The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel

TextThe translators of the King James Bible (1611) made a number of errors, as you know, and the book was re-issued 4 times over the next several years with corrections, many of which were printers' errrors.
----------------------------
Sigismundus
You bring up some very good points for consideration and while I will try to answer what I believe to be true I do not want to offend you.

The KJV bible is not my choice of study because I became acquainted with the Geneva Bible in my youth and have used it for well over seventy five years. But that is not to say that the KJV is not a work of reliable understanding.

It is my understanding that there were no revisions made to the KJV up to 1800 and then textual critics became a norm. There were textual corrections made and the Apocrypha removed but prior to 1800 there were no textual revisions made.

Out of the four families of texts that modern scholars use today three of them are actually of the same origin. Those three are the Egyptian or Alexanderian texts which include the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts, The Western Texts and the Caesaraen texts. These three families all originated under the Egyptian or better known as the Alexanderian family. All of these of the Alexanderian texts are but less than 1 percent of the total 5,000 texts which are extant today. This would place these Alexanderian texts at about 50 texts of the 5,000 texts available today. Most scholars of today group all of the 5,000 known texts into two families which are Alexanderian or Byzantine. The Second family of texts are known as the Byzantine family and they comprise about 99 percent of the 5,000 available texts today. That would amount to about 4,950 of these available texts.

You wrote - " For the so-called 'New' Testament Greek texts, they only had Codex 'Alexandrinus' (A) and 'Codex Bezae-biglot' (D), the socalled Western text. "

You error in this understanding. Firstly the 1604 translators did have access to the Catholic texts of the Alexanderain family and in fact the reformation was in part due to the corrupt rendition of the Vaticanus manuscript. Secondly you state that the Western family manuscripts are not in the same Alexanderian family manuscripts and they are indeed. The KJ scholars did compare the Alexanderian family manuscripts with those others which we number at 4,950 of the 5,000 or rightfully called the Received texts of the Byzantine family.

Theordore Beza was a protestant Reformer who succeeded Calvin from Geneva. The Latin – Greek work was taken from Lyons in 1562 and given to the crown in 1581. The KJ scholars did examine and translate the mss but found it wanting in authenticity. It is categorized in the Western family which is of the Alexanderian family of manuscripts or the 1 percent. Therefore it is not of the received texts. The KJ scholars did only accept the Majority texts because of the numerous errors in the Alexanderian Family manuscripts.

Now as for the Old Testament is concerned it was and is as much a controversy as any other literature.. The eastern churches used the Septuagint while the western world used the Massoretic text but since 1968 the new translation uses the Hebrew texts. The original language roots from Aramaic and Hebrew both. The dead sea scrolls coincide with the Massoretic text almost word for word which places the accuracy at over a thousand additional years. Naturally we do not any of the original mss.

I have noted that you criticize the 1604 scholars as using a mangled work in their choosing the literature for the OT but when you consider that this mangled work from the Massoretic text is almost word for word as the dead sea work then you should consider the accuracy of their choosing the path that they did. Actually it is a remarkable and accurate choice that they decided.

The Samaritan Pentateuch was a work comprised by Ahab and the idolaters’ of Samaria. This work is not even considered by Christianity to be of honest report. but it was reviewed by the 1604 scholars as well as the other avenues of study and found to be disingenuousness to say the least.

When I examine the work of Westcott and Hort, who are the fathers of textual criticism, then it is clear to me that none of their work which was founded upon Alexanderian Sinaiticus could even be considered reputable by any scholastic standard. Not one of their board could be identified as proficient in any of the Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew languages. Yet they produced the modern bibles of today including the Jehovah Witness (NWT bible)-- That my friend is clear as mud.

reply to post by Seede

Hi Seede

You made a number of factual errors in your reply to me so it is MY turn now to set the record straight . This might take several posts – so you will see me quoting from your ponderous answer as I respond to various pieces of it – rather than one long post.

First of all, from what you wrote back to me, it is clear that you cannot read Aramaic or paleoHebrew texts for yourself - nor have you taken the time to examine any of the thousands of Dead Sea Scroll Caves 1-11 fragments – for if you could read these texts for yourself & had examined their contents closely letter for letter (and not simply paroted a hotchpotch of pseudo scholarship from dubious websites...) you would have seen at once that what you have written is patently false and absurd & grossly un-informed about the true state of affairs with regards to the actual fluidity of the old testament texts prior to 90 CE (the Council of Javneh = where a single version was decided upon for the OT and the list of books finally discussed at length for world Jewry who had survived the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome (c. 66-72 CE)

I will start with pointing out a few of your gross errors ref: your woefully ignorant discussion of the MSS hand copied texts of the OLD testament and then we can turn to the NT perhaps in another post.
You wrote this nonsense below– which is full of palpable errors of even BASIC facts:

QUOTE

Now as for the Old Testament is concerned ...the Dead Sea Scrolls coincide with the Massoretic [sic] text almost word for word which places the accuracy at over a thousand additional years …”

UNQUOTE

I suppose it would be helpful to cite just ONE example of some of the different text families about which you seem to be blissfully unaware by the non-facts in your post.

Have you NOT EVER heard of an ancient copy of Isaiah e.g. 1QIs-b, (dating from around 100 BCE) aka the socalled 2nd Great Isaiah scroll found in Cave 1 at Qumran c. July 1936 (and revealed to the world after Nov. 1946) and bothered to take the time to compare every single consonant with the socalled Masoretic consonantal text (c. 960 CE) as reflected in the mangled Leningrad Codex?

I am not talking about the later copy (more intact as well) called the Great Isaiah Scroll 1QIs-a which follows the same textual family which later became the Masoretic text – I am talking about THE OTHER ONE which Christians and Jews are not allowed to discuss openly – since it DOES NOT MATCH the Masoretic very closely.
How could you NOT know this?

If you had taken the time to ‘do the required grunt-work’, as they say, you would see at a glance that there are approximately 19% of a consonantal textual difference between the Dead Sea Scroll 2nd Copy (1Q-Is-B) of the so-called Great Isaiah Scroll and the later Masoretic text used by Rabinnic Jews and Protestants today.

I specifically listed CAVES 1-11 at Qumran (the ones that were time-capsuled into caves in June of 68 CE during the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome) and NOT the much later texts (post Javneh, dating from c. 136 CE) which were unearthed in the so-called Cave of Letters or the area near Wadi Muraba’at or at Ayin Feshka etc.

I’m specifically talking about those EARLIER copies found in Caves 1-11 which preserve pre-Javneh, preJamnia ‘more primitive’ and ‘more fluid’ non Masoretic texts that were un-affected by the protobabylonian Masoretic camp (e.g. Gamaliel II) that foisted a single text on to world wide Judaism at Javneh in 90 CE after the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (c. 66-72 CE).

A good idea for you (so you can begin to deal with FACTS) would be to get a copy of a book hapilly in English called ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible’ (edited by Martin Abegg etal.)

www.amazon.com...

Take a very very very close look at ALL the printed ‘DSS textual variations’ in the footnotes which should shed some light on many of the hand copied textual discrepancies between the earlier paleo Hebrew consonantal Vorlagen found at Qumran’s caves 1-11 & the later Leningrad Codex (960 CE) aka the pointed Masoretic Text – which is the basic text family currently used by most modern day rabinnic Jews and Protestants today.

Remember that the Dead Sea Scroll corpus (caves 1-11) were hand copied between BCE 350 and 68 AD – the oldest witness to the OT Hebrew manuscript situation as it existed before the Failed Jewish War against Rome (c. 66-72 CE) – and a close comparison of the biblical quotations both in Hebrew & in Aramaic show that by 68 CE the Hebrew Scriptures were by no means set in stone – there being several versions of the same book (e.g. Jeremiah) lying side by side with a textual consonantal difference of up to 21% if you count letter by letter.

How on earth could you POSSIBLY claim that these texts are a literary unity when so many versions existed at Qumran?

reply to post by Sigismundus

. . . good idea for you (so you can begin to deal with FACTS) would be to get a copy of a book hapilly in English called ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible’ (edited by Martin Abegg etal.)

Prospective buyers should be aware that there are 2 versions of this book, the original edition in 1999, and the revised edition in 2002.
T he Dead Sea Scrolls Bible

TextFirst of all, from what you wrote back to me, it is clear that you cannot read Aramaic or paleoHebrew texts for yourself - nor have you taken the time to examine any of the thousands of Dead Sea Scroll Caves 1-11 fragments –

reply to post by Sigismundus


Sigismundus

You are correct and I stated that I was not a linguist from the onset of this conversation. I did not try to deceive you in any way. I understand that Hebrew, Arabic and Greek are entailed in the Dead Sea scrolls and I repeat that I made that very clear in my last rant.
You wrote - “ nor have you taken the time to examine any of the thousands of Dead Sea scroll caves 1-11 fragments – for if you could read these texts for yourself & had examined their contents closely letter for lette “-- My answer is the same as above. I am not a linguist nor can I understand Greek, Hebrew or Arabic. That is why I must trust English authors for my understanding.

The council of Jamnia, or Javneh in AD 90 is the key to your scolding me. Yes I am aware that the Septuagint was denounced at the council and I am also aware that some of the excluded material from the Septuagint was also found in the material of the Dead Sea scrolls. I do admit when I am corrected but in all honesty I was sincere in what I stated because of what I had been taught. I also am aware that the 1604 Scholars of the KJV used the Hebrew manuscripts which I am now aware that you call a mess.
I do have some literature that I used in 1999 still in my library. Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise are the most of what I have studied but that was over twelve years ago and am not updated on the scrolls for many years. That is no excuse for what I wrote but the reason I did write that the Massoretic findings agreed with the dead sea scrolls is that according to Peter Flint and Emanuel Tov, who were the chief editors of the scrolls, wrote the following –
“ There are five broad variations categories of the texts. – (1) Proto-Masoretic: This consists of a stable text and numerous and distinctive agreements with the Masoretic Text. About 60% of the Biblical scrolls fall into this category (e.g. 1QIsa-b) -- (2) Pre-Septuagint: These are the manuscripts which have distinctive affinities with the Greek Bible. These number only about 5% of the Biblical scrolls, for example, 4QDeut-q, 4QSam-a, and 4QJer-b, 4QJer-d. In addition to these manuscripts, several others share distinctive individual readings with the Septuagint, although they do not fall in this category. -- (3) The Qumran "Living Bible": These are the manuscripts which, according to Tov, were copied in accordance with the "Qumran practice" (i.e. with distinctive long orthography and morphology, frequent errors and corrections, and a free approach to the text. Such scrolls comprise about 20% of the Biblical corpus, including the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a): -- (4) Pre-Samaritan: These are DSS manuscripts which reflect the textual form found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, although the Samaritan Bible itself is later and contains information not found in these earlier scrolls, (e.g. God's holy mountain at Shechem rather than Jerusalem). The Qumran witnesses – which are characterized by orthographic corrections and harmonizations with parallel texts elsewhere in the Pentateuch – comprise about 5% of the Biblical scrolls. (e.g. 4QpaleoExod-m). – (5) Non-Aligned: This is a category which shows no consistent alignment with any of the other four text-types. These number approximately 10% of the Biblical scrolls, and include 4QDeut-b, 4QDeut-c, 4QDeut-h, 4QIsa-c, and 4QDan-a.[29][30][31]

I have books from 1999 by Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise which was printed with all of the original fragments, of that date, in all of the eleven of twelve caves. Also there are some private manuscript fragments which are not available to the critics including the work of Enoch. As I related, I am neither a linguist nor a scholar and had not anticipated that I would have a discussion on the Dead Sea Scrolls. You seem to imply that you have read and understood the entire matter and have a distaste for the Massoretic texts. So be it. I can see no future conversation is needed as your mind is unshakable as well as mine. Thank you for your time.

reply to post by Seede

Seede-

I am not scolding just trying to get you to work with FACTS.

You wrote

QUOTE

" I do have some literature that I used in 1999 still in my library. Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise are the most of what I have studied but that was over twelve years ago and am not updated on the scrolls for many years. That is no excuse for what I wrote but the reason I did write that the Massoretic findings agreed with the dead sea scrolls is that according to Peter Flint and Emanuel Tov, who were the chief editors of the scrolls, wrote ..."

UNQUOTE

Emmanuel Tov has in fact uncovered a great deal of evidence over the past 12 years (i.e. since 1999) that show beyond ANY doubt that the Masoretic Text (MT) from c. 960 CE in Leningrad was JUST ONE OF SEVERAL versions of the Hebrew scriptures that existed pre Jamnia (i.e. before c. 90 CE) ; and that the Dead Sea Scrolls found in Caves 1-11 were in fact a sort of TIME CAPSULE which locked away hard evidence of the actual literary state of the Hebrew Scriptures ( which by the way, were written in paleoHebrew, protoMishnaic Hebrew, Aramaic and several scrolls show various translations into Greek - some following the Aquila Vorlagen, some following the Theodotion Vorlagen and some following the Vorlagen of Symmachus, whereas other Greek copies follow the Alexandrian Septuaginta LXX recension) and NOT 'Arabic' as you stated.

You seem to play very fast and loose with facts and make outreageous mis-statements without apology (for example, as you should know, the Arabic language is NOT Aramaic) etc.

Here is a LINK (one of about a dozen you should be reading) by Dr Emmanuel Tov which should shed some light on your confusion about the Masoretic Mess - since you are blissfully in the dark about the pre-Jamnia state of the Hebrew "pluriform" state of their scriptures and the arbitrary readings found in the Masoretic Text which often have frivolous or mis-construed recensions of earlier consonantal traditions which are certainly more original.

www.emanueltov.info/docs/books/scribal-practices1.publ.books.pdf

The fact is that preJamnia (i.e. before the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome) the state of the Hebrew texts (and a large portion of the Torah) was still in flux i.e. 'fluid' and it was not until c. 90 CE that most of the important surviving Rebbes decided upon the proto-Masoretic consonantal text which later became the standard Hebrew textual recension for Rabinnic Jews and Protestants today -

However, Roman Catholics & Greek 'Orthodox' Christians STILL use the Septuaginta LXX Greek OT today as their OT textual source (Roman catholics using Jerome's Latin translation of the LXX) , the source material of which dates from a few hundred years earlier than the protoMasoretic fragments found at Qumran.

The fact that the King James translators chose to follow Luther's (and other Protestant Reformationists) choice of the Masoretic Text family to base their own English translation in 1611 is basically an arbitrary decision. They COULD have chosen to translate the LXX into English in 1611 instead - in which case many books e.g. Jeremiah would look very very different from what they look today in the KJV.

Were you NOT aware of this?

You have glided over so many facts with your own distortions that I fear I would have to set down at least a dozen or more answers to all of your mis-statements of hard facts...

In the meantime, it seems that you are not deliberately falsifying information - you are merely mis-informed about the basic facts of the matter - so the obvious remedy would be to read Tov's latest articles (and he could write a lot more about this if he chose to) about the fluid state of the Hebrew Scriptures preJamnia, and the problem that even Origen faced when c. 200 CE he was looking at no less than 6 different Greek recensions of the Hebrew scriptures, whose textual differences he wrote down in 6 (and sometimes 7 and sometimes 8 !) columns side by side in more than 15 Volumes - sadly burned in Caeserea by Muslim invaders - but copies of large extracts were made (e.g. of the Psalms) by professional scribes so we can catch a glimpse of what a conundrum existed in his day for those who took the trouble (as Origen certainly did) to compare the various hand-written texts that came into his possession letter for letter for letter...

Of course none of this is known to the general 'believing' public - and there are many websites who try to gloss over the thorny problem of pluriform texts - which cast serious doubts on the integrity of the Hebrew scriptural tradition as a whole - and which naturally impacts our view of the later Masoretic text which is only very recenly being re-evaluated.

You have some homework and catching-up to do, young man !

The real truth is that the Gospels were rewritten for the Gentile Christian audience versus the original audience of Jewish-Christians. My evidence is the negation and abrogation of the term - "Sabbath" in Mark' Gospel(13:18) versus Matthew's Gospel(24:20).

Through my own research the order of the Gospels: (1) John ,(2) Matthew ,(3) Mark ,(4) Luke.

This is based on my research and metaphysical experience: thebookofrevolution.blogspot.com...

This is because the scholars could have gotten something wrong. It is very clear through empirical evidence that the Jewish-Christians existed in large numbers before the Gentile Christians. In other words, before the composition 'of the Body of Christ' reversed in this limited demographics.

reply to post by cris7050

Hi Cris--

You wrote

QUOTE

"The real truth is that the Gospels were rewritten for the Gentile Christian audience versus the original audience of Jewish-Christians. My evidence is the negation and abrogation of the term - "Sabbath" in Mark' Gospel(13:18) versus Matthew's Gospel(24:20).

Through my own research the order of the Gospels: (1) John ,(2) Matthew ,(3) Mark ,(4) Luke."

UNQUOTE

Of course, naturally, the gospel 'message' was preached in Galilean Aramaic by Galileans to other Galileans and by Judaeans to other Judaeans (c. 36 - 66 CE) and it is possible that their quotations from 'the Hebrew scriptures'
were taken from or influenced by the Aramaic targums - certainly they were quoting a different text family than what is in the Masoretic Text used by Protestants and Rabinnic Jews today (the socalled MT from c. 960 CE from Leningrad/StPetersburg) - to judge from the form of the Greek OT quotations in the 1st canonical Greek gospel 'according to Matthew' whoever he was...either way the first form of the gospel message was ORAL not written. It was only after the original followers began to die off that (at least in Palestine and the Levant) the message started to be written down - and it was probably in Greek when it first was set in writing - the language of the Empire.

What killed off the disciples? Old age? Probably executions for sedition against Rome (the Roman 'Lex maiestatis' no King but Caesar' law meant sacrifice to the Emperor as a god or at least do NOT acknowledge any other king - or be put to death)

The 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (c. 66-72 CE) completed the Aramaic Oral phase once and for all - when Jerusalem and its environs were ground to powder by the Roman Army - and the 'oral Aramaic gospel message' was then spoken /translated into Greek in the socalled Diaspora (with Aramaic speakers having more or less been wiped out by the war - some 900,000 Palestinian 'jews' died during the War, mainly from starvation, disease and fire, at least according to Jospehus.

So after 72 CE the gospel material was written down for DIASPORA Jews speaking Greek - and fter the War, any messianic movement at all would have rubbed against Rabinnic Judaeism outside of Palestine (who were largely untouched by the War which they regarded as a Failure and a Folly condemned by Heaven - judging by the devastaion).

But a pro-jewish core could not be completely erased from the material in the gospels, since after all R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Greek: ho Iesous) was a Daviddic 'Pretender' Galilean from the tribe of Judah, and his 12 disciples (and other followers) were all Palestinian Jews, mainly from the Galilee.

Read e.g. the anti Gentile pro Jewish Greek of 'Matthew' chapter 15 ('the Bar Enasha was sent ONLY to the Lost Sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro'el - and anyway since when would it be right to take the bread of the children out of their mouths and throw it away on the dogs under the table?') which was addressed to a SyroPhoencian Gentile woman who had come to the good Rebbe for help with an exorcism for her daughter who had a 'bleeder daemon'...

Even Saul of Tarsus, the capital of Roman Cilicia, who spoke Greek as his first language and was gentile-friendly still said things like 'to the Jew first, of course, but also then to the Greek...' which is basically zionist racism by any standards.

In terms of the Priority of Mark (the 2nd canonical Greek Gospel), it seems clear that in terms of literary borrowings, that 'Matthew' and 'Luke' (whoever they were ) despite having oral and written sources of their own (the 3rd gospel admitted as much e.g. in its first paragraph 'since many before me have written accounts of what has transpired among us, it seemed good to me also to set in writing an account in order...' it is now agreed by those who compare these texts line by line that Mark came first, and Matt and Luke improved upon his baby-Greek in their own separate ways - this is the most logical way to understand the re-wording of Mark's awkward grammar whenever it rears its ugly head (which is a lot !).

The dating of the 4th canonical Greek gospel ('according to John the Elder' whoever he was) is a bone of contention since it seems to have been re-written in several stages incorporating into its text what is known as the Signs Gospel ('this is the FIRST sign that ho Iesous performed...' ... 'this is the SECOND sign that ho Iesous performed...' - if you count them all there are (naturally) 7 of them...although the textual intros are missing for the last several ones...

All four canonical Greek gospels contain very very early material (certain parts of the 4th gospel are older than the gospel of 'Mark, and certain parts of 'Matthew' are older than 'Mark' but in their present forms, Mark is the most primitive (less edited) although probably longer originally.

Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

His word is the book, the subject of your thread
It can only reveal what it contains

edit on 15-6-2012 by redneck13 because: ,

Does it say what parts are his word and does it say he intends to manage it as such? I mean it has been altered many many times and many parts left out. Did he say the new testimate was the his word or the old, both? DId he say it or some ancient man say that or write it? Just curious. Any recordings we can hear him say so? I mean lots of ancient men wrote stuff. Why believe the one who wrote the bible? Maybe he just made it up?

Originally posted by cris7050

Through my own research the order of the Gospels: (1) John ,(2) Matthew ,(3) Mark ,(4) Luke.

That is exactly what Ferrar Fenton did in his translation, The Holy Bible in Modern English. You may find it of interest that he appended I John to the end of John's Gospel, and it seems to fit.

Hi Sigismundus
Wishing you well and thanking you for your teaching me quite a bit . As I said in a prior conversation with you, I stand corrected on a great amount of my misconceptions in understanding the scroll history as well as biblical history. You have opened my dormant mind to many things that I have been wrong in assuming as facts. I just listened to Matti Friedman on a several hour lecture on the Aleppo Codex and he teaches much on the same method as you teach. So much in fact that I wanted to thank you for renewing this dim view that I had led myself into believing was facts. Your knowledge was greatly appreciated by me. Thanks again --

reply to post by Seede

Hi Seede -

You wrote:

QUOTE

Hi Sigismundus - Wishing you well and thanking you for your teaching me quite a bit .

As I said in a prior conversation with you, I stand corrected on a great amount of my misconceptions in understanding the scroll history as well as biblical history.

You have opened my dormant mind to many things that I have been wrong in assuming as facts.

I just listened to Matti Friedman on a several hour lecture on the Aleppo Codex and he teaches much on the same method as you teach.

So much in fact that I wanted to thank you for renewing this dim view that I had led myself into believing was facts. Your knowledge was greatly appreciated by me.

Thanks again --

UNQUOTE

I'm back from vacation today - so .... thanks for the kind words and you're quite welcome - keep that mind open and don't be shy about asking questions and about questioning 'received wisdom' - that's what ATS is all about !!

This is not "news". Going back to the end of the Fourth Century, St. Jerome commented on the fact that many manuscripts of Mark ended abruptly at 16:8.

The so-called Longer Ending, which is what the KJV has, goes back to Fourth century and maybe earlier. There is also a Shorter Ending, which is offered in some modern versions, which goes back about as far. Some manuscripts have the Longer Ending, some have the Longer Ending mixed in with the Shorter Ending (in different mixes!), a few have only the Shorter Ending, and a few very old Greek manuscripts and some very old versions in other languages (that were probably translated very early from the Greek text that then existed) end abruptly. Except for snake handling, there is nothing in the Longer Ending which adds or changes the Bible's teachings absent the ending.