Errors in Bible translations...

[angellous_evangellous]

Good grief ...

gMar written at time (T0)
the Appendix written at time (T1)
gMat written at time (T2)
gLk written at time (T3)
Paul on drugs and fabricating his own silly gnostic variant

Is this how it happened? Damned if I know. Do you? Not by the above logic.

Yeah, it is messy and we can count the theories on more than our fingers and toes.

EDIT: I was thinking

gMar written at time (T0)
gMat written at time (T2)
gLk written at time (T3)
Paul on drugs and fabricating his own silly gnostic variant
the Appendix written at time (T1) - based upon the fact that the others appear in the early texts, and the Appendix does not

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

I was the target this time :162:

I am anal too somethimes :jam:

I wish that I could frubal ya, but I have to pass it around. Better luck next time...

 

[linwood]

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

I think thats a bit rough (and misspelled), you`re showing your bias again.

I see your point AE but it is only one of many possible logical conclusions.

Matthew and Luke pull directly from Mark.
You could argue they pull from Q but I`d suggest you supply a copy of Q as support.

My overall point is that a falsity was inserted into Mark in order to make it coincide with the other gospels.
For me there must be some desperate reason to do so as it was mostly unecessary.
So what if Mark ends at an empty tomb?
The other gospels tell the rest of the resurrection story, the addition to Mark reeks of alterior motive and calls into question the little validity any modern Bible has .
Until I can read direct translations of the oldest texts I can hold no other perspective.
Those texts are not as of yet readily available to me.

We`ve already been over and over the bias Church fathers use to validate their texts (A bias you have personally admitted to)
I`m just leading that down the natural line of thought concerning the probability of those same church fathers literally inserting their bias into their own gods words.
It has been established this has been done so where do you draw the line?

Drawing the line depends upon which theologian you wish to trust.

The whole affair is highly suspect and not something I would trust with the authenticating of my electric bill.
I certainly won`t trust it authenticating my "spirituality".

If the resurrection was lied about in one text what supports the validity of it in another considering it is probable the same people who wrote the lie also wrote the other texts.

It calls the resurrection into doubt from a scriptural standpoint.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

I think thats a bit rough (and misspelled), you`re showing your bias again.

I see your point AE but it is only one of many possible logical conclusions.

Matthew and Luke pull directly from Mark.
You could argue they pull from Q but I`d suggest you supply a copy of Q as support.

My overall point is that a falsity was inserted into Mark in order to make it coincide with the other gospels.
For me there must be some desperate reason to do so as it was mostly unecessary.
So what if Mark ends at an empty tomb?
The other gospels tell the rest of the resurrection story, the addition to Mark reeks of alterior motive and calls into question the little validity any modern Bible has .
Until I can read direct translations of the oldest texts I can hold no other perspective.
Those texts are not as of yet readily available to me.

We`ve already been over and over the bias Church fathers use to validate their texts (A bias you have personally admitted to)
I`m just leading that down the natural line of thought concerning the probability of those same church fathers literally inserting their bias into their own gods words.
It has been established this has been done so where do you draw the line?

Drawing the line depends upon which theologian you wish to trust.

The whole affair is highly suspect and not something I would trust with the authenticating of my electric bill.
I certainly won`t trust it authenticating my "spirituality".

If the resurrection was lied about in one text what supports the validity of it in another considering it is probable the same people who wrote the lie also wrote the other texts.

It calls the resurrection into doubt from a scriptural standpoint.

I read you precisely backwards. I agree that it is possible that the Markan Appendix used traiditions from the other stories.

It is not possible to just pull Q out of a hat: the contents of Q are in such dispute that one cannot say "here's Q."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I`m just leading that down the natural line of thought concerning the probability of those same church fathers literally inserting their bias into their own gods words.
It has been established this has been done so where do you draw the line?

I have never heard of a church father inserting their words into Scripture. I thought it was mainly copy errors as well as different traditions getting mixed up in redaction or in the compiling of texts. I have never heard of any critic who thinks that a church father purposefully changed a text.

Scholars group the texts into families and attempt to find the earliest texts. Once the earliest texts are located, they are compared with later texts, and we are able to locate edits, omissions, and additions.

 

[linwood]

I have never heard of a church father inserting their words into Scripture. I thought it was mainly copy errors as well as different traditions getting mixed up in redaction or in the compiling of texts. I have never heard of any critic who thinks that a church father purposefully changed a text.

You`re splitting hairs.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have never heard of a church father inserting their words into Scripture.

On the Comma Johanneum:

Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others. bible.org​

Nor is it credible to declare the pericope adultera a simple example of scribal error.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have never heard of a church father inserting their words into Scripture. I thought it was mainly copy errors as well as different traditions getting mixed up in redaction or in the compiling of texts. I have never heard of any critic who thinks that a church father purposefully changed a text.

You`re splitting hairs.

It is one thing to say that a church father purposefully added their own theology into the mouth of God and quite another to say that there were errors in compilation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nor is it credible to declare the pericope adultera a simple example of scribal error.

Quite right. Erasmus is not an apostolic church father, and the apostolic fathers were the only ones capable of adding to the earliest texts. But even then, the textual traditions pre-date the apostolic fathers because they quote the early texts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Quite right. Erasmus is not an apostolic church father, and the apostolic fathers were the only ones capable of adding to the earliest texts.

Did I miss something or did you just slide from "church father" to "apastolic church father" without so much as a nod? The point being made about the Comma is that it was almost certainly a case of pious fraud as opposed to scribal error.

 

[linwood]

It is one thing to say that a church father purposefully added their own theology into the mouth of God and quite another to say that there were errors in compilation.

Yes, I know.
I stand by my words.
I know of no person or group who would have anything to gain by the addition of Christs resurrection other than the church itself or those attempting to form the church.

Are you going to supply evidence as to why this could not have happened?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is one thing to say that a church father purposefully added their own theology into the mouth of God and quite another to say that there were errors in compilation.

Yes, I know.
I stand by my words.
I know of no person or group who would have anything to gain by the addition of Christs resurrection other than the church itself or those attempting to form the church.

Are you going to supply evidence as to why this could not have happened?

It is possible that the apostolic fathers had the chance to add whatever they wanted to the earliest manucripts, but to their great credit they did not add to the texts but rather derived their theology from the texts. Whether they did add anything or not, we would be able to determine the later edits by comparing the earliest texts. For example, if Clement of Alexandria added to any text, it is probable that texts from the Alexandrian family or of Alexandrian origin would only have his edits, and texts from Rome would have edits which reflect the theology and ideology of the Roman bishop. We would be able to find distinct edits which reflect theologies local to the bishop who added his particular view.

Since we have the writings of many apostolic fathers, we can compare their writing style, vocabulary, and theology to any section of the NT. We can even find texts which are of the same origin of any apostolic father in question and determine if the location, edit, style, and vocabulary match.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Did I miss something or did you just slide from "church father" to "apastolic church father" without so much as a nod? The point being made about the Comma is that it was almost certainly a case of pious fraud as opposed to scribal error.

The apostolic fathers were the only fathers around during the writing of the NT (ca 54 to 110 at the latest). We are only interested in the earliest manuscripts, so edits from the 14th century are not going to carry much weight.

 

[linwood]

We are only interested in the earliest manuscripts, so edits from the 14th century are not going to carry much weight.

Who is "We"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We are only interested in the earliest manuscripts, so edits from the 14th century are not going to carry much weight.

What does the 14th century have to do with anything? This is either very sloppy or unexpectantly disingenuous. You certainly aren't dating the 'Comma' to the 14th century, are you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was thinking specifically of The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. in post #230

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is possible that the apostolic fathers had the chance to add whatever they wanted to the earliest manucripts, but to their great credit they did not add to the texts but rather derived their theology from the texts.

Knowing very little about the original texts, much of which have been lost, this is a gross, naive, and self-serving assumption.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Knowing very little about the original texts, much of which have been lost, this is a gross, naive, and self-serving assumption.

Like many other things in life, we can compare the evidence and make judgements based upon what we do have. We have the writings of the apostolic fathers, and we have several copies of MSS. If they indicate that the fathers added their theology, then I would be interested in knowing. I haven't ran across this theory anywhere.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was thinking specifically of The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. in post #230

See verse 22 in the 251 ce 'Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church.'

 

[angellous_evangellous]

See verse 22 in the 251 ce 'Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church.'

Yes, I wonder what he is quoting from. It could be a misquote, and it is quite different from taking a MSS of 1 John and simply writing it in. Several of the quotes in Polycarp don't match the exact wording in NT mss as well. Even the NT itself does not quote the Tanach (in that case, literally allign with the Tanah's Hebrew) or the LXX word for word. Of course, every version of the LXX does not currently exist, so we can't know if some of the quotations by Paul in the NT are misquotes or quotes from a LXX that didn't survive.

It is a problem, and several new versions of the Bible do not include 1 John 5.7...