Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by iskander » Mon May 08, 2017 10:18 am

rakovsky wrote:I mean take this:
He cannot supply a reasoned discourse for his need to hang on to the long ending of Mark found in the KJV, a translation based on the worst Greek sources now available, so to defend the KJV he finds silly reasons to object to better sources such as the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, as if by pedantry he can defend his faith in an outdated translation. As a literal translation the KJV was very good for its time given the poor Greek text it is based on, but the science of translation and the quality of source texts has improved greatly over the last 400 years. Steven is just living in the past, where all literalists belong.
First, he has a "reasoned discourse", even if it's not persuasive for me. You don't have to be a "literalist" to think that the Long Ending is original. You could think that the whole book is a 4th century myth and still think that this long ending is original.

And so what if one picks the KJV over the YLT or another mainstream one? The only objection I can see there is not with how one translates the words, but whether the editor of the translation includes a footnote saying that 16:8 is originally the ending. The KJV doesn't use footnotes, AFAIK, anyway.

Personally, I think that the translation books should include a mention that the texts handed down have several different endings and then provide them. Then the reader can choose what they like best.
I'll let you into a secret but don't tell anybody: I am a literalist as much as I can. My teacher Baruch Spinoza wrote this:

Spinoza wrote:
...we generally see, I say, theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text, and to fortify them with Divine authority. Such persons never display less scruple or more zeal than when they are interpreting Scripture or the mind of the Holy Ghost; if we ever see them perturbed, it is not that they fear to attribute some error to the Holy Spirit, and to stray from the right path, but that they are afraid to be convicted of error by others, and thus to overthrow and bring into contempt their own authority.

But if men really believed what they verbally testify of Scripture, they would adopt quite a different plan of life: their minds would not be agitated by so many contentions, nor so many hatreds, and they would cease to be excited by such a blind and rash passion for interpreting the sacred writings, and excogitating novelties in religion.

On the contrary, they would not dare to adopt, as the teaching of Scripture, anything which they could not plainly deduce therefrom: lastly, those sacrilegious persons who have dared, in several passages, to interpolate the Bible, would have shrunk from so great a crime, and would have stayed their sacrilegious hands.

Ambition and unscrupulousness have waxed so powerful, that religion is thought to consist, not so much in respecting the writings of the Holy Ghost, as in defending human commentaries, so that religion is no longer identified with charity, but with spreading discord and propagating insensate hatred disguised under the name of zeal for the Lord, and eager ardour.

To these evils we must add superstition, which teaches men to despise reason and nature, and only to admire and venerate that which is repugnant to both: whence it is not wonderful that for the sake of increasing the admiration and veneration felt for Scripture, men strive to explain it so as to make it appear to contradict, as far as possible, both one and the other: thus they dream that most profound mysteries lie hid in the Bible, and weary themselves out in the investigation of these absurdities, to the neglect of what is useful.

Every result of their diseased imagination they attribute to the Holy Ghost, and strive to defend with the utmost zeal and passion; for it is an observed fact that men employ their reason to defend conclusions arrived at by reason, but conclusions arrived at by the passions are defended by the passions.


Tractatus-Theologico-Politicus, Tractatus Politicus) [1670] Chapter VII.: Of the Interpretation of Scripture. The Online Library of Liberty

Ulan
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Ulan » Mon May 08, 2017 10:28 am

For the record, I dismiss the LE as a later addition for internal textual reasons. Manuscript tradition is nice to have, but given the small numbers we are talking about for the early years, it's a bit daring to use this as a sole criterion to base the decision on. It just proves we are not dealing with a singular exception regarding the abrupt ending, and that it's a very early feature.

davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by davidbrainerd » Mon May 08, 2017 10:41 am

rakovsky wrote:The KJV doesn't use footnotes, AFAIK, anyway.
In 1611 it had margin notes. Modern publishers just don't include them. Some of the comparison Bibles have begun to though, like a NIV KJV combo, in order to put them on equal footing they paragraph the KJV and include the original margin notes as footnotes (minus the ones showing where the NT quotes or alludes to thr Apocrypha of course, since Evangelicals heads would explode). For example, the Complete Evangelical Parallel Bible (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT) does this. And of course a 1611 facsimile will include them.
Last edited by davidbrainerd on Mon May 08, 2017 10:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by rakovsky » Mon May 08, 2017 10:42 am

iskander wrote: I'll let you into a secret but don't tell anybody: I am a literalist as much as I can. My teacher Baruch Spinoza wrote this:

Spinoza wrote:
...we generally see, I say, theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text, and to fortify them with Divine authority. Such persons never display less scruple or more zeal than when they are interpreting Scripture or the mind of the Holy Ghost; if we ever see them perturbed, it is not that they fear to attribute some error to the Holy Spirit, and to stray from the right path, but that they are afraid to be convicted of error by others, and thus to overthrow and bring into contempt their own authority.
I know what you are saying.
Calvin and Cranmer and Zwingli didn't believe that Jesus was in the bread on the table. Calvin explained that this was impossible and ridiculous. His body cannot be scattered in a million pieces of bread on earth, he said, and then put demeaning labels onto this Tradition.

So... between accepting something that he humiliated and derided as stupid, and reinterpreting it metaphorically, which would he choose?

This impossibility and ridiculousness was his fundamental argument.
The Bible nowhere actually states "Jesus is not actually in the bread" or "This is not actually my body" or "This bread is only a symbol and means of attaining my body spiritually". Those are just Calvin's interpretations based on his preferences.

Something similar happens when it comes to many Skeptics and the more extreme miracle teachings in the gospels, like Jesus being born of a virgin, the son of God, resurrecting from the dead, Ascending etc. They can say that these things are just allegories and metaphors, along with later additions by people who took the stuff literally. So Luke never thought Jesus was born of a virgin, the whole concept is purely something later added on by others, according to those Skeptics.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by rakovsky » Mon May 08, 2017 10:43 am

davidbrainerd wrote:
rakovsky wrote:The KJV doesn't use footnotes, AFAIK, anyway.
In 1611 it had margin notes. Modern publishers just don't include them. Some of the comparison Bibles have begun to though, like a NIV KJV combo, in order to put them on equal footing they paragraph the KJV and include the original margin notes as footnotes (minus the ones showing where the NT quotes or alludes to thr Apocrypha of course, since Evangelicals heads would explode). For example, the Complete Evangelical Parallel Bible (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT) does this. And of course a 1611 facsimile will include them.
You made me smile.
They can't handle the Tradition stuff. I have seen the Jack Chick tracts.

Anything in early Christianity that is not directly in the canonical Bible and a couple things that were brought from early Tradition into Reformed Tradition like The Trinity are not widely known and seen cynically. Solo Scriptura. Stuff like Church Fathers and OT Apocrypha are considered suspect.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

iskander
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by iskander » Mon May 08, 2017 11:03 am

rakovsky wrote:
iskander wrote: I'll let you into a secret but don't tell anybody: I am a literalist as much as I can. My teacher Baruch Spinoza wrote this:

Spinoza wrote:
...we generally see, I say, theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text, and to fortify them with Divine authority. Such persons never display less scruple or more zeal than when they are interpreting Scripture or the mind of the Holy Ghost; if we ever see them perturbed, it is not that they fear to attribute some error to the Holy Spirit, and to stray from the right path, but that they are afraid to be convicted of error by others, and thus to overthrow and bring into contempt their own authority.
I know what you are saying.
Calvin and Cranmer and Zwingli didn't believe that Jesus was in the bread on the table. Calvin explained that this was impossible and ridiculous. His body cannot be scattered in a million pieces of bread on earth, he said, and then put demeaning labels onto this Tradition.

So... between accepting something that he humiliated and derided as stupid, and reinterpreting it metaphorically, which would he choose?

This impossibility and ridiculousness was his fundamental argument.
The Bible nowhere actually states "Jesus is not actually in the bread" or "This is not actually my body" or "This bread is only a symbol and means of attaining my body spiritually". Those are just Calvin's interpretations based on his preferences.

Something similar happens when it comes to many Skeptics and the more extreme miracle teachings in the gospels, like Jesus being born of a virgin, the son of God, resurrecting from the dead, Ascending etc. They can say that these things are just allegories and metaphors, along with later additions by people who took the stuff literally. So Luke never thought Jesus was born of a virgin, the whole concept is purely something later added on by others, according to those Skeptics.
Baruch Spinoza was hated by Catholics, Protestants and Jewish believers. But I love him and as the song says , but I am not the only one..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpajoF4Uyew

John Lennon - Imagine Music Video(HD/HQ

Asa Kasher and Shlomo Biderman
WHY WAS BARUCH DE SPINOZA EXCOMMUNICATED?

On the 6th of the month of Av, 5416, July 27, 1656, the excommunication of Baruch de Spinoza was proclaimed from the Ark in the synagogue of Talmud Torah, the united congregation of the Portuguese Jews in Amsterdam. The complete version of the proclamation, written in Portuguese, is found in the Book of Ordinances of the congregation (Livro dos Acordos de Nacao e Ascamot)(1) and it includes some highly interesting details:

davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by davidbrainerd » Mon May 08, 2017 11:04 am

rakovsky wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:
rakovsky wrote:The KJV doesn't use footnotes, AFAIK, anyway.
In 1611 it had margin notes. Modern publishers just don't include them. Some of the comparison Bibles have begun to though, like a NIV KJV combo, in order to put them on equal footing they paragraph the KJV and include the original margin notes as footnotes (minus the ones showing where the NT quotes or alludes to thr Apocrypha of course, since Evangelicals heads would explode). For example, the Complete Evangelical Parallel Bible (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT) does this. And of course a 1611 facsimile will include them.
You made me smile.
They can't handle the Tradition stuff. I have seen the Jack Chick tracts.

Anything in early Christianity that is not directly in the canonical Bible and a couple things that were brought from early Tradition into Reformed Tradition like The Trinity are not widely known and seen cynically. Solo Scriptura. Stuff like Church Fathers and OT Apocrypha are considered suspect.
"My pastor said the NT never once quotes the Apocrypha, so that margin in my INERRANT AND INSPIRED KJV 1611 facsimile at Romans 9:21 cross-referencing Wisdom 15:7 is WRONG!" said almost every KJVO ever.

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by rakovsky » Mon May 08, 2017 11:30 am

davidbrainerd wrote:
"My pastor said the NT never once quotes the Apocrypha, so that margin in my INERRANT AND INSPIRED KJV 1611 facsimile at Romans 9:21 cross-referencing Wisdom 15:7 is WRONG!" said almost every KJVO ever.
Pastor is for him a greater authority than the inerrant KJV it sounds like.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:28 am

I'm Just Searchin For Clues At The Scene of The Crime

JW:
Another (major) problem with GMark having a post resurrection reunion is GMark is clearly Separationist:

1
9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:
11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.
12 And straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into the wilderness.
Of course the "upon" above should be "into". So here we have Jesus, just an ordinary sinner man like everyone else, until he is injected with God's Spirit, and becomes a Combination manWitch, Jesus and...Christ. The Christ part then goes on to do all the things that Jesus could not do before they became the Combo. In straight forward Separationist theology Christ leaves Jesus at the end:

15
34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elijah.
36 And one ran, and filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to take him down.
37 And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
More Christian resistance to the Truth as "forsaken me" should be "left me behind". Note especially the address of Jesus here, "My God". Once The Spirit has (explicitly) left Jesus, what's left (so to speak) is no longer God's Son, hence the use of "God". Commentators claim that the use of "God" here is because Jesus is reciting Psalm 22 but the reason is the reverse. "Mark's" (author) point is that Jesus at this point is no longer Son of God so he would use "God" as an address and not "father", which is what 22 does. A Cathichism-22.

After the supposed resurrection Jesus has gone back to just being Jesus and not Jesus Christ because God's Spirit is not there. That's why "Mark's" Jesus leaves. This has all been xxxplained by Christ himself. He confessed that you can identify a false Christ by his saying "I am", which Jesus confessed to the Priests. In 13 he explains that you will not recognize the returned Christ. Why? Because it won't be the physical Jesus. Since the resurrected Jesus is not also the Christ any post resurrection reunion would be awkward:
  • Samuel: What does God look like?

    Jesus: What?

    Samuel: I said, what does God look like?

    Jesus: What?

    Samuel: "What" ain't no transliteration for "Yahweh" that spin ever heard of.

    Jesus: What?

Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The London Conference - 1939

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Da Bishops!

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:23 am

Da Bishops!

JW:
I previously posted a summary of the qualitative Manuscript support for 16:8 original/against LE here:

review of Daniel Wallace's contribution to Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel
Nestle-Aland (NA) is the most popular critical apparatus for Textual Criticism. NA rates Sinaticus and Vaticanus as Category 1 witnesses in general, the highest rating. No other witness to the end of GMark has a Category 1 rating. For other witness to the end of GMark, the next highest rated witness is Codex Regius, c. 700, with a Category 2 rating. Codex Regius has a separation after 16:8 and indicates that most earlier manuscripts ended at 16:8. It then provides an Intermediate ending followed by the Long Ending. Because of this Text Critical commentary it not only provides better witness for the SE than the LE but since it is referring to multiple known Manuscripts and not just a decision relating to one Manuscript, it is a witness with scope. No other witness to the end of GMark has a Category 2 rating. Thus the top 3 witnesses by reputation all support the SE.

The next highest rated witness, at Category 3, is Codex Washingtonianus, which as previously mentioned, has an expanded version of the LE. The only other Category 3 witness here is Codex Alexandrinus which is the highest rated witness to have absolute support for the LE. There is only 1 witness to the LE with a Category 4 rating and only 3 with a category 5 rating. In summary, the top 4 rated witnesses by reputation all either support SE or lack absolute support for the LE and of the thousands of Manuscripts with the LE only 5 have absolute support and at least a Category 5 rating. So the qualitative advantage for SE by Reputation is even larger than the qualitative advantage for SE by Age.
In the big picture Textual Criticism it's generally agreed that the Internal evidence overwhelmingly favors 16:8 and this Internal evidence is clearly decisive in establishing 16:8 as likely original. The opinion regarding the External evidence is generally much more mixed ranging from the LE having a huge advantage to the LE having a small advantage. This Thread though supports the External evidence as also supporting 16:8. The Patristic evidence, the most important category of External evidence, already strongly supports 16:8, as the only two early and Text critical saviory Patristics make clear Text Critical comments with scope that 16:8 dominated at the time. This is than supported by the subsequent chain of Patristics increasingly (over) enthusiastic for LE.

The argument for LE is based mainly on the ginormous (yea, it's a real word) quantitative Manuscript advantage for LE (the more apologetic Apologists try to supplement with nebulous supposed early Patristic support but the only place their claims can be confirmed is "They Never Said That" so all they are doing is demonstrating little early awareness of the LE). As demonstrated in this Thread though, the qualitative Manuscript evidence also supports 16:8. So regarding the External evidence, with the Patristic and Manuscript categories already in my pocket like so many niceas and dominas, supporting 16:8 as original, as my famous ancestor Joseph said, "What more evidence do we need?" Dr. Carrier, in his legendary related article at ErrancyWiki agrees that the External evidence clearly supports 16:8 Assessment of External Evidence

Our own KK has a great article here Mk-Introduction: Modern discussions about the authenticity of the long mark closure describing how Codex Regius was already creating Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) doubt about the LE before the discovery of the brave and truthful Sinaiticus and Vaticanus:
It is often assumed that the thesis of the unauthenticity of verses 16: 9-20 of the Markusevangel in the 19th century arose. In fact, this idea goes back to the first half of the sixteenth century and was "ready and finished" at the latest in the 1790s. In this article, I will point out some of the ways that this thesis has taken in the modern age and on which it has developed.

The Cardinal Thomas Cajetan (actually Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534), who is known for his hearing of Luther at the Diet in Augsburg in 1518, deserves the honor of having been the first modern skeptic of the genuineness of the long close of the Mark ,

...

In this Codex, the Markusevangelium ends as an ongoing text with the verse 16: 8. This is followed by a comment: " Sometimes these things are also found, " which is followed by the so-called brief conclusion, which is handed down in very few manuscripts. This is followed by a second note, according to which "sometimes also these things (according to verse 8) . Then the verses 16: 9-20 of the long Mark's close are given. Simon concluded from the text that the Codex Regius confirms the testimony of Hieronymus, since the writers of the Codex apparently assumed that the Markusevangelium ended with verse 16: 8. (I marked the two notes in the manuscript in green.) In the end Richard Simon was convinced that verses 16: 9-20 are genuine. However, his discussion of the possible weaknesses already took a wide place and weighed on contradictory grounds. The discussion about the authenticity of the verses was thus initiated.
Nota Ben = remember, if you use Chrome to find it Chrome will translate the German into English


Joseph

Review of Daniel Wallace Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel - Greek Manuscript Evidence

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, Charles Wilson, Jax, MrMacSon, Ulan and 87 guests