Originally posted by One Bad Pig
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines
This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.
This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.
Forum Rules: Here
This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
New Testament Manuscripts
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostThe internal evidence is fairly decisively against it, AFAICT, . . .
. . . and the external evidence leans that way as well.
Who? No idea.
. . . Why? Possibly because he felt the gospel was incomplete stopping at Mk. 16:8.
Regardless, begging the question is not an answer to my observation. Scripture is God-breathed whether written by Mark or not -
. . . and post-16:8 Mark is more pastiche of other post-Resurrection accounts . . .
. . . other post-Resurrection accounts than prophecy, . . .
. . . so I'm not sure why you think that cite applies.Last edited by 37818; 04-10-2017, 08:21 AM.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostYup:
2 Peter 1:16 is about "prophecy of scripture" - so it can't be applied to all of scripture.
And in the Koine Greek,2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:reads as more of an adjectival phrase than as a sentence: so, the inclusion of those "is"s is somewhat dubious.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostBecause it basically is compiled from the rest of the Resurrection appearance accounts, . . .
. . . plus the vocabulary is not Markan.Last edited by 37818; 04-10-2017, 08:37 AM.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWhat is that internal evidence against the epilogue being by Mark?
And that external evidence is?
The accepted tradition is that it was by Mark. The external evidence supports this.
Who is he you refer to?
[quote]
How was my comment begging the question? [quote]
You didn't actually address my observation - your response merely assumes that it is irrelevant.
Now as I mentioned tradition attributes the epilogue to Mark.
Why do you think that?
It is either God-breathed or it is not prophecy (2 Peter 1:19-21).
Peter's argument was the written word is more sure v.19 that hearing God's voice from heaven, which Peter and the others with him did vs.16-18.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWhy do you ask? It's not like you haven't been presented with the evidence before.
Well, it is accepted as part of Mark's gospel.
The external evidence (that it is missing in some MSS, and replaced with an alternate ending in others) indicates that there is some uncertainty in tradition on just how Mark's gospel ends.
I already answered that as well as I can.
How was my comment begging the question?
Well, it attributes the gospel to Mark.
Because it does? I'm not sure how to answer that. For good measure, it also throws in a reference to Paul surviving a snakebite and refers to the tradition that John drank poison with no ill effects.
I will grant that prophetic scriptures are God-breathed, just like all other scripture. Again, if someone else wrote the ending, does that necessarily mean it was not God-breathed? Moses did not write the end of Deuteronomy (it references his own death, after all). Does that mean it was not God-breathed?. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View Post. . . plus the vocabulary is not Markan.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThis is whole "vocabulary"-argument is so dumb (whenever it's used, and not just here) I'm not even sure why actual scholars even use it. It's not like we have enough surviving Markan literature (or literature from any other NT author for that matter) to tell us whether or not a certain word is a part of that writers vocabulary or not.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostAs I understand it, the issue in the text at hand is not so much unique words (which could be attributed in large part to the unique (to Mark) subject matter), but the different way things are phrased compared to the rest of the book and the awkward transition from 16:8 to 16:9.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThis is whole "vocabulary"-argument is so dumb (whenever it's used, and not just here) I'm not even sure why actual scholars even use it. It's not like we have enough surviving Markan literature (or literature from any other NT author for that matter) to tell us whether or not a certain word is a part of that writers vocabulary or not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostThat's a good point, and one that I think is often ignored when it comes to what is Pauline and what isn't (I hold to the 7 undisputed, plus 2 Thessalonians and Colossians). With regard to Mark, stylistically, the text is different. The transition is awkward, counteracting what had just happened at the empty tomb. The attempt to create a mish-mash of resurrection appearances from the rest of the gospels is what gives me evidence that it's not original.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWhy? Please give a specific.
Mark 16:19 uses the phrase "μὲν οὖν," which appears nowhere else in the entirety of the gospel. It also uses the term φαίνω, which is never used in Mark, but does appear in Luke-Acts to describe Elijah's appearance during the transfiguration.
This is not just a position taken by liberal scholars who may desire to undercut the validity of the gospels. Very conservative evangelical scholars hold this position as well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostMark ends with the sentence "and they told nothing to anyone (lit. no one) for they were afraid," with the ending of the sentence in Greek being γαρ. We know it's acceptable to end a sentence with γαρ, as it appears in a few other works. Beyond that? The narrative shows knowledge of the story of Mary Magdalene in Luke-Acts. The other issues are external evidence: several church fathers show no knowledge of the addition.
Mark 16:19 uses the phrase "μὲν οὖν," which appears nowhere else in the entirety of the gospel. It also uses the term φαίνω, which is never used in Mark, but does appear in Luke-Acts to describe Elijah's appearance during the transfiguration.
This is not just a position taken by liberal scholars who may desire to undercut the validity of the gospels. Very conservative evangelical scholars hold this position as well.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostOk. Given that to be a consensus. But how does any of those distinctions prove Mark did not write it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostThere's no such thing as proof in anything outside the mathematical sense. But, when you have a series of non-Marcan words, all of which appear in other texts, an awkward transition in contradiction to other elements of the gospel, then it's fairly likely that Mark either ends at 16:8 or a lost ending exists.
It is a modern interpretation that Mark did not write that epilogue, while the modern basis for it dates from the 4th century. It is a modern. The long ending was the accepted reading.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by KingsGambit, 05-05-2024, 11:19 AM
|
13 responses
95 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
05-06-2024, 01:03 PM
|
Comment