Mark’s Ending

[tabibito]

It is only "questionable supposition" to someone who holds an absolute conviction that the four canonical gospels were written by the individuals whose names they later came to bear.

Your belief. If an argument is presented that doesn't float like a lead colander, I will adjust my own belief.

That brings us back to my observation and question as to why, if these texts were believed at the time to be God inspired Scripture no one bothered to preserve the originals. Furthermore why do copies of these God inspired Scripture turn up in rubbish tips or are later discovered as palimpsests?

A question you have asked seemingly a dozen times or more, and one that I have answered at least three times. The autographs are of no significance; the message is significant. Markings on a medium (ink on paper for example) have no intrinsic value. Once a writing had become old and toil-worn, it was considered to be not fit for purpose and was either trashed or recycled.

To expand on my previous answers:
As long as the God-inspired sections of holy writ are adequately transmitted, regardless of how many generations of copies stand between the autograph and the copy under review, the purpose of scripture is served.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Your belief. If an argument is presented that doesn't float like a lead colander, I will adjust my own belief.

You are blinkered by your theological preconceptions.

A question you have asked seemingly a dozen times or more, and one that I have answered at least three times. The autographs are of no significance; the message is significant.

Why are the autographs of no significance? These are believed by some to be God breathed Scripture. Why did the deity permit its words to be altered or mis-copied, or in some variants, omitted by later scribes? Such omissions, mistakes, alter the God breathed Scripture from the exact words of the deity.

To expand on my previous answers:
As long as the God-inspired sections of holy writ are adequately transmitted, regardless of how many generations of copies stand between the autograph and the copy under review, the purpose of scripture is served.

Your earlier remark concerning a written text being "trashed or recycled" denies the undisputed reliability of those God inspired sections. We all know that copyists make mistakes. We know that scriptio continua could make it difficult for those copying a text with the risk of both parablepsis and homoeoteleuton. If copying was done by dictation there existed the possibility to mishear. And the very style of scriptio continua could also lead to misinterpretation.

What does this mean? GODISNOWHERE. It depends on how you read it.

[tabibito]

You are blinkered by your theological preconceptions.

This little ad hom of yours, a refrain so frequently demonstrated false, merely demonstrates that you are not interested in facts and are not capable of impartiality.

Why are the autographs of no significance?

The written text is ink on paper or other media. There is nothing particularly holy about the physical writing itself.

These are believed by some to be God breathed Scripture.

The overwhelming majority of Christians believe it, except when they find the plain scriptural record inconvenient.

Why did the deity permit its words to be altered or mis-copied, or in some variants, omitted by later scribes? Such omissions, mistakes, alter the God breathed Scripture from the exact words of the deity.

Ergo, any claims that there is something sacrosanct about the original written text is demonstrated false. Precise wording is less important than conveying the precise meaning, and the meaning of given words changes with time. Copying errors are not the only reason for discrepancies: there is, for example, little point in a copyist retaining the original word when it does not have the same meaning in the copyist's time or place that it had in the author's. (aside: seems that you are persuaded by unattested, speculative arguments concerning God's gender.)

Your earlier remark concerning a written text being "trashed or recycled" denies the undisputed reliability of those God inspired sections.

What is old and worn out gets replaced. Do you have some examples of significant variations to support an argument that variations of inspired sections have resulted in different meanings? Or is your claim just another of your empty hypothetical scenarios?

We all know that copyists make mistakes. We know that scriptio continua could make it difficult for those copying a text with the risk of both parablepsis and homoeoteleuton. If copying was done by dictation there existed the possibility to mishear. And the very style of scriptio continua could also lead to misinterpretation.

Significant variations of meaning are almost non-existent. Differences in spelling, phrase order, use of synonyms would logically lead to the conclusion that (many) variations reflect different dialects, as when copying for the benefit of an American audience the word "colour" might be rendered "color;" the word "footpath" rendered "sidewalk." Luke chapter 22 alone has more than 50 variations between the NA28 and Byzantine Majority texts - not one of them results in a change of meaning. Some evidence (in other parts of the Biblical text) of rewording to eliminate ambiguities in the originals does seem to exist.

What does this mean? GODISNOWHERE. It depends on how you read it.

A meaningless objection. "GOdIsNOwHERe" and "GOdIsNOWHERe" are not the same. Koine Greek word endings are readily identifiable, and in the rare event that an ending is misidentified, what follows very quickly becomes gobbledegook.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This little ad hom of yours, a refrain so frequently demonstrated false

My comments are based on what you write concerning the authorship and your suggested datings of these texts, along with you belief in miracles. Your comment that I am not capable of impartiality is rather amusing.

The written text is ink on paper or other media. There is nothing particularly holy about the physical writing itself.

And we know that changes to the text have occurred. Certainly the Christological conflicts of the second and third centuries impacted on the texts, Codex Bezae being a case in point. Following his extensive study of the text in the 1960s Eldon J Epp concluded that some forty percent of its variant readings reflect an attitude that is anti-Judaic. Was this prejudice on the part of the scribe? Or did the scribe reflect his own community's tradition and included that in the text?

We know very little about the backgrounds of these early Christian scribes but we do know that, for whatever reasons, they were not always the best trained or took the best care. However, of the textual information that we do have it seems that these men were generally proto-orthodox. Those predecessors of what would eventually become the dominant Christian group therefore also produced the texts that have come down to us.

A meaningless objection. "GOdIsNOwHERe" and "GOdIsNOWHERe" are not the same.

What a shame that Bruce Metzger is dead. Were he still living you could have told him his objection was meaningless

[tabibito]

My comments are based on what you write concerning the authorship and your suggested datings of these texts, along with you belief in miracles. Your comment that I am not capable of impartiality is rather amusing.

And we know that changes to the text have occurred. Certainly the Christological conflicts of the second and third centuries impacted on the texts, Codex Bezae being a case in point. Following his extensive study of the text in the 1960s Eldon J Epp concluded that some forty percent of its variant readings reflect an attitude that is anti-Judaic. Was this prejudice on the part of the scribe? Or did the scribe reflect his own community's tradition and included that in the text?

We know very little about the backgrounds of these early Christian scribes but we do know that, for whatever reasons, they were not always the best trained or took the best care. However, of the textual information that we do have it seems that these men were generally proto-orthodox. Those predecessors of what would eventually become the dominant Christian group therefore also produced the texts that have come down to us.

What a shame that Bruce Metzger is dead. Were he still living you could have told him his objection was meaningless

Surely you are not saying that you presented a borrowed argument without appropriate citation.




My suggested dates - which some few credentialled academics also consider reasonable - have at least as much backing as alternate suggestions. An impartial assessor would admit the fact.

Codex Bezae contains much material that is not found anywhere else. A singular product is hardly evidence of widespread attempts at emendation.

The fact remains that the argument is invalid when it is applied to Koine Greek; except in possible extremely rare short segments. The person who initially made the argument called his own reliability into question.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My suggested dates - which some few credentialled academics also consider reasonable

Is that a reference to the early dating of the gospels? If so you are supported by a comparatively small group some of whom also have the baggage of fervent belief which on occasion can fog critical thought processes.

Codex Bezae contains much material that is not found anywhere else. A singular product is hardly evidence of widespread attempts at emendation.

That it "contains much material that is not found anywhere else" leads to the question "Why"?

Surely you are not saying that you presented a borrowed argument without appropriate citation.

It was a good example. I also like Bart Ehrman's offering:

IHAVESEENABUNDANCEONTHETABLE

[tabibito]

Is that a reference to the early dating of the gospels? If so you are supported by a comparatively small group some of whom also have the baggage of fervent belief which on occasion can fog critical thought processes.

Acknowledging that there is actual evidence supporting Acts being composed before Paul's death requires befogged thinking. So be it.

That it "contains much material that is not found anywhere else" leads to the question "Why"?

The unanswerable question does not indicate that the Codex Bezae is somehow evidence of wide-spread tampering with the gospels. If you want speculation about the reason, it would seem likely that accurate source texts did not meet with the author's theological preferences.

It was a good example. I also like Bart Ehrman's offering:
IHAVESEENABUNDANCEONTHETABLE

It seems that you consider what you like to be valid evidence for the veracity of an argument. That kind of falderol gives cause to wonder if some scholars might have a competition to see which specious argument will gull the greatest numbers.

[tabibito]

Acknowledging that there is actual evidence supporting Acts being composed before Paul's death requires befogged thinking. So be it.



The unanswerable question does not indicate that the Codex Bezae is somehow evidence of wide-spread tampering with the gospels. If you want speculation about the reason, it would seem likely that accurate source texts did not meet with the author's theological preferences.



It seems that you consider what you like to be valid evidence for the veracity of an argument.

The "godisnowhere" argument is the kind of falderol gives cause to wonder if some scholars might have a competition to see which specious argument will gull the greatest numbers.

Correcting the poor wording of post #247

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Acknowledging that there is actual evidence supporting Acts being composed before Paul's death requires befogged thinking. So be it.

What evidence? What do you know that numerous academics have overlooked?

The unanswerable question does not indicate that the Codex Bezae is somehow evidence of wide-spread tampering with the gospels. If you want speculation about the reason, it would seem likely that accurate source texts did not meet with the author's theological preferences.

If I have understood that correctly you are effectively repeating what I wrote.

It seems that you consider what you like to be valid evidence for the veracity of an argument. That kind of falderol gives cause to wonder if some scholars might have a competition to see which specious argument will gull the greatest numbers.

Both examples are provided to illustrate the difficulty of correctly reading scriptio continua.

[tabibito]

If I have understood that correctly you are effectively repeating what I wrote.

The text is obviously at variance with the corpus. As such it is readily identified as spurious.
The variations seemingly attempt to bring the scriptures into accord with church doctrines.

Both examples are provided to illustrate the difficulty of correctly reading scriptio continua.

They illustrate the difficulty of reading very short, isolated scriptio continua phrases without a context and in some languages.
The difficulty does not occur with full sentences in languages (such as Koine Greek) where words have distinctive endings and where context is available.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

They illustrate the difficulty of reading very short, isolated scriptio continua phrases without a context and in some languages.

Longer examples in Greek are available. You can read the original Sinaiticus online.

And not all Christian scribes were careful, some had poor handwriting, and some may not have been overly literate. It is even possible some were illiterate and merely copied the shapes line by line.

[tabibito]

Longer examples in Greek are available. You can read the original Sinaiticus online.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide an example of these "longer examples" of yours.

And not all Christian scribes were careful, some had poor handwriting, and some may not have been overly literate. It is even possible some were illiterate and merely copied the shapes line by line.

The errors can be readily identified as errors. Two different scribes independently producing the same error is a rare event. Erroneous texts had little chance of being copied. Texts with significant errors were consigned to the recycling or waste bins.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide an example of these "longer examples" of yours.

Read Sinaiticus online. It is available here: https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

The errors can be readily identified as errors.

That depends on whether the error was noticed.

If scribes made copyist errors how would these be identified? We cannot assume that there was always an overseer proof reading every scribes' work in these early centuries.

If the copyist did notice his mistake he may have scraped or washed it out and replaced it with the correct word or syllable. He could also put in marks to show that words should be transposed, or he could have crossed out the word and written the correct word[s] in the presumed order in the margin. However, what if the scribe did not notice his error? That error would then become the "correct" text for future scribes to copy. For dictated texts there was also the issue of mis-hearing words.

[rogue06]

The fact that in the Synoptics Jesus mentions the fall of the Temple, and in such detail, particularly so in Luke:

When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near

leaves little doubt that the texts were composed post eventum. We know that the forces under Titus employed their highly effective siege tactic of circumvallation and so the city was surrounded by armies.

The reference to the desolating sacrilege in all three Synoptics has been interpreted to refer to Gaius' plans to put his statue in the Temple. However, it is more likely, given that it occurs in all three texts with images of war, suffering and in Luke the destruction of the city that it refers to this from book six of The Jewish War, G A Williamson translation.

As the partisans had fled into the City, and flames were consuming the Sanctuary itself and all its surroundings, the Romans brought their standards into the Temple area, and erecting them opposite the East Gate sacrificed to them there, and with thunderous acclamations hailed Titus as Imperator.

Given all of this had happened before, how else do you expect it to be described? In fact, if someone had posted that sort of description here, you'd immediately dismiss it as a simplistic over-generalized statement.

[tabibito]

Read Sinaiticus online. It is available here: https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Still not holding my breath. Could it be that you have declared hear-say to be factual? It is quite a well-known phenomenon in academic theology. "Jesus proved that he was God by performing miracles" is one with a long history; dating back to the early church fathers.

That depends on whether the error was noticed.

If scribes made copyist errors how would these be identified? We cannot assume that there was always an overseer proof reading every scribes' work in these early centuries.

If the copyist did notice his mistake he may have scraped or washed it out and replaced it with the correct word or syllable. He could also put in marks to show that words should be transposed, or he could have crossed out the word and written the correct word[s] in the presumed order in the margin. However, what if the scribe did not notice his error? That error would then become the "correct" text for future scribes to copy. For dictated texts there was also the issue of mis-hearing words.

A more idly speculative scenario would be hard to find. The lack of significant variations in copies over centuries is evidence that transmission was reasonably well controlled. Alternate spellings and even spelling errors, altered phrase order, synonyms that don't change the meaning of the texts passed down through a few chains of copyists. There is no evidence to suggest that Codex Bezae ever may have been reproduced.