Greetings all,
The issue of changes to the bible e.g. Isaiah touched upon the NT also - I hope its ok to give a brief list of changes to the NT to show that it clearly has been changed over the years, just like the OT. If this belongs in a new topic, that's fine :-)
Mark 16:9-20
The Resurrection Appearances
Most of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.
Intriguingly, an empty tomb scene was not unknown in other 1st century dramatic writings - e.g. Chariton's novel Chareas and Callirhoe included an empty tomb scene - as did some other documents AFAIR.
Have you read this thread at all? I've answered this up one side and down the other to jar. If you aren't reading the thread you are just causing work for me.
G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts.
I have posted on this at length. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not have any authority in Church history. Over 5000 other ancient texts include the Mark passage as I've said over and over in this thread. The variant readings that leave it out are decidedly the minority readings, and they carry NO authority in the history of the Church. Certainly some other MSS were based on this tradition but they are in this minority.
Again I have pointed out that it seems to get forgotten that ALL THESE ARE COPIES in any case, so that some being the "oldest" simply means "the oldest that happened to survive." The majority tradition includes the Mark passage. The MSS from which these were copied have apparently disintegrated but the likelihood is that they were always the majority tradition.
In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -
* the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles)
* the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles)
* another minor variant of a few verses
(Many modern Bibles now indicate this with brackets or a marginal note.)
Why don't you quote them? These are minority variants, and they don't contradict the basic meaning of the gospels, right? Why put so much weight on them?
I have pointed out that the HUGE PREPONDERANCE OF GREEK MSS -- over 5000 of them -- INCLUDE the Mark passage you are so uselessly repeating after my lengthy discussion of it here, while the variants amount to some 45 mss out of all that, besides which Church authorities have verified the validity of the passage. PLEASE READ THE THREAD BEFORE YOU COMMENT.
Origen and Clement of Alexandria and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix.
Eusebius mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix.
Jerome also notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS.
This, this evidence is fairly clear that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later.
Not that I see from what you've quoted. Simply means they had the MSS without it. Why is this such a big deal anyway? The other gospels have post-resurrection accounts in any case. It's not as if that Mark passage is the only reference to that period. What it says is completely consistent with the others, but if it's left out the Bible can do without it too without damage to its meaning.
This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story.
You making this up? Where are your links, your quotes? The stories are complementary, they add to each other. The supposed contradictions are figments of debunkers' imaginations for the most part, easily reconciled by combining all the accounts, and the few that are real are trivial.
Mark 1:1
Jesus Christ [Son of God]
Early MSS do not have "son of God".
Which MSS? Do you know what you are talking about? What do you mean by "early" -- the oldest surviving MSS? But these are the extreme minority of the texts that have been followed by the Church over the centuries.
Also, if it doesn't say it in one place it certainly says it in others. This is a trivial concern. It's in brackets. That means it was added by intentional edit later anyway, to help the reader.
John 9:35
Son of Man/God
Early MSS have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?"
Later versions have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"
You don't know what you are talking about about "early" and "later." You need to start thinking in terms of numbers of ancient MSS -- over 5000 that include the Mark passage to 45 that don't include it. It is the extreme fewest that are the oldest and had the least impact on the majority Biblical texts that came down to us.
Acts 8:37
JC is the Son of God
"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
This passage is missing from all the early MSS.
You are simply following the modern scholars who have introduced these "early MSS" into our modern Bibles against the testimony of the Church over the centuries that those readings are the inferior ones. Again you don't seem to grasp that you are talking about COPIES OF COPIES OF COPIES in any case. "Early" just means an old copy that survived. But the majority readings, which are represented by thousands of MSS not all that much later, a century or two, were copied from other traditions that may most likely go back to the originals, but obviously in greater numbers showing that the Church considered them most authentic, NOT the minority readings from which you are quoting.
Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]
The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."
But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."
Again, the "later" and "earlier" are bogus concepts. They are all copies from different copying lineages. Some left it out, the minority left it out. There is no justification for giving these authority. The others have the weight of Church authority behind them, in numbers of copies as well as written preference from what some of those links you obviously didn't read show.
Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".
Since you don't give the quote I can't judge this. Are you a Bible scholar that you can make such comments? One thing that is often not taken into account is that many of the references to the OT in the NT are to the Septuagint which is worded differently from the readings of the prophets in our Bibles made straight from the Hebrew.
Luke 3:22
The words of God at the Baptism
Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"
But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"
What's your justification for preferring the earlier copies since the Church preferred the later? There is no substantive difference. Those meanings are both consistent with the gospel testimony overall, there are no contradictions.
1 John 5:7
The Trinity
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "
This passage is not found in any Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus. But it then appeared in a Greek MSS and was then included in the KJV.
You are a Bible scholar? You have shown your abysmal ignorance of how copies were made and passed down in that discussion of the importance of the Isaiah scroll. I'd say that pretty much disqualifies you from making any comments whatever.
Matthew 6:13
The Lord's Prayer
Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"
Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"
And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"
So? You find any contradictions of the spiritual message there? The many witnesses wrote partial histories, had partial memories. It may have been taught by Jesus in both forms. In any case there is no contradiction, all the meanings enhance one another and are completely consistent with the overall testimony of the gospels and the entire Bible.
A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".
The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT.
In a completely trivial way, the concern of nitpickers.
Colossians 1:14
Redemption by blood
All early MSS have the shorter :
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins"
But later copies have added "through his blood" :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"
This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition.
There are SO many separate sources in the NT of the knowledge of the importance of Jesus' blood for our salvation that focusing on such minor differences is ridiculous. No doubt there were additions made to remind the faithful, but the additions are all in keeping with the gospel, enhance it and do not subtract from it.
This shows quite clearly that the NT was often changed during its history.
In ways that amount to nothing. There is nothing in any of it that compromises the gospel message. If a passage is missing from one place it can be found in others. Spiritually, in terms of the gospel message, the meaning, it is all a whole.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-13-2005 11:01 PM
™ Version 4.2