assembly of these gospels. The question then becomes doctrinal at some point. Does the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy extend to a passage that may be placed in the cannon when it wasn't originally part of that particular book? If the answer is yes, then you have an argument for the long ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery. If we say these passages should be inserted somewhere, we're saying that they're inspired which is really the only issue.

And yet at one time there was a version of Mark that lacked the ending. Was that the correct version, the version God wanted? Or was the later, revised version the one God wanted?

I have failed see this issue being substantially different than ancient lists the help affirm the presence of certain book in the canon. In virtually all of these ancient lists there are some books which are missing. These lists really do not call into serious doubt the canon of 66 books with which we are familiar.

Okay.

How do you know it is fact? Because the Bible says so?

This is an apologetic question that we have entire threads devoted to. To really begin to dive into this question takes us a little bit far afield from the topic in our immediate view. For our purposes here suffice it to say I find the apologetic arguments absolutely convincing.

 

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The argument that something belongs in the canon is that it was inspired, not that it was included in any particular order.

Who made those decisions to deem texts "inspired" and to include them? And why were some texts initially included in the canon [and by your comment] therefore considered to be "inspired", later removed?

 

[Thistle]

Who made those decisions to deem texts "inspired" and to include them? And why were some texts initially included in the canon [and by your comment] therefore considered to be "inspired", later removed?

We've had this conversation I would recommend that you review those threads.

 

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We've had this conversation I would recommend that you review those threads.

I think we will discover those threads are no longer available. You will therefore need to proffer your explanation again.

 

[Thistle]

I think we will discover those threads are no longer available. You will therefore need to proffer your explanation again.

The conversation lasted about 30 or 40,000 words maybe more. I'm not particularly interested in doing that again. Been there done that.