The "Critical Text" Criticized

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
11,467
Its a horribly pieced together book that took mainly Hellenised /Egyptian /Sumerian tales , added some other fluff and called it divine ! I call it a book and that is it !
3A2E53AA-6CC1-4E65-849A-A7B28C428935.gif

“Ordo Aurum Solis ("Order of the Gold of the Sun") is a Hermetic and Theurgic order founded in England in 1897 by George Stanton and Charles Kingold. It is a vehicle of the Ogdoadic Tradition, itself an important element of the Western Mystery Tradition.”


You don’t approve of the Bible? I’m shocked!
 






Cintra

Star
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
3,203
Its a horribly pieced together book that took mainly Hellenised /Egyptian /Sumerian tales , added some other fluff and called it divine ! I call it a book and that is it !
Do you have a holy book of any kind?

This thread is very interesting, btw. Thanks to all that posted. I learned some interesting things from it.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
11,467
From the “Pure Bible Forum” Facebook page:-


.
Received Text and Majority Text
.
Facebook - King James Bible Debate
Mike Combs - Sept 17,2015
...What is the difference between the Received Text (all editions), and that which is known as the "Majority Text"? Thanks.
.
My response on an important question:
.
===============================
.
RECEIVED TEXT AND THE MAJORITY TEXT
.
The simplest difference is that the Received Text, the TR, the Textus Receptus (from which we get the dozens of major Reformation Bible editions from languages throughout the world, including the Geneva and the AV in the English) was providentially developed from a full-orbed textual analysis process. The result of a century of study from learned men of faith and vision, Erasmus to Stephanus and Beza, that included the following considerations:
.
a) fountainhead Greek mss
b) historic Latin lines
c) ECW - early church writer usages
d) "internal" evidences (author's style, consistency, grammar etc.)
e) faith-consistent textual principles applied
f) auxiliary versional confirmation, from the Syriac
.
Today that would be called an "eclectic" methodology, in the good and proper sense of the word.
.
The Greek Byzantine and Majority texts, in the various iterations mentioned above, are, for the most part, simply one-dimensional shells, only interested in (a). Only even looking at other evidences in tie-break mode.
.
They are not really textual theories so much as collation text tools. Thus, they barely exist in English editions that are actually used as reading Bibles.
.
(Some proponents of a "Majority" approach have expressed an occasional faith-based view of the purity and autographic identity of their resulting texts. However, that is quickly deemphasized when trying to kowtow to, and gain acceptance from, the textual establishment, which pretends to be a science.)
.
.===================
.
[TC-Alternate-list] juxtaposition of the Byzantine (Majority) Greek and the Received Text models
Steven Avery - June 12, 2011
.
"The irony here is that this one-dimensional aspect of the Byzantine Priority position is precisely what is addressed in the scholarship of the Reformation Bible, the superb handiwork of Desiderius Erasmus & Robert Étienne (Stephanus) & Theodore Beza. Many minority Byzantine witnesses were adopted into the text, based on other powerful evidences (including internal evidences...). The simple textbook case would be the inclusion of Acts 8:37, where Irenaeus and Cyprian and internal considerations powerfully support the Latin and minority Greek evidences."
.
=====================
.
Earlier, at times, the Received Text was considered the Majority Text, since for the most part the Greek majority variants are followed. You can see this in the Interpreter's Bible of 1951 which says:
.
"this majority text (from which the King James Version was translated)".
.
Today, however, the mix of the two terms, as done e.g. by the Dean Burgon Society, is better avoided.
.
You can even see the mix from scholars like Gordon Fee in 1978 (the beginning of the term "Majority Text" having major use was the 1970s) in his rather dumb comment:
.
Modern Textual Criticism and the Revival of the Textus Receptus (1978)
Gordon Fee
.
"the methodological proposal ... that all textual choices be made on the basis of internal probabilities alone.... The other alternative is that all textual choices should be made on the basis of external evidence alone—and in this case on the basis of the Byzantine MSS (or majority text). What this amounts to is the elimination of "textual choices" altogether and the wholesale adoption of the Textus Receptus (TR)...."
.
Not only was the Majority Text and the TR used synonymously by Fee (this occurs less frequently today), also it was not understood by Fee that the Received Text itself does represent the application of an excellent textual theory and approach.
.
The difference is simply that the endeavor had been (according to full proponents) providentially guided and successfully (understood by all) ...completed! Es suficiente, es majestuosa.
.
Note that Fee rather ignorantly, or in some type of writer's confusion, was claiming that the TR is simply based on the "Byzantine MSS".
.
=====================
.
The superiority of the Received Text was so clear that even the Greek Orthodox traditions had accepted some of the most important Reformation Bible corrections into their published texts and commentaries. In a sense the earlier Greek text had become earlier Ecclesiastical Text without a current ecclesia.
.
The revival of interest in the Greek "Majority" text in textual studies came forth out of a type of "third way" interest. There were many textual scholars who knew of the abject corruption of the Vaticanus-primacy hortian Critical Text that had been embraced.
.
Yet, the griesbachian-hortian animus against the pure Reformation Bible had so much infected the textual studies realm that a new way was sought to counter the hortian textual cancer. (Which included the hortian emphasis on only the Greek mss, while choosing the wrong ultra-minority mss.)
.
Thus, various new Greek text approaches were developed as the "third way", especially starting in the late 1970s. This way the Received Text and the AV could still be considered the enemy, (e.g. "fideistic") while in fact generally accepting the truth that the pure Received Text represented against the hortian text problems.
.
=================
.
All you have to do is look at the details involving Acts 8:37 (and the sister verse the heavenly witnesses and 1 John 2:23b) to understand why the Received Text is the far superior text.
.
Both texts can agree, however, in the disaster in the text produced by the hortian apostasy, Critical Text behind the modern versions. So at times they can speak in one voice.
.
And when "Majority Text" proponents do excellent work (e.g. Maurice Robinson on the Mark ending and the Pericope Adultera and the Greek transmissional stream) this can be acknowledged, appreciated and utilized by TR-AV proponents.
.
==================
.
Steven Avery
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
11,467
The curious anomaly of the Orthodox Octoechos


One of the clearest evidences to me that Codex Sinaiticus is a work produced at Mt Athos by Simonides and his Greek Orthodox kin is the very blatant nod to the Orthodox Octoechos in Revelation 4:8 where we find the Ἅγιος repeated an incredible and completely non-authentic 8 times. The Orthodox Octoechos was not admitted until the Quinisext Council of 692. It was not developed as a concept until Pseudo-John of Damascus in the late 7th century. Whoever our scribe is, he is a very interested party in propagandising Orthodox Byzantine tradition. This is no fourth century scribe as the eightfold tonal system would not exist for another 3 centuries. There is no way on earth that a fourth century scribe gives a nod to the 7th century Octoechos. Sorry, folks. That doesn't happen. This work is a production of Simonides. This was no mistaken scribal reduplication. This is an intentional and first hand nod to the Orthodox Octoechos. Any Eastern Orthodox church member would understand that immediately. Only a scribe steeped in Byzantine tradition does this, and no one else. It is an unmistakable earmark of Simonides. 4:8 "και αναπαυϲιν ουχ εξοϲαν ημεραϲ και νυκτοϲ λεγοντεϲ αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ ˙ αγιοϲ αγιοϲ κϲ ┬ θϲ παντοκρατωρ · ο ην και ο ων και ο ερχομενοϲ"


p.s. you may find the above interesting @SquaredCircle
 






Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
11,467
The often-repeated statement that some early manuscripts and other witnesses do not include Mark 16:9-20 is a reference to seven pieces of evidence: Codex Vaticanus (produced c. 325), Codex Sinaiticus (c. 350), the Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis (c. 430), which contains an inserted scene between Mark 16:3 and 16:4, and is missing the last part of 16:8, and has the Shorter Ending, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript (c. 400), and one Sahidic manuscript (c.425) stored at Barcelona, Spain. The testimony of Eusbius of Caesarea (c. 325) that “accurate manuscripts” at Caesarea also ended at 16:8, should be added to those five documents. (Jerome and some other writers are sometimes miscited as if they said that manuscripts which they examined ended at 16:8, but close examination of their statements shows that they were borrowing Eusebius’ statements, not unlike the manner in which modern-day commentators have borrowed statements from Bruce Metzger’s writings without any fact-checking.) A form of the Armenian version (post-430) also concluded Mark at 16:8.

Thus there is no external evidence for the omission of Mark 16:9-20 in the 100’s or 200’s. In the 300’s, the testimony against Mk. 16:9-20 consists of two closely related Greek manuscripts. In the 400’s, the testimony against Mk. 16:9-20 consists of one anomalous Old Latin manuscript, one Syriac manuscript which shares special readings with the Latin one, one Sahidic manuscript, manuscripts known to Eusebius, and a form of the Armenian version (attested in medieval copies that echo earlier ancestor-copies).

In contrast to those seven pieces of evidence against Mark 16:9-20, the following pieces of early evidence offer support, to one degree or another, for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20.
Most of the dates given are approximate.

1. Papias (110) stated that Justus Barsabbas (who is mentioned in Acts 1:23) once drank a noxious liquid and was not harmed by it. Papias may have mentioned this to illustrate the fulfullment of Mark 16:18. Papias also said that Mark, in his Gospel-account, was careful not to leave out anything that Peter had proclaimed about Jesus.

2. Epistula Apostolorum (150), an anonymous composition that presents itself as an epistle from the apostles, includes a narrative in which Jesus is pictured appearing to a woman after His resurrection; the woman reports this to the apostles but they do not believe her, so He appears to them also. This, and some verbiage used by the author, seems to be based on Mark 16:9-14.

3. Justin Martyr (160), in the course of interpreting Psalm 110 as a Messianic prophecy in chapter 45 of his composition First Apology, used a combination of Mark 16:20 and Luke 24:53, stating that Psalm 110:2 was “predictive of the mighty word which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere.” In chapter
50, Justin seems to refer to the scene in Mark 16:14, “Afterward when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them.”

4. Tatian (172) compiled a text called the Diatessaron, blending together the text of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into one continuous narrative. He included Mark 16:9-20 in the Diatessaron.

5. Irenaeus (184), in Book 3 of Against Heresies, states, “Toward the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says, ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God.'”

6. Tertullian (204) figuratively compares false teachings to venom in his composition Scorpiace. In chapter 15 Tertullian seems to use an Old Latin text of Mk. 16:18 as he describes sound doctrine as an antidote to poisonous heresies. In Apology ch. 21, Tertullian states that Jesus was taken up to heaven “having commissioned them [that
is, the apostles] to the duty of preaching throughout the world,” which seems to allude to Mk. 16:15. In another composition, De Fuga in Persecutione, Tertullian states, “We preach throughout all the world,” possibly again employing verbiage from Mark 16:15.

7. Clement of Alexandria (210) has been cited by commentators (who were relying on Metzger’s comments) as if he “shows no knowledge” of the existence of Mark 16:9-20. However, in Adumbrationes, as preserved by the later Latin writer Cassiodorus, as Clement comments on Jude v. 24 he may refer to Mk. 16:19’s reference to Jesus being seated at the right hand of God.

8. Hippolytus (220) states in Apostolic Tradition 32:1 that a faithful person should partake of the Lord’s Supper before eating anything else, “For if he partakes with faith, even if something deadly were given to him, after this it cannot hurt him.” Hippolytus uses the Greek word thanasimon which occurs in Mark 16:18 in the prediction about believers who will be kept safe from deadly poison.

9. Vincentius of Thibaris (256), bishop of a town in North Africa, attended the Seventh Council of Carthage and as he affirmed its decrees he stated, “We most assuredly possess the rule of truth which the Lord, by His divine precept, commanded to His apostles, saying, ‘Go ye, lay on hands in my name, expel demons.’ And in another place, ‘Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'” Vincentius thus refers to Mark 16:14-18 and the parallel-passage in Matthew 28:19.

10. De Rebaptismate (258), an anonymous composition responding to statements by the church-leader Cyprian, refers to the scene in Mark 16:14 by stating that some of the apostles did not believe at all “until they had been subsequently by the Lord Himself in all ways rebuked and reproached, because His death had so offended them that they thought that He had not risen again.”

11. Porphyry (270) was a pagan writer; in his composition Against the Christians, as Porphyry listed objections to various passages from the Gospels, he mentioned the passage that says that signs shall follow those who believe, that and that they shall lay hands upon sick folk, and they shall recover, and that if they drink any deadly drug, it
shall in no way hurt them. Porphyry proceeded to challenge Christian leaders to test themselves by drinking poison.

12. Acts of Pilate (300’s), an apocryphal composition which was rather popular in the 300’s and later, incorporates Mark 16:15-16 in its fourteenth chapter. (Some copies of Acts of Pilate also include verses 17-18.)

13. Marinus (325) wrote to Eusebius of Caesarea, inquiring about how to harmonize the contents of Mark 16:9 and Matthew 28:1.

14. Some copies mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea (325) in his reply to Marinus; Eusebius says that “some copies” of Mark mention that Jesus exorcised seven demons out of Mary Magdalene.

15. The copyist of Codex Vaticanus (325), who recollected Mk. 16:9-20 when producing this codex. This individual also helped produce Codex Sinaiticus, and wrote the pages of Codex Sinaiticus that contain Mark 14:54-16:8 and Luke 1:1-56. This may be Acacius, who was bishop at Caesarea in the mid-300’s.

16. Aphrahat (336), a Syrian writer, loosely quoted Mark 16:16-18 in section 17 of his composition First Demonstration.

17. The Freer Logion (100’s-mid-300’s) is an interpolation that appears between Mark 16:14 and 16:15 in Codex W, and which is mentioned by Jerome around 417. It states, “They excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who through unclean spirits does not allow the truth and power of God to be understood. So then, reveal your righteousness now,’ they said to Christ. And Christ told them, ‘The years of the reign of Satan are fulfilled, but other terrors approach. And for those who have sinned I was delivered unto death, that they might return to the truth and sin no more, so that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness in heaven. But'” — and there verse 15 resumes. Metzger proposed that the author of the
Freer Logion (100’s-mid-300’s) lived in the 100’s or 200’s.

18. The Claromontanus Catalogue (200’s-mid-300’s) is a list of books and their lengths. For the Gospel of Mark, it states a length consistent with inclusion of Mark 16:9-20.

19. Wulfilas (350) included Mark 16:9-20 in his translation of the Bible into Gothic.

20. Ephrem Syrus (370), in his Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, and in a hymn, used verbiage taken from Mark 16:15.

21. Ambrose (375), bishop of Milan, quotes Mk. 16:17-18 in The Prayer of Job and David 4:14 and in Concerning Repentance 1:8, and he quotes 16:15-18 in Of the Holy Spirit 2:13. In Of the Christian Faith 1:14, Ambrose states, “We have heard the passage read where the Lord says, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to all creation,'” thus showing that Mark 16:15 was being read in the church-services at that time.

22. Apostolic Constitutions (380), a composite text which incorporated some of the writings of Hippolytus, quotes Mark 16:17-18.

23. Didymus the Blind (380), or possibly another author from the same time and place, used Mark 16:15-16 in De Trinitate 2:12.

24. Jerome (383) included Mark 16:9-20 in the Gospel of Mark when he standardized divergent Old Latin texts of the Gospels by producing the Vulgate Gospels, as attested in copies such as Codex Amiatinus. Jerome stated that he conformed the Latin text to the contents of old Greek copies.

25. Epiphanius of Salamis (385), in his anti-heresy composition The Medicine-Chest (3:6:3), stated that Mark mentions that Jesus ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father, a clear reference to Mk. 16:19.

26. Augustine’s Latin manuscripts (400) contained Mark 16:9-20. He quotes the entire passage in his composition On the Harmony of the Gospels 3:24-25.

27. Augustine’s Greek manuscripts (400) are mentioned by Augustine in On the Harmony of the Gospels 3:25 where he cites their contents of Mark 16:12. He gives no indication that he knows of copies that end at 16:8, orvwhich contain the Shorter Ending.

28. Augustine’s North African Lectionary (400) included Mark 16:9-20 as an Eastertime reading, as shown in his
Sermons 231, 233, and 239. In his Fourth Homily on First John, Augustine stated, “You heard as the Gospel was read, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation,'” demonstrating that Mark 16:16 and the
surrounding verses were read in the church-services there.

29. The Old Latin Capitula (200’s-300’s) is a series of chapter-titles found in some Old Latin manuscripts, including the Old Latin Codex Corbeiensis. Mark is assigned 47 chapters, and chapter 47 is said to be about Christ’s resurrection, appearance to the disciples, His instructions to them, and His ascension into heaven. Four other forms of the Old Latin Capitula also refer to events in Mark 16:9-20.

30. Manuscripts seen by Jerome (380’s) contained Mark 16:9-20 and the Freer Logion; he mentions having seen such copies in his composition Against the Pelagians 2:14. Probably he saw these copies when he visited Egypt in 386.

32. The Peshitta (300’s), the standard Syriac translation of (most of) the New Testament, contains Mark 16:9-20. In the early 1900’s it was proposed that the Peshitta was made by Rabbula in the early 400’s but an earlier date is more probable.

33. Codex Washingtoniensis (400), also known as Codex W, contains Mark 16:9-20, with the Freer Logion in the text, between 16:14 and 16:15.

34. Macarius Magnes (405), from the city of Magnesium in Asia Minor (western Turkey), composed Apocriticus, a series of responses to the objections posed by Porphyry. (Macarius was unaware of the identity of the author whose objections had spurred him to write.) After encountering the challenge to drink poison, Macarius Magnes responded, not by any suggestion that the cited passage was spurious, but by interpreting it in a symbolic way.

35. The Apocryphal Acts of John (400’s or earlier) utilize the contents of Mark 16:9-20 in various ways. In the apocryphal composition called The Story of John the Son of Zebedee, extant in a Syriac copy from the 500’s, Mark
16:16 is used repeatedly. In Section 20 of the Leucian Acts of John (a difficult section to date), John is depicted saying, “If you give me poison to drink, when I call on the name of my Lord, it will not be able to harm me;” the
scene appears to have been written as an example of the fulfillment of Mark 16:18.

36. The Doctrine of Addai (410) utilizes Mark 16:15, picturing its main character telling Abgar, king of the Syrian city of Edessa, “We were commanded to preach His gospel to the whole creation.” Eusebius of Caesarea mentions (in the first book of Ecclesiastical History) a similar account about Abgar. Possibly Doctrine of Addai is a composite
work, and this part deserves to be assigned an earlier date.

37. The Curetonian Syriac manuscript (425) is a highly damaged copy of the Gospels in Syriac. It is not a copy of the Peshitta. Its only extant text of Mark is from 16:17-20.

38. John Chrysostom (407), in his Homilies on First Corinthians, may allude to the contents of Mark 16:9-20 at a few points: in 3:6 he says that it is impossible to be saved without baptism, a statement which might be based on Mark 16:16 (or perhaps John 3:5); in 14:2 he says that the apostles confirmed the truth by signs, which may allude to Mark 16:20; in 38:5 he says that the Gospel surely says that Jesus was first seen by Mary Magdalene, which seems to refer to Mark 16:9.

39. Marcus Eremita (435), at the end of the sixth chapter of his composition Against Nestorius, clearly used Mark 16:18.

40. Eznik of Golb (440), one of the individuals who helped produce and revise the Armenian version in the 400’s, wrote a composition called De Deo. In chapter 112, Eznik cited the contents of Mark 16:17-18.

41. Nestorius (early 400’s) is quoted by another writer, Cyril of Alexandria; in 2:6 of his composition Against Nestorius, Cyril presents Nestorius’ quotation from Mark 16:19-20.

42. Marius Mercator (mid-400’s), using an Old Latin text, quoted Mark 16:20 in his tenth sermon.

43. Codex Alexandrinus (mid-400’s), also known as Codex A, includes Mark 16:9-20 in the text of Mark.

44. Patrick (450), the famous missionary to Ireland, quoted Mark 16:16 in his Letter to Coroticus (part 20), and in Confession (part 40).

45. Peter Chrysologus (450), bishop of Ravenna, quoted extensively from Mark 16:14-20 in his 83rd Sermon as a text that was read in the church-service.

46. Codex Ephremi Rescriptus (mid-400’s), also known as Codex C, includes Mark 16:9-20 in the text of Mark.

47. A note in the Commentary of Victor of Antioch (mid-400’s), after presenting the comments of Eusebius of Caesarea on the passage, states that the note’s author investigated the manuscripts and found the passage in accurate copies, including a Palestinian exemplar which he seems to have highly regarded.

48. Prosper of Aquitaine (450), in Call of All Nations 2:2, explicitly quoted Mark 16:15-16.

49. Leo the Great (453), bishop of Rome, cited Mark 16:16 in Letter 70, written to Theodoret on June 11, 453.

50. Old Latin Codex Corbeiensis (early 400’s), despite some damage to verses 15-18, includes Mark 16:9-20 in the Gospel of Mark in an Old Latin version.

51. Old Latin Fragment Sangallensis (400’s), also known as Old Latin “n,” is damaged, but includes Mark 16:9-13, and a supplement (known as “o”) which probably was copied from the page that it replaced contains the rest of the passage.

52. Codex Bezae (late 400’s), the flagship manuscript of the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts, is damaged, but contains Mark 16:9-15a in Greek, with several non-Byzantine readings; the rest of the passage is supplied on a replacement-page.

53. Old Latin Codex Monacensis (500’s or 600’s), also known as Old Latin “q,” echoes a text of the Gospels that predates the production of the Vulgate (383). It includes 16:9-20 in the text of Mark, with several non-Vulgate variants.

54. Codex Rossanensis (500’s), also known as Codex Sigma, is an illustrated Greek manuscript of Matthew and Mark written in gold and silver ink on purple-dyed parchment. It originally included the passage but due to damage the text after 16:14a is lost. (Metzger wrote that its text of Mark ends at 14:14, but this mistake is due to a typographical error on page 158 of the 1883 edition of F. H. A. Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, upon which Metzger apparently relied. The error was corrected in the 1894 edition; William Sanday had pointed it out in 1885.) This codex is listed here as a representative of the Byzantine text-type which, to one degree or another, is supported by over 1,500 manuscripts and over a thousand lectionaries.

55. Gildas (early 500’s) was a saintly historian and traveler (in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales) who who used an Old. Latin text of the Gospels; near the beginning of his composition De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, he quoted Mark 16:16. Gildas used an Old Latin text.

56. Severus of Antioch (early 500’s), repeats the comments that Eusebius made to Marinus, but clearly uses Mark 16:19 in an independent statement near the end of his 77th Homily.

57. Synopsis Scriptura Sacrae (500’s) includes, in Greek, a summarization of the events in Mark 16:9-20.

58. The Life of Samson of Dol, based closely on material from the 500’s and 600’s, includes an episode (1:16) in which Samson of Dol, although aware that a certain drink at his table was poisoned, consumes it anyway, and survives completely unharmed, having remembered Mark 16:18.

59. The Garima Gospels (400’s-600’s), the earliest Ethiopic copy of the Gospels, includes Mark 16:9-20.

60. Leontius of Jerusalem (530’s), in his composition Against the Monophysite, used Mark 16:20.

Thus we have 52 pieces of ancient evidence for Mark 16:9-20, produced or composed before the fall of Rome (in 486), plus eight more witnesses of comparable age which echo ancient ancestors.

The support for Mark 16:9-20 is stronger in some cases than in others, ranging from explicit quotations to clear utilizations to possible allusions. They all belong on the scale when the evidence is being weighed. The later manuscripts that support Mark 16:9-20 — over 1,500 Greek manuscripts of Mark — and hundreds of lectionaries, and hundreds of non-Greek copies, also deserve to be placed on the scales. But these 52 witnesses from before the fall of Rome (plus eight more of comparable age) are given special attention here in the hope that they will show that the unbalanced claims about
the ancient evidence for Mark 16:9-20 in some Bible footnotes and commentaries should not be believed, and need to be corrected.

 






Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
11,467
From “Textus Receptus Academy”


Why did the 1881 Revised Version Parallel text preface lie to us about 1 John 5:7?

The preface of the Authorized Version / Revised Version Parallel of 1881 speaks about Codex Ephraemi that Tisehendorf deciphered:


ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS


I. Codex Ephraemi. By the persistent efforts of the learned Tisehendorf (who after discovered the oldest known manuscript) this result was reached. The writing had defied all the efforts of his predecessors. "There lay," he says, "in one of the libraries of Paris, one of the most important manuscripts then known of the Greek version of the Old Testament, and the whole of the New. This parchment copy, the writing of which was of the date of the fifth century, had been retouched and renewed in the seventh, and had again in the ninth century, and in the twelfth century, been submitted to a twofold process: It had been washed and pumiced to write on it the treaties of an old father of the church of the name of Ephraem. Five centuries later [in the fifteenth] a Swiss theologian of the name of Wetstein had tried to decipher a few traces of the original manuscript ; and later still, another theologian, Griesbach of Jena, came to try his skill upon it, although the librarian assured him it was impossible for mortal eye to discover a trace of a writing which had perished for six centuries. In spite of these unsuccessful attempts, the French Government had recourse to powerful reagents to bring out the effaced characters." These efforts failed. But at length, Tisehendorf, with the aid of a French chemist, had the good fortune to decipher it completely, and even to distinguish the dates of the different writers who had been engaged on the manuscript.

There are many lacunae or chasms in this valuable witness, and the disputed verse, I John v, 7, "There are three that bear record in heaven etc.," is not in the text, but is written on the margin.

...

See:https://archive.org/details/revisedversionof00stlu/page/n31/mode/2up

But clearly Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus does not even have 1 John 5 in it. It does not contain the Comma Johanneum anywhere BECAUSE THE PAGES ARE LOST, not because of "many lacunae or chasms" in the text.

Notice exactly what they said: "...There are many lacunae or chasms in this valuable witness, and the disputed verse, I John v, 7, "There are three that bear record in heaven etc.," is not in the text, but is written on the margin..."

Lie 1, they don't know if it is in the text of not because chapter 5 is clearly not part of the manuscript.

Lie 2, they claim that it was written on the margin.

The pic of '2 Joan' (French) shows that there are only 3 full chapters in 1 John in Ephraemi in the index. The manuscript pic shows that it ends at in 1 John 4:2.

So why exactly did they then say it is not in there but in the margin?

F9A7EF77-E160-46F1-91B5-F0F5E535D280.jpeg

3F473539-40FA-4300-8CAF-1EE71F09F445.jpeg

EC1EC71C-30E2-4F27-AE39-A52EF1FE7039.jpeg
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
11,467
αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφες τον παλαιον, μη μεταποιει

(Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!)

—The complaint of a scribe, written in the
margin of Codex Vaticanus at Heb. 1:3.

(King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition 1900)

  • Hebrews 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(King James Version 2016 Edition, 2016)

 






Last edited:

Lyfe

Star
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
2,372
Jesus started out his account with the signs that would accompany end of the world with,

Take heed that no man deceive you.

In fact all you hear in all the epistles is warning about deception and those who would distort the truth of Christ and the doctrine of Christ, time and time again. There is so much warning about end times deception and now many say as the serpent once did, Did God really say? The Bible is the most attacked text in the history of the world. The devil knows his time is short and that there is power in the blood and name of Jesus. People loved pleasure rather than God which is why they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
11,467
I think everyone is agreed:

1) Aleph is in surprisingly good condition for a supposed 1600 year old mss.

2) It is difficult for anyone to explain exactly why it is in excellent condition for a supposed 1600 year old mss

3) The lack of damage to this mss is unexpected for a supposed 1600 year old mss

4) Just the visual condition of the mss does not yield definitive answers to its origins or survival of a supposed 1600 year old mss

From the Codex Sinaiticus website: http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx

"...The conservation team discovered that, despite being over 1600 years old, the pages of Codex Sinaiticus held at the British Library consisted of a supple, high quality parchment in relatively good condition. This is difficult to put into context as the only other similar surviving 4th/5th Century parchment codices, Codex Alexandrinus[19] and Codex Vaticanus[20] are at this stage unable to be physically compared with Codex Sinaiticus. Certainly the Codex Alexandrinus is also affected by ink corrosion but all have had different histories and conditions affecting their parchment folios and ultimately the data collected by this condition assessment will enable comparisons to be made in future.


Apart from a small percentage of folios with heavy ink corrosion, most of the folios appeared to have survived the rigours of 16 centuries with an unexpected lack of damage, suffering in the main only from small tears and losses along the head, tail, fore-edge and spine folds. Much of this damage is more likely attributable to mechanical damage than physical deterioration. Clues to explain the relatively small amount of ink corrosion and brittleness may be found in the ink recipe. But equally, explanations for the minimal damage and good condition may lie in the secrets of the parchment makers. The current condition of the parchment may also be due to the environmental conditions the codex has experienced throughout its existence..." ...... "...Conclusions


Much of the visual parchment evidence cannot answer many of the questions asked by those seeking proof about the origins of the Codex and the story of its survival. It does however prove the animals of origin question and remains indicative of the fineness in the parchment their skins produced and the finesse of the workers that created it..."
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
11,467
Bruce Metzger originally contended that the Johannine Comma was a forgery perpetuated by Roman Catholic scholars because the verse only existed in the Vulgate at the time of Erasmus's editing of the Textus Receptus. Metzger had to admit later that he was wrong. James White perpetuated this misinformation in the first edition of his book, The KJV Only Controversy.

"Another consideration is THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GREEK MANUSCRIPT RECORD. D.A. Carson, probably following Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3rd edition corrected, 1975), claims there are only four MSS containing the Johannine Comma. In fact, the UBS 4th Greek N.T. lists 8 manuscripts that contain the comma, four in the text (61, 629, 2318, 918) and four in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636)."
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
11,467
In the King James Version Bible, 1 John 5:7 reads: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Gennadius Scholarius Scholarios- (1400-1473)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennadius_Scholarius

Επιτομή κατά Εθνικων 4. XV ( p. 263 in the printed edition) does refer to 1 John 5 :7 as follows :

"Τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τωι ουρανωι, ο Πατήρ, ο Λόγος και το Πνεύμα το άγιον"

and that he utilizes it as a genuine and authentic verse of the New Testament! Georgios Gennadios Scholarios was the first Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople immediately after its capture by the Ottoman Turks on May 29th in the year 1453! He was renowned for his profound theological learning!

The context to which Georgios Gennahios Scholarios' reference to (and citation of) "the heavenly witnesses" verse is the following :

Πατρι δε και Υιωι συναριθμουσι και το Πνευμα το άγιον τα της θείας Γραφης ρητά ως... και εν τηι Ιωάννου πρώτηι : " Τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τωι ουρανωι, ο Πατηρ, ο Λόγος και το Πνευμα το άγιον." ( Επιτομη κατά Εθνικών 4. XV, page 263 in the printed edition)

 






Last edited:

Steven Avery

Rookie
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
34
In contrast to those seven pieces of evidence against Mark 16:9-20, the following pieces of early evidence offer support, to one degree or another, for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20. Most of the dates given are approximate.
1. Papias (110) stated that Justus Barsabbas (who is mentioned in Acts 1:23) ....
A new early one was recently listed on the NT Textual Criticism forum

A Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop. (c.255)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rMlFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA433
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vii.iii.ii.html

Whence also the Lord Christ charges upon Peter,
and moreover also upon the rest of His disciples,
"Go ye and preach the Gospel to the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

============================

Another one was referenced, do not have all the details.

Palladius of Ratiara (4th century)
PALLADIUS : he says that in the gospel of Mark it is written (so and so from the long ending)

============================
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
11,467
A new early one was recently listed on the NT Textual Criticism forum

A Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop. (c.255)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rMlFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA433
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vii.iii.ii.html

Whence also the Lord Christ charges upon Peter,
and moreover also upon the rest of His disciples,
"Go ye and preach the Gospel to the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

============================

Another one was referenced, do not have all the details.

Palladius of Ratiara (4th century)
PALLADIUS : he says that in the gospel of Mark it is written (so and so from the long ending)

============================
Thanks @Steven Avery - great find!
 






Top