Steven Avery
Administrator
Last edited:
the David Robert Palmer - DRP - claim of a chronology error
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
John Tors
Four Resurrection Accounts Reconciled by John Tors
[URL unfurl="false"]https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/7343739442379659/[/URL]
Four Resurrection Accounts Reconciled by John Tors
[URL unfurl="false"]https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/7343739442379659/[/URL]
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
DRP - 2024
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Joseph Philips I know 100% beforehand that they did not succeed in harmonizing the LE of Mark to Luke, because the LE has a statement that is simply contrary to what Mark says. The statement is found in verses 12 and 13 about the two walking to Emmaus:
12 And after these things he was manifested in a different form to two of them who were walking along in the country.
13 And those went and reported to the rest; neither did they believe those.
This is contrary to Luke 24:13, 33-35 where we read:
13 And behold, two of them during that same day were making their way toward a village sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, which was called Emmaus...
33 And they got up and returned that same hour to Jerusalem, and found the Eleven and those with them assembled together,
34 saying, 'The Lord really has risen, and he appeared to Simon.'
35 And the two told what things happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.
Luke says the rest responded "The Lord really has risen," thus agreeing with the two. The others agreed that Jesus was alive, because Simon Peter had already come back and told them the same thing as the two were telling them. But "Mark" 16:13 says the rest disbelieved the two. Thus, Mark 16:12,13 contradicts what Luke 24:33-35 says. So then, we either have to believe that the scriptures contain an error, or else believe that one of these passages is not scripture.
I have already read the proposals as to how to get around this, and they are all false or weak. That's why I am not interested in examining another attempt.
===========================
Joseph Philips
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer: It's up: I will attach the part about the harmonization here.
IS THERE A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN MARK 16:12-13 AND LUKE 24:13,33-35?
Our apologist is quite insistent that there is, indeed, a contradiction between these two passages. He avers that he has examined many attempts to harmonize this passages and they were all false or weak, and certainly they were not as thorough as the apologist’s own work on the topic.
Based on his attempted harmonization, our apologist tells us that, according to Mark 16:12-13, the “rest” did not believe the testimony of the two travellers who had met Jesus on the road, whereas according to Luke 24:33-35, they did believe them. We know they believed them, because they agreed with what they said because Simon Peter had already told them that Jesus had appeared to him.
So there you have it: Mark says the rest did not believe and Luke says they did; that is an irreconcilable contradiction, isn’t it? As our apologist points out, Mark says they did not believe, but Luke plainly tells us they did believe.
Or does he? If he does, why do we read a mere six verses later, when Jesus had appeared to them all, that “they still did not believe” (Luke 24:41b)? In that the verse says, “They still did not believe” (ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων), it indicates that they had not believed to this point. ἔτι pertains to continuance , so this indicates that they are continuing in a state of disbelief, which means they hadn’t believed before, not in 24:33-35 or at any previous time. What our apologist missed is that Luke 24:33-35 records that the claim was being advanced in the group that Jesus had risen and had appeared to Simon; there is, in fact, no indication that the apostles or anyone other than those who brought the claim believed that claim. The supposed contradiction between Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24:13,33-35, then, arises only from our apologist’s unwarranted assumption about the meaning of the latter. And his assumption is wrong.
What is described in Luke 24:33-35 is diametrically different from what our apologist posited. The text tells us that the two travellers who had met Jesus “found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.
εὗρον συνηθροισμένους τοὺς ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς λέγοντας ὅτι ἠγέρθη ὁ κύριος ὄντως καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι
Who was doing the “saying” here? Our apologist mistakenly assumes that it was “the eleven and those who were with them gathered together,” all agreeing that Jesus had appeared to Simon, but the Greek requires no such thing. It could just as readily be taken that it was “those who were with them” who were doing the saying, trying to convince the eleven that Jesus had risen, but they were not believed (as is shown by 24:41), just as the women who brought testimony of the risen Jesus were not believed, as Mark tells us (16:11) and so does Luke (24:11), just as Thomas wouldn’t believe even the testimony of his fellow apostles (John 20:25). The apostles were very difficult to convince that Jesus had risen; why our apologist thinks that they believed Simon (16:33-35) when the unanimous testimony of the Gospel books is that they did not believe until Jesus appeared to them (with the possible exception of John, per John 20:28) is difficult to discern.
CONCLUSION
As we have seen, claiming that a passage of Scripture is not authentic because it includes a statement that, prime facie, seems to contradict another statement of Scripture is a nonstarter. We must respect both the entirety of Scripture and its truth, and we cannot sacrifice the former for the latter, nor is there ever a need to do so.
Seeming contradictions in the Gospel books are often the result of the skeptic failing to understand how different accounts of the same event play out in real life. In the matter of the alleged contradiction between Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24:13,33-35, this is not the case. There is no contradiction at all, and our apologist’s concern stems from a failure to read the entire text of Luke 24 carefully; in particular, he should have paid careful attention to the Greek wording. His harmonization, it seems, have not been done nearly as carefully as he thinks it has.
John Tors
https://www.truthinmydays.com/post/...-24-disprove-the-authenticity-of-mark-16-9-20
============================================
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Eric Rowe Talking about Tatian? He was not a reliable handler of the word of God. He changed things to suit his asceticism.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Joseph Philips What has changed since we last discussed this? I told you that I know of a contradiction that cannot be reconciled or harmonized, and that therefore I was not interested in spending time looking at another harmonization attempt. Here is a refresher for you of the problem:
The passage contains a statement that is contrary to the gospel of Luke.
The statement is found in verses 12 and 13 about the two walking to Emmaus:
12 And after these things he was manifested in a different form to two of them who were walking along in the country.
13 And those went and reported to the rest; neither did they believe those.
This is contrary to Luke 24:13, 33-35 where we read:
13 And behold, two of them during that same day were making their way toward a village sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, which was called Emmaus...
33 And they got up and returned that same hour to Jerusalem, and found the Eleven and those with them assembled together,
34 saying, 'The Lord really has risen, and he appeared to Simon.'
35 And the two told what things happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.
Luke says the rest responded "The Lord really has risen," thus agreeing with the two. The others agreed that Jesus was alive, because Simon Peter had already come back and told them the same thing as the two were telling them. But "Mark" 16:13 says the rest disbelieved the two. Thus, Mark 16:12,13 contradicts what Luke 24:33-35 says. So then, we either have to believe that the scriptures contain an error, or else believe that one of these passages is not scripture. The problem of the contradiction is solved, by concluding from the objective external evidence that the longer ending of Mark is not scripture, therefore we do not have a case here of scripture contradicting other scripture.
Some say that there is not a contradiction between Mark in the TR and Luke, because later in Luke, in 24:40-41, it says
"40And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41But, since they were still not believing, out of joy and astonishment, he said to them, "What do you have to eat in this place?"
But I say this is another event. Both the passages I compared are about people walking in the countryside. Mark says the apostles did not believe that specific report, and Luke said the apostles did believe that specific report. This is not about some unbelief generally, but about this specific report of the ones who returned from a walk in the country. It is indeed a contradiction.
============================================
Eric Rowe
Moderator
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer you made it sound like there was a serious contradiction there. Then you gave an example that has no contradiction at all.
==========================
==========================
==========================
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
That's not what is going on with the LE. I guess I will have to write out in detail sometime how I harmonized the gospels, and could not harmonize the LE.
Steven Avery
David Robert Palmer - as I remember, we went through this on the Yahoogroups, James contributing as well, and answered your concerns.
So expect some counterpoint.
TC-Alternate 2007 was the biggy. James Snapp, myself and David.
====
====
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Ron Braswell Yes true. However, I can honestly say my belief is not from a pre-supposition. Mine is from a painstaking, several year long effort to harmonize the gospels, primarily. I truly believe I am not bound by presuppositions. I don't know anyone who has changed his mind on more variants than I have. I have no horse I favor in the race. As far as I am concerned, the Robinson-Pierpont text is fine with me, except for the LE of Mark, John 5:3b-4, and Matthew 18:15.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
A questionable ending was gradually accepted, and Eusebius explains how: "On the other hand, someone else, who dares to set aside nothing at all which appears, by whatever means, in the text of the gospels, says that the reading, like many others, is double, and each of the two must be accepted, in that they are approved in the opinion of the faithful and pious; not this one instead of that one, or that one rather than this one.
Joseph Philips
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer: You did. Here it is again:
" You are reading more into Eusebius' comment than is there. Expressing the view that the majority of manuscripts with which he was aware are missing it equals saying it is not authentic is equivalent to a scholar saying the vast majority of manuscripts has it means he thinks it is authentic, right?
Second, Eusebius clearly thought it was authentic; your quote was his suggestion as to how one might try to reconcile a supposed contradiction, which he would not have done or needed to do if he thought the LE was not authentic.
Finally, Irenaeus and Tatian bear witness to what the text said in the 2nd century, so what MSS Eusebius knew of in the 4th century is neither here nor there."
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Joseph Philips I never said, or thought, that "Expressing the view that the majority of manuscripts with which he was aware are missing it equals saying it is not authentic is equivalent to a scholar saying the vast majority of manuscripts has it means he thinks it is authentic," as you say.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
The key section of Eusebius is translated as follows: "For, on the one hand, the person who rejects the passage itself – the pericope which says this – might say that it does not appear in all copies of the Gospel of Mark. At any rate, the accurate copies end their text of the Marcan account with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, "Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene" and so forth, proceeding to where it says, ‘And having heard, they fled, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.'
"That is where the text does end, in almost all copies of the Gospel according to Mark. The material that comes next seldom appears; it is in some copies but not in all, and may be spurious, especially since it implies a contradiction to the witness of the other Gospels. This, then, is what someone might say to avoid and completely do away with a superfluous question.
"On the other hand, someone else, who dares to set aside nothing at all which appears, by whatever means, in the text of the gospels, says that the reading, like many others, is double, and each of the two must be accepted, in that they are approved in the opinion of the faithful and pious; not this one instead of that one, or that one rather than this one.
Joseph Philips
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer; Do I really have to post this a third time?
"You are reading more into Eusebius' comment than is there. Expressing the view that the majority of manuscripts with which he was aware are missing it equals saying it is not authentic is equivalent to a scholar saying the vast majority of manuscripts has it means he thinks it is authentic, right?
Second, Eusebius clearly thought it was authentic; your quote was his suggestion as to how one might try to reconcile a supposed contradiction, which he would not have done or needed to do if he thought the LE was not authentic.
Finally, Irenaeus and Tatian bear witness to what the text said in the 2nd century, so what MSS Eusebius knew of in the 4th century is neither here nor there."
Joakim Johansson
David Robert Palmer
Am I wrong to infer from this passage that Eusebius acknowledged the existence of two methods of textual criticism?
A) Preponderance: Giving preference to the reading that appears original,
and B) Not deleting, but keeping all that has been handed down in manuscripts (with conditions, I'm sure).
If we look at the Byzantine text-type, it appears that this (i.e., option B) is what they often attempted to do, combining readings (i.e., conflation), thereby amending the text. Considering this, it seems reasonable to infer that they saw no major problem in editing accounts, as long as such edits were based on manuscript tradition. Could we, by extension, deduce that they therefore did not necessarily believe in dictation as a mode of revelation, and as such the text could be edited and amended as long as it was deemed factual and based on what has been handed down?
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
The comment of Eusebius explains how notes that were originally in a margin became part of the text itself.
Eric Rowe
Moderator
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer surely the longer ending of Mark did not start out as a note in a margin.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Eric Rowe Why surely? I have looked at a lot of MSS, and there are some with the margins absolutely chock full of text.
Eric Rowe
Moderator
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer Because it's much too long to fit in a margin in any manuscript.
Steven Avery
Joakim Johansson - "the Byzantine text-type, it appears that this (i.e., option B) is what they often attempted to do, combining readings (i.e., conflation), thereby amending the text.)"
Outside Acts 20:28 there are few demonstrable Byzantine conflations. Wilbur Pickering did a good job going over the Westcott-Hort claims.
Conflation or Confusion?
Wilbur Pickering
http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ap_d.html
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Joseph Philips I know 100% beforehand that they did not succeed in harmonizing the LE of Mark to Luke, because the LE has a statement that is simply contrary to what Mark says. The statement is found in verses 12 and 13 about the two walking to Emmaus:
12 And after these things he was manifested in a different form to two of them who were walking along in the country.
13 And those went and reported to the rest; neither did they believe those.
This is contrary to Luke 24:13, 33-35 where we read:
13 And behold, two of them during that same day were making their way toward a village sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, which was called Emmaus...
33 And they got up and returned that same hour to Jerusalem, and found the Eleven and those with them assembled together,
34 saying, 'The Lord really has risen, and he appeared to Simon.'
35 And the two told what things happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.
Luke says the rest responded "The Lord really has risen," thus agreeing with the two. The others agreed that Jesus was alive, because Simon Peter had already come back and told them the same thing as the two were telling them. But "Mark" 16:13 says the rest disbelieved the two. Thus, Mark 16:12,13 contradicts what Luke 24:33-35 says. So then, we either have to believe that the scriptures contain an error, or else believe that one of these passages is not scripture.
I have already read the proposals as to how to get around this, and they are all false or weak. That's why I am not interested in examining another attempt.
===========================
Joseph Philips
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer: It's up: I will attach the part about the harmonization here.
IS THERE A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN MARK 16:12-13 AND LUKE 24:13,33-35?
Our apologist is quite insistent that there is, indeed, a contradiction between these two passages. He avers that he has examined many attempts to harmonize this passages and they were all false or weak, and certainly they were not as thorough as the apologist’s own work on the topic.
Based on his attempted harmonization, our apologist tells us that, according to Mark 16:12-13, the “rest” did not believe the testimony of the two travellers who had met Jesus on the road, whereas according to Luke 24:33-35, they did believe them. We know they believed them, because they agreed with what they said because Simon Peter had already told them that Jesus had appeared to him.
So there you have it: Mark says the rest did not believe and Luke says they did; that is an irreconcilable contradiction, isn’t it? As our apologist points out, Mark says they did not believe, but Luke plainly tells us they did believe.
Or does he? If he does, why do we read a mere six verses later, when Jesus had appeared to them all, that “they still did not believe” (Luke 24:41b)? In that the verse says, “They still did not believe” (ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων), it indicates that they had not believed to this point. ἔτι pertains to continuance , so this indicates that they are continuing in a state of disbelief, which means they hadn’t believed before, not in 24:33-35 or at any previous time. What our apologist missed is that Luke 24:33-35 records that the claim was being advanced in the group that Jesus had risen and had appeared to Simon; there is, in fact, no indication that the apostles or anyone other than those who brought the claim believed that claim. The supposed contradiction between Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24:13,33-35, then, arises only from our apologist’s unwarranted assumption about the meaning of the latter. And his assumption is wrong.
What is described in Luke 24:33-35 is diametrically different from what our apologist posited. The text tells us that the two travellers who had met Jesus “found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.
εὗρον συνηθροισμένους τοὺς ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς λέγοντας ὅτι ἠγέρθη ὁ κύριος ὄντως καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι
Who was doing the “saying” here? Our apologist mistakenly assumes that it was “the eleven and those who were with them gathered together,” all agreeing that Jesus had appeared to Simon, but the Greek requires no such thing. It could just as readily be taken that it was “those who were with them” who were doing the saying, trying to convince the eleven that Jesus had risen, but they were not believed (as is shown by 24:41), just as the women who brought testimony of the risen Jesus were not believed, as Mark tells us (16:11) and so does Luke (24:11), just as Thomas wouldn’t believe even the testimony of his fellow apostles (John 20:25). The apostles were very difficult to convince that Jesus had risen; why our apologist thinks that they believed Simon (16:33-35) when the unanimous testimony of the Gospel books is that they did not believe until Jesus appeared to them (with the possible exception of John, per John 20:28) is difficult to discern.
CONCLUSION
As we have seen, claiming that a passage of Scripture is not authentic because it includes a statement that, prime facie, seems to contradict another statement of Scripture is a nonstarter. We must respect both the entirety of Scripture and its truth, and we cannot sacrifice the former for the latter, nor is there ever a need to do so.
Seeming contradictions in the Gospel books are often the result of the skeptic failing to understand how different accounts of the same event play out in real life. In the matter of the alleged contradiction between Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24:13,33-35, this is not the case. There is no contradiction at all, and our apologist’s concern stems from a failure to read the entire text of Luke 24 carefully; in particular, he should have paid careful attention to the Greek wording. His harmonization, it seems, have not been done nearly as carefully as he thinks it has.
John Tors
https://www.truthinmydays.com/post/...-24-disprove-the-authenticity-of-mark-16-9-20
============================================
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Eric Rowe Talking about Tatian? He was not a reliable handler of the word of God. He changed things to suit his asceticism.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Joseph Philips What has changed since we last discussed this? I told you that I know of a contradiction that cannot be reconciled or harmonized, and that therefore I was not interested in spending time looking at another harmonization attempt. Here is a refresher for you of the problem:
The passage contains a statement that is contrary to the gospel of Luke.
The statement is found in verses 12 and 13 about the two walking to Emmaus:
12 And after these things he was manifested in a different form to two of them who were walking along in the country.
13 And those went and reported to the rest; neither did they believe those.
This is contrary to Luke 24:13, 33-35 where we read:
13 And behold, two of them during that same day were making their way toward a village sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, which was called Emmaus...
33 And they got up and returned that same hour to Jerusalem, and found the Eleven and those with them assembled together,
34 saying, 'The Lord really has risen, and he appeared to Simon.'
35 And the two told what things happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.
Luke says the rest responded "The Lord really has risen," thus agreeing with the two. The others agreed that Jesus was alive, because Simon Peter had already come back and told them the same thing as the two were telling them. But "Mark" 16:13 says the rest disbelieved the two. Thus, Mark 16:12,13 contradicts what Luke 24:33-35 says. So then, we either have to believe that the scriptures contain an error, or else believe that one of these passages is not scripture. The problem of the contradiction is solved, by concluding from the objective external evidence that the longer ending of Mark is not scripture, therefore we do not have a case here of scripture contradicting other scripture.
Some say that there is not a contradiction between Mark in the TR and Luke, because later in Luke, in 24:40-41, it says
"40And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41But, since they were still not believing, out of joy and astonishment, he said to them, "What do you have to eat in this place?"
But I say this is another event. Both the passages I compared are about people walking in the countryside. Mark says the apostles did not believe that specific report, and Luke said the apostles did believe that specific report. This is not about some unbelief generally, but about this specific report of the ones who returned from a walk in the country. It is indeed a contradiction.
============================================
Eric Rowe
Moderator
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer you made it sound like there was a serious contradiction there. Then you gave an example that has no contradiction at all.
==========================
==========================
==========================
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
That's not what is going on with the LE. I guess I will have to write out in detail sometime how I harmonized the gospels, and could not harmonize the LE.
Steven Avery
David Robert Palmer - as I remember, we went through this on the Yahoogroups, James contributing as well, and answered your concerns.
So expect some counterpoint.
TC-Alternate 2007 was the biggy. James Snapp, myself and David.
====
====
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Ron Braswell Yes true. However, I can honestly say my belief is not from a pre-supposition. Mine is from a painstaking, several year long effort to harmonize the gospels, primarily. I truly believe I am not bound by presuppositions. I don't know anyone who has changed his mind on more variants than I have. I have no horse I favor in the race. As far as I am concerned, the Robinson-Pierpont text is fine with me, except for the LE of Mark, John 5:3b-4, and Matthew 18:15.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
A questionable ending was gradually accepted, and Eusebius explains how: "On the other hand, someone else, who dares to set aside nothing at all which appears, by whatever means, in the text of the gospels, says that the reading, like many others, is double, and each of the two must be accepted, in that they are approved in the opinion of the faithful and pious; not this one instead of that one, or that one rather than this one.
Joseph Philips
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer: You did. Here it is again:
" You are reading more into Eusebius' comment than is there. Expressing the view that the majority of manuscripts with which he was aware are missing it equals saying it is not authentic is equivalent to a scholar saying the vast majority of manuscripts has it means he thinks it is authentic, right?
Second, Eusebius clearly thought it was authentic; your quote was his suggestion as to how one might try to reconcile a supposed contradiction, which he would not have done or needed to do if he thought the LE was not authentic.
Finally, Irenaeus and Tatian bear witness to what the text said in the 2nd century, so what MSS Eusebius knew of in the 4th century is neither here nor there."
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Joseph Philips I never said, or thought, that "Expressing the view that the majority of manuscripts with which he was aware are missing it equals saying it is not authentic is equivalent to a scholar saying the vast majority of manuscripts has it means he thinks it is authentic," as you say.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
The key section of Eusebius is translated as follows: "For, on the one hand, the person who rejects the passage itself – the pericope which says this – might say that it does not appear in all copies of the Gospel of Mark. At any rate, the accurate copies end their text of the Marcan account with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, "Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene" and so forth, proceeding to where it says, ‘And having heard, they fled, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.'
"That is where the text does end, in almost all copies of the Gospel according to Mark. The material that comes next seldom appears; it is in some copies but not in all, and may be spurious, especially since it implies a contradiction to the witness of the other Gospels. This, then, is what someone might say to avoid and completely do away with a superfluous question.
"On the other hand, someone else, who dares to set aside nothing at all which appears, by whatever means, in the text of the gospels, says that the reading, like many others, is double, and each of the two must be accepted, in that they are approved in the opinion of the faithful and pious; not this one instead of that one, or that one rather than this one.
Joseph Philips
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer; Do I really have to post this a third time?
"You are reading more into Eusebius' comment than is there. Expressing the view that the majority of manuscripts with which he was aware are missing it equals saying it is not authentic is equivalent to a scholar saying the vast majority of manuscripts has it means he thinks it is authentic, right?
Second, Eusebius clearly thought it was authentic; your quote was his suggestion as to how one might try to reconcile a supposed contradiction, which he would not have done or needed to do if he thought the LE was not authentic.
Finally, Irenaeus and Tatian bear witness to what the text said in the 2nd century, so what MSS Eusebius knew of in the 4th century is neither here nor there."
Joakim Johansson
David Robert Palmer
Am I wrong to infer from this passage that Eusebius acknowledged the existence of two methods of textual criticism?
A) Preponderance: Giving preference to the reading that appears original,
and B) Not deleting, but keeping all that has been handed down in manuscripts (with conditions, I'm sure).
If we look at the Byzantine text-type, it appears that this (i.e., option B) is what they often attempted to do, combining readings (i.e., conflation), thereby amending the text. Considering this, it seems reasonable to infer that they saw no major problem in editing accounts, as long as such edits were based on manuscript tradition. Could we, by extension, deduce that they therefore did not necessarily believe in dictation as a mode of revelation, and as such the text could be edited and amended as long as it was deemed factual and based on what has been handed down?
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
The comment of Eusebius explains how notes that were originally in a margin became part of the text itself.
Eric Rowe
Moderator
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer surely the longer ending of Mark did not start out as a note in a margin.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
Eric Rowe Why surely? I have looked at a lot of MSS, and there are some with the margins absolutely chock full of text.
Eric Rowe
Moderator
Top contributor
David Robert Palmer Because it's much too long to fit in a margin in any manuscript.
Steven Avery
Joakim Johansson - "the Byzantine text-type, it appears that this (i.e., option B) is what they often attempted to do, combining readings (i.e., conflation), thereby amending the text.)"
Outside Acts 20:28 there are few demonstrable Byzantine conflations. Wilbur Pickering did a good job going over the Westcott-Hort claims.
Conflation or Confusion?
Wilbur Pickering
http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ap_d.html
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
David Tucker
Siniaticus, leaves room for the longer ending but doesn't include it. So that scribe was obviously aware of its existence
David Tucker - hi
Actually, not enough space, there was a very fine study on this with James Snapp and Nazaroo (1957-2019). James showed that you could not make the space.
However, the cancel-sheet does indicate a special attitude toward the ending.
Jonathan Norton
On a side note, "evidence" is an uncountable noun. You need "pieces of evidence". Writing "evidences" is like writing "informations".
Siniaticus, leaves room for the longer ending but doesn't include it. So that scribe was obviously aware of its existence
David Tucker - hi
Actually, not enough space, there was a very fine study on this with James Snapp and Nazaroo (1957-2019). James showed that you could not make the space.
However, the cancel-sheet does indicate a special attitude toward the ending.
Jonathan Norton
On a side note, "evidence" is an uncountable noun. You need "pieces of evidence". Writing "evidences" is like writing "informations".
Steven Avery
Administrator
James William Sheffield
Pagans making fun of Mark 16:9-20 may have caused some to drop it.
Macarius, Apocriticus III: 16:
Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them." So the right thing would be for those selected for the priesthood, and particularly those who lay claim to the episcopate or presidency, to make use of this form of test. The deadly drug should be set before them in order that the man who received no harm from the drinking of it might be given precedence of the rest. And if they are not bold enough to accept this sort of test, they ought to confess that they do not believe in the things Jesus said. For if it is a peculiarity of the faith to overcome the evil of a poison and to remove the pain of a sick man, the believer who does not do these things either has not become a genuine |86 believer, or else, though his belief is genuine, the thing that he believes in is not potent but feeble. Bing search
Steven Avery
James William Sheffield -
George Salmon on the Macarius reply to Porphyry in Apocriticus
A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament: Being an Expansion of Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin (1892)
https://books.google.com/books?id=j40sAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA151
Pagans making fun of Mark 16:9-20 may have caused some to drop it.
Macarius, Apocriticus III: 16:
Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them." So the right thing would be for those selected for the priesthood, and particularly those who lay claim to the episcopate or presidency, to make use of this form of test. The deadly drug should be set before them in order that the man who received no harm from the drinking of it might be given precedence of the rest. And if they are not bold enough to accept this sort of test, they ought to confess that they do not believe in the things Jesus said. For if it is a peculiarity of the faith to overcome the evil of a poison and to remove the pain of a sick man, the believer who does not do these things either has not become a genuine |86 believer, or else, though his belief is genuine, the thing that he believes in is not potent but feeble. Bing search
Steven Avery
James William Sheffield -
George Salmon on the Macarius reply to Porphyry in Apocriticus
A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament: Being an Expansion of Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin (1892)
https://books.google.com/books?id=j40sAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA151
Steven Avery
Administrator
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
My parents established the church in the Hamtai tribe in Papua New Guinea. It only took one generation for them to depart from what they were taught. The departing happened at the hands of leaders who made themselves "bishops" instead of the plurality of equal elders which the Bible and apostles taught. The same thing happened in 130 AD.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
My parents established the church in the Hamtai tribe in Papua New Guinea. It only took one generation for them to depart from what they were taught. The departing happened at the hands of leaders who made themselves "bishops" instead of the plurality of equal elders which the Bible and apostles taught. The same thing happened in 130 AD.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
This is why I call Diotrephes "the first pope."
Steven Avery
David Robert Palmer -
Very interesting.
Keith Mason placed forth a theory that he was the cause of the early omission of the heavenly witnesses verse. You can see that discussed on KJVToday.
https://www.kjvtoday.net/.../the-father-the-word-and-the...
YMMV.
Top contributor
My parents established the church in the Hamtai tribe in Papua New Guinea. It only took one generation for them to depart from what they were taught. The departing happened at the hands of leaders who made themselves "bishops" instead of the plurality of equal elders which the Bible and apostles taught. The same thing happened in 130 AD.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
My parents established the church in the Hamtai tribe in Papua New Guinea. It only took one generation for them to depart from what they were taught. The departing happened at the hands of leaders who made themselves "bishops" instead of the plurality of equal elders which the Bible and apostles taught. The same thing happened in 130 AD.
David Robert Palmer
Top contributor
This is why I call Diotrephes "the first pope."
Steven Avery
David Robert Palmer -
Very interesting.
Keith Mason placed forth a theory that he was the cause of the early omission of the heavenly witnesses verse. You can see that discussed on KJVToday.
https://www.kjvtoday.net/.../the-father-the-word-and-the...
YMMV.