Errors in Bible translations...

[angellous_evangellous]

Hi angellous_evangellous

You might be interested in my various research products, articles, on Bible Canon and an email sent to me by a member of a Bible translation committie. You can go to:

Details on Bible Canon:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388559&messageid=1108381517&lp=1108381780

And read them and learn.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Why thanks Iris. A fellow student is being kind enough to show me around in that area in a library - we actually have some pictures of unpublished texts. I am not a text critic, but those fellas help me out quite a bit. Those early texts are super hard to read. We think that the fella had to go to the bathroom or something because his (or her) handwriting is so bad.

Perhaps we can compare bibliographies sometime.:162:

 

[iris89]

Hi angellous_evangellousYou have that right, handwritten documents are not only hard to read, but even harder to translate as I well know being a translator. Look at some of the books by Jason Benuhn as he has a lot to say on translation and is an acknowledged expert not only on Koine Greek, but several other ancient midle eastern languages. His books are both informative and interesting.

Glad to hear from you.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hi angellous_evangellousYou have that right, handwritten documents are not only hard to read, but even harder to translate as I well know being a translator. Look at some of the books by Jason Benuhn as he has a lot to say on translation and is an acknowledged expert not only on Koine Greek, but several other ancient midle eastern languages. His books are both informative and interesting.

Glad to hear from you.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

I must be mistaking you for someone else. I thought you just copied stuff out of the Watchtower.

If you are a translator, perhaps if you have time you can join our summer reading group. We will be reading the Stoic Epictetus in Greek along with the Greek NT, French, German, and some Hebrew and hopefully some Aramic. We could really use your expertise.

 

[linwood]

I don't think it has serious implications for the foundation of the Christian teaching of the resurrection. We have three other Gospels that have the resurrection story, and the dating of the Markan edition is still pretty early.

Yes and two of the other three rely fairly heavily on the first (Mark) which is in serious doubts as far as the resurrection goes.
Enough to throw a rational mind into a new analysis from scratch.

 

[iris89]

Hi linwoodIf you wish, I can assist you with respect knowing more about the Resurrection, go to my research products at:

Ressurection

http://www.network54.com/Forum/398374

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't think it has serious implications for the foundation of the Christian teaching of the resurrection. We have three other Gospels that have the resurrection story, and the dating of the Markan edition is still pretty early.

Yes and two of the other three rely fairly heavily on the first (Mark) which is in serious doubts as far as the resurrection goes.
Enough to throw a rational mind into a new analysis from scratch.

The synoptic dependence upon Mark is spuratic. Some material has direct parallels, but given that the resurrection accounts are different, and that the Markan resurrection account in question is most likely later than the other Gospels, your conclusion has no basis. However, if the Gospels did quote the Markan section in question, it would most likely be a testimony to its very early existence.

The theory of Markan priority is that Mark, Luke, and Matthew were dependent upon a hypothetical pre-Markan text called Q. The textual traditions that comprise Q spawned Mark and later Matthew and Luke used the same tradition. So if Mark used the pre-Markan tradition for his resurrection story and Matthew and Luke used it also, then the addition would be older than Mark itself, and have just as much credibility as anything else in the NT. However, because none of the resurrection stories match, your conclusion is baseless.

 

[lomi]

ok let me give you people an example.

Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb

or if I said...

Louis had a little lamb, little lamb little lamb

what if the perfection of your being relied on the first sentance and someone changed it to the second? Think about it. oh uh.... :bonk:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The synoptic dependence upon Mark is spuratic ... given that the resurrection accounts are different, and that the Markan account is most likely later than the other Gospels, ...

Please substantiate this. I know of no body of scholarship suggesting that "the Markan account is most likely later than the other Gospels".

The theory of Markan priority is that Mark, Luke, and Matthew were dependent upon a hypothetical pre-Markan text called Q.

It is simply absurd that you would speak with such authority about the Synoptics problem yet know nothing about the work of Goodacre and others.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can feel so much method and measure from the explainations you guys give that i'm feeling very misplaced in my own book of essence that I should understand and not become confused by...

I donated my book of essence to the local library, but I found The Synoptic Problem Home Page to be a useful summary.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Please substantiate this. I know of no body of scholarship suggesting that "the Markan account is most likely later than the other Gospels".

It is simply absurd that you would speak with such authority about the Synoptics problem yet know nothing about the work of Goodacre and others.

Obviously most scholars agree that Mark is dated before the other Gospels. However, the resurrection story is dated later than most of Mark, which is why it is in question and being discussed here. So when I said, the Markan account I meant the Markan ressurection story which may not have been part of the original Mark, which predates the other Gospels. If the section were written late (which would explain why it does not appear in many anceint witnesses), then the other Gospels which do appear in those early witnesses would be written before the Markan account of the resurrection. Therefore, my point above is that since the section of Mark that is in question is dated late (eg, not in some very early texts that you mentioned above), then the other Gospel writers could not have used that particular tradition when they wrote their resurrection accounts. I have edited the post above to give it more clarity.

I am basing most of my views on Ellis's Making of the NT Documents as well as upon several standard NT introductions by Kummel, Koester, Goodspeed, Schnelle, and many others. The dating of Mark as the earliest Gospel used to be at least close to universally accepted, along with the theory of Markan priority, which to date is loosing some ground, but is still being defended.

No, Goodacre does not ring a bell, but I would be happy to take a look at his work. These days there are so many hypotheses concerning the substance and theology of Q that it is difficult to find a large group (possibly five) scholars who agree on its source and theology.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That was a typo. I meant an early date for Mark.

Very well.

No, Goodacre does not ring a bell, but I would be happy to take a look at his work. These days there are so many hypotheses concerning the substance and theology of Q that it is difficult to find a large group (possibly five) scholars who agree on its source and theology.

See The Case Against Q. The Farrer article is particularly good. Also important is 'A Monopoly on Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q'.

Using Kummel, Koester, or Schnelle to defend/validate Q is weak at best, since these authors, Schnelle in particular, are concerned mainly with explicating consensus. Where, for example, is Q argued (rather than simple referenced) in Schnelle's History and Theology of the New Testament Writings?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Very well.


See The Case Against Q. The Farrer article is particularly good. Also important is 'A Monopoly on Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q'.

Using Kummel, Koester, or Schnelle to defend/validate Q is weak at best, since these authors, Schnelle in particular, are concerned mainly with explicating consensus. Where, for example, is Q argued (rather than simple referenced) in Schnelle's History and Theology of the New Testament Writings?

Deut,
I had to read it myself several times before I remembered what I was referring to. I have since made edits. Please re-read. It was not a typo, I was specifically referring to the Markan resurrection account, which is dated later than the other Gospels.

I was not trying to validate Q, but using Koester and Schnelle is good because of their bibliographies - knowing the nature of scholarly consensus is very useful. I simply referred to Q because it is essential to many Markan priority theories, which Linwood's conclusions above presuppose.

 

[jewscout]

Q????
you mean that dude from Star Trek TNG?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

BTW Deut, thanks for the links. I have taken a look also at Schnelle's other works, but I can't recall his specific arguments for Q. Since Q is a hypothetical document, its origin, sources, and theology are a topic of much debate. I am aware that some scholars are even questioning its existence.

Have you read Earle Ellis's Making of the NT Documents? You may enjoy it, particularly if you also have a background in the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It was not a typo, I was specifically referring to the Markan resurrection account, which is dated later than the other Gospels.

Who dates the Markan resurrection account as later than the other Gospels? Where?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

BTW Deut, thanks for the links. I have taken a look also at Schnelle's other works, but I can't recall his specific arguments for Q. Since Q is a hypothetical document, its origin, sources, and theology are a topic of much debate. I am aware that some scholars are even questioning its existence.

Have you read Earle Ellis's Making of the NT Documents? You may enjoy it, particularly if you also have a background in the Hebrew Scriptures.

FROM THE PUBLISHER

This volume identifies and investigates literary traditions and their implications for the authorship and dating of the Gospels and letters. It questions the view that the letters were the sole product of an individual and argues for corporate authorship, hitherto unappreciated by critical scholarship. The author contends that four cooperating apostolic missions each produced a Gospel and several letters and faced the same judaizing-gnosticizing countermission. They shared common traditions while pursuing their different tasks. These arguments, if persuasive, will require a reassessment of the history of early Christianity.​

It sounds highly speculative. Have you read his "The Old Testament in Early Christianity"? It looks interesting as well. In any event, thanks for the recommendation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Who dates the Markan resurrection account as later than the other Gospels? Where?

There must be some rationale for removing the resurrection story from the original Mark.

1) As you said above, the resurrection story (verses 9 through the end of the chapter) do not appear in some very early texts.

2) The end of Mark does not appear in the early texts presumably because it was a later edition. Scholars who would give the resurrection story a late date would use this rationale.

3) These same early texts have the other ressurrection stories in the other Gospels

4) If #2 is correct, then the ressurrection story in Mark was written after the other resurrection stories and therefore the other writers could not have used Mark as a source for their resurrection stories

5) It is possible that several early Markan texts floated around - one version was long and one short, and the long one was original. However, if the long one was original, then Linwoods conclusions are ascenine

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is getting a bit tiresome. Let me rephrase my question: Who, other than you, dates the Markan resurrection account as later than the other Gospels? Where?

edited to add ...

If you are referring, not to the resurrection account, but to the Marcan Appendix, this is clearly post resurrection, beginning as it does: "16:9 Early on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is getting a bit tiresome. Let me rephrase my question: Who, other than you, dates the Markan resurrection account as later than the other Gospels? Where?

I will have to look it up when I get home. I was attempting to appeal to logic specifically to Linwood's conclusions. We have established that Mark may have an addition. If it is an addition, it is late, and seperate from the dating of the rest of Mark. If the other Gospels are dependent upon Mark's resurrection account, then Mark's account must be early. If we use early texts to date the resurrection story as post-Markan, then how can the other Gospel writers whose stories depend upon a late resurrection account appear in the same early texts where the Markan account is missing?

EDIT: I figured that it was obvious that I am referring to the Markan Appendix as the resurrection account as Linwood was asking if its possible exclusion would have any effect on the Chrisitan doctrine of the resurrection.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

EDIT: I figured that it was obvious that I am referring to the Markan Appendix as the resurrection account as Linwood was asking if its possible exclusion would have any effect on the Chrisitan doctrine of the resurrection.

Perhaps it should have been, but I'm sometimes too anal for my own good.