Errors in Bible translations...

[linwood]

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.

Then please explain to me how the last eleven verses in the popularised Mark 16 came to be.

I make no distinctions between "apostolic fathers", "fathers", or just anyone with motive to less than honestly promote the Christian ressurection.
Making this distinction is as I said earlier, splitting hairs.

Someone has editted the texts.
Your "apostolic" church father/leaders have accepted this editted text.
This makes the texts questionable as far as authenticity goes.

It`s that simple really.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

Then please explain to me how the last eleven verses in the popularised Mark 16 came to be.

I make no distinctions between "apostolic fathers", "fathers", or just anyone with motive to less than honestly promote the Christian ressurection.
Making this distinction is as I said earlier, splitting hairs.

Someone has editted the texts.
Your "apostolic" church father/leaders have accepted this editted text.
This makes the texts questionable as far as authenticity goes.

It`s that simple really.

At this time I cannot explain Mark 16. Perhaps I will write a paper on it next year. For now I think I am stuck in Philippians and Colossians.

Yes, I have accepted the general theory of the redaction of the NT - or at least I am willing to try and prove or disprove it. That is, the texts have passed through human hands, were compiled by people, and were edited. Giving value to the edits and what they mean for authenticity is challenging. Talk about splitting hairs... there are some MSS with words in different cases, tenses, articles where no article is, sometimes different word order, and so forth. You can pick up a Nestle-Aland 27 and just look in the apparatus and see all of the "edits," and more than a few have serious exegetical implications.

Yes, the apostolic fathers certified that the texts were apostolic, and the editing of the texts both preceeded the fathers and continued long after their ministry. However, they did not cite the entirity of each letter or Gospel, so we don't know every "jot and tittle" of the exact words that they received as apostolic. We only have evidence that they quoted much of the NT as authoritative. The apostolic fathers were among the original receipients of the Gospels and the Pauline letters. They received the teachings from the mouths of the apostles and passed on teachings to their disciples, who read the sacred texts in the churches. Several copies were made, and most "edits" are where the copiest made grammatical corrections and minor stylistic changes. However, some edits are redactions of other traditions, like Mk 16 and 1 John 5.7. I found a MSS a few months ago that had a note scribbled in the margin, "I wish that people would just read and not make notes in the text."

As far as authenticity, we don't have the original autographs, only copies of copies of copies. Simply because a work is edited doesn't mean that it is not authentic - it is simply not the original. The second law of thermodynamics applies here - with each exchange something is lost. Each later copy has the higher probability of being farther from the original exact words. Each copiest made minute errors, and some made major ones. We even have names for some common errors. Sometimes a scribe would be copying from one line and suddenly skip a line. Sometimes they spelled a word by phonics instead of spelling correctly. Fortunately, we have thousands of texts from different families that we can compare and determine what most probrably was closest to the original message, which is important for Christians. We want to know what Jesus actually taught, and the message that his apostles bring, not what a copiest added.

 

[iris89]

Hi angellous_evangellous

With regard the 4 gospels, most things said in one can easily be checked for a parallel account in one or more of the others. I would recommend Matthew.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hi angellous_evangellous

With regard the 4 gospels, most things said in one can easily be checked for a parallel account in one or more of the others. I would recommend Matthew.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Thanks for the help. As an esteemed translator, perhaps you could tell us how we can compare Mark 16 to Matthew and explain where Mark 16 came from, if that is what you mean.

Why are you recommending Matthew here?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

Deut, I am not one for kicking a dead horse nor stating the blatantly obvious, but the many of the earliest MSS don't have any punctuation, they are written in all capital letters, and some of the later texts have accent marks. All punctuation was added later, and some interpretation needs to take place for commas and periods. The later copies spoiled us by providing accents, periods, semicolons (for question marks) and even some grammatical corrections. I should have stated this earlier and I apologize.

Those early MSS are a pain in the keester to read. I am having to train my eyes, and I am glad that I have help...

 

[iris89]

Hi angellous_evangellous

Although I am a translatior, I do not translate Koine Greek, but I am friends with Koine Greek translators, but I am not sure what you are referring to as Mark 16. Do you mean the 16th. chapter of Mark or do you mean the 16th. verse of one of the books of Mark? Let me know and I will present it to some Koine Greek translators.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hi angellous_evangellous

Although I am a translatior, I do not translate Koine Greek, but I am friends with Koine Greek translators, but I am not sure what you are referring to as Mark 16. Do you mean the 16th. chapter of Mark or do you mean the 16th. verse of one of the books of Mark? Let me know and I will present it to some Koine Greek translators.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

So you don't translate the NT? Perhaps you translate Hebrew or Aramic then if you translate the Bible. We are talking about Mark chapter 16.9-19, and the translation of the text is not the issue, but rather the redaction of the pericope into the larger portion of Mark. How did this section get there?

 

[linwood]

Yes, the apostolic fathers certified that the texts were apostolic, and the editing of the texts both preceeded the fathers and continued long after their ministry.

The same fathers whose inherent bias we have pointed out in another thread./
Just clarifying.

As far as authenticity, we don't have the original autographs, only copies of copies of copies. Simply because a work is edited doesn't mean that it is not authentic - it is simply not the original.

I`m not speaking of the authenticity of the physical text itself, not the parchment/paper but the content.
The content is what is important, I am simply stating that adding an aditional 11 verse (The majority of the chapter) in order to have Mark jibe with two other gospels is seriously eroding confidence in the content.
The first natural question that arises is "What else was added?" followed by "where", "why", "how", and "by whom"?

The second law of thermodynamics applies here - with each exchange something is lost. Each later copy has the higher probability of being farther from the original exact words. Each copiest made minute errors, and some made major ones. We even have names for some common errors. Sometimes a scribe would be copying from one line and suddenly skip a line. Sometimes they spelled a word by phonics instead of spelling correctly.

We`re not speaking of a copyist error here AE

Fortunately, we have thousands of texts from different families that we can compare and determine what most probrably was closest to the original message, which is important for Christians.
We want to know what Jesus actually taught, and the message that his apostles bring, not what a copiest added.

If the above is true then why are those final 11 verses still in modern Christian Bibles printed today?
They are not in the earliest known copy of Mark.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If the above is true then why are those final 11 verses still in modern Christian Bibles printed today? They are not in the earliest known copy of Mark.

Different Bible translations follow different textual theories. Some theories don't place greater weight upon a few early witnesses, but upon a wealth of later witnesses. I referred to this back on post #198. You can review the translation board's textual theories in most introductions or prefaces to translations. The KJV used the textus receptus, which is only one Greek MSS, and it is very late. More modern translations use other textual theories, and we will see different variations as scholars representing differing schools place weight on varying MSS.

I took a look around my library today and saw that most modern Bibles at least have a footnote indicating that most ancient witnesses do not have the Markan Appendix.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

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.

http://www.karenlyster.com[/url]]
There were actually two main criteria for selection, and these were originally determined at the Council of Carthage in the year AD 397, to be finally ratified in the later Renaissance era. The first criterion was that the New Testament Gospels must be written in the names of Jesus's own apostles. Matthew was, of course, an apostle, as was John - but Mark was not an apostle of Jesus as far as we know; neither was Luke; they were both colleagues of the later St Paul. Thomas, on the other hand, was one of the original twelve, and yet the Gospel in his name was excluded. Not only that but, along with various other texts, it was sentenced to be destroyed. Certain of them, including the Gospels mentioned, along with the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the Egyptians and others, were actually mentioned in the 2nd-century writings of early churchmen such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon and Origen of Alexandria. So, why were these and other apostolic Gospels not selected? Because there was a second, far more important criterion to consider - the criterion by which, in truth, the Gospel selection was really made. It was, in fact, a wholly sexist regulation which precluded anything that upheld the status of women in Church or community society. They state, 'We do not permit our women to teach in the Church, only to pray and to hear those who teach. Our master, when he sent us the twelve, did nowhere send out a woman; for the head of the woman is the man, and it is not reasonable that the body should govern the head'. This was an outrageous statement with no apparent foundation, but it was for this very reason that dozens of Gospels were not selected, because they made it quite clear that there were many active women in the ministry of Jesus: women such as Mary Magdalene, Martha, Helena-Salome, Mary-Jacob Cleophas and Joanna. These were not only ministering disciples, but priestesses in their own right, running exemplary schools of worship in the Nazarene tradition. In his Epistle to the Romans, St Paul makes specific mention of his own female helpers: Phoebe, for example, whom he called a 'sister of the Church' - along with Julia, and Priscilla who 'laid down her neck for the Cause'. Writings of the Gospel era are simply alive with women disciples, but the Church ignored them all. When the Precepts of Ecclesiastical Discipline were drawn up, they stated, 'It is not permitted for a woman to speak in Church, nor to claim for herself a share in any masculine function'.
The Church of Rome was so frightened of women that it implemented a rule of celibacy for its priests - a rule that became a law in 1138: a rule that persists today. However, Bible had said no such thing.

Only 365 years ago, the Italian scientist Galileo announced that the Earth was in motion around the sun (a discovery by the Polish astronomer, Copernicus) and for this the Church proclaimed him a heretic. As a result, Galileo was hauled before the Catholic Inquisition and kept under house arrest for ten years until he died.

There are many examples in our history where the church has decided what information is allowed and what information is not allowed.

 

[Scott1]

EnhancedSpirit,

If you are going to copy someone else's work from another website, it is proper to site the source in your post. http://www.karenlyster.com/body_bookish1.html

Please refer to the FAQ section for the forum rules:
23.) Long quoted posts will not be tolerated. If you want to quote an article, book, or quote please keep it to 4-6 sentences with a cite and link to the source.

Any questions, please send me a PM.

Scott

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

EnhancedSpirit,

If you are going to copy someone else's work from another website, it is proper to site the source in your post. http://www.karenlyster.com/body_bookish1.html

Please refer to the FAQ section for the forum rules:
23.) Long quoted posts will not be tolerated. If you want to quote an article, book, or quote please keep it to 4-6 sentences with a cite and link to the source.

Any questions, please send me a PM.

Scott

Sorry, I went back and tried to shorten it, there is just too much to say.

 

[Doodlebug02]

The scriptures, while although they may have translation and copiest errors, are infallible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The scriptures, while although they may have translation and copiest errors, are infallible.

Based on what evidence?

 

[kalkan]

christiaans do believe error in the Bible ? is it true?

 

[iris89]

Hi kalkan

No, there are only apparent errors, but no actual errors. For details, go to:

Bible Data and Bible Canon

http://www.network54.com/Forum/388559

and,

Muslims Do Not Comprehend The Bible:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388559&messageid=1112830072&lp=1112830072

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[ch'ang]

To the people who said no to this poll I would like to hear why you would say that other than the bible is supposed to have things that seem like errors to us but really aren't :banghead3 . If thats it whats the problem with "new errors" that fit our frame of mind better.

 

[Ordination of Aaron]

The Bibles full of questionable translation and copy errors.

Eg: The well known "Yam suph" translated as "red Sea." The King James' scholars were unfamiliar with suph. They knew "yam" was "sea", though, and the nearest one was the red sea, so that's what they wrote. The fact that no-one with any knowledge of regional geography would flee across a sandy desert toward an impassable sea apparently didn't bother them.

The only reasonable flight path out of Egypt would have been down the Nile and West around the Mediterranean, toward the rest of the civilized world. The Nile terminates in a sea of reeds (Cyperus papyrus) -- (Hbw: "Suph"). In some places the water rushes out at low tide making passage to the West possible. You have to be quick, though. If not, you -- or a persuing Egyptian army -- will become hopelessly enmired when the tide comes in.

the Hebrew Bible quite explicitly tells us that Ezion
Geber and Elath lie on Yam Suph (1Kings 9:26) which suggests it is the Red
Sea that is being envisioned for the miracle of Pharaoh's army being
overwhelmed by the waters, most likely near modern Suez, as preserved in
some late Jewish and Early Christian traditions

 

[iris89]

Hi Ordination of Aaron



What you said with respect to the Red Sea being the body of water they crossed is probably correct, but there is some debate on this.



Your friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Ordination of Aaron]

I was merely pointing out that the Red Sea was the point of crossing and the bible supports this.