Disputed Passages

[Stunnedbygrace]

I must apologize then. I am not a follower of scholars on the Word, only the HOly Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit Who teaches any who know Jesus, Yeshua...

No need to apologize.
I for one am very interested to learn which verses or passages are not found in the earliest manuscripts in our possession.

 

[JaumeJ]

No need to apologize.
I for one am very interested to learn which verses or passages are not found in the earliest manuscripts in our possession.

It is the understanding of all who study and learn by the Holy Spirit that nothing is going to hide truth from us if the Holy Spirit is guiding.

Scholars may convent and make "decisions" and vot on truth, but only the Holy Spirit seals the truth within us.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Why is it, that the truth is always offensive to Christians anymore? I didn't attack anybody. I love you.

I didn't say you attacked him. I just wondered why you would tell us we were wasting our time in desiring to find out what passages weren't in the earliest manuscripts. I think it's a fruitful discussion. But if I didn't, I wouldn't tell people they were wasting time. I would just not enter the discussion. I happen to think it's good to find out if anything has been added to the original manuscripts.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I am interested to hear what some of you may have to say about some of the disputed passages in the Bible. What I mean by dispute passages are those passages that have varying degrees of week manuscript evidence in their support. Please list the text and give your reasons why you think the evidence is either lacking or in its favor.

This is a subject that fascinates me. These are ones on the tip of my tongue at the moment.

Zechariah 14:5 - IMO indisputably correct in bibles translated from the Septuagint (LXX) rendering of this verse and not in those translated from the Masoretic Text (MT). Search interwebs for azal + yasul + zechariah for proof.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 - enough evidence exists that these verses are an interpolation to make a dogmatic interpretation untenable and unwise.

2 Corinthians 5:21 - IMO the correct translation of the second occurrence in this verse is sin offering, and not sin (which it is translated as in 95% bibles).

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Yes and no. There are extant mss that date back as early as the first century. The problem is that these exist only in fragmentary form. The earliest Greek mss that we have that contains most the books of the NT is the Vaticanus from the fourth century. It is however incomplete. It does not contain 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon or Revelation. We have lectionaries that predate the Vaticanus by almost 200 years.

I am following...but, are we talking about a case where the earliest manuscript we have contains only a fragment/fragments of Mark? Does that earliest manuscript appear to have a torn last page of Mark?

 

[Ralph-]

The thing I find interesting about those who embrace the long ending of Mark and that push it like a religious creed....they will claim the first two aspects, but NEVER have the faith to drink a cup of bleach to PROVE their faith.....

'Do not tempt the Lord thy God.'

 

[Ralph-]

The long ending of Mark.

That fact that it is in the bible is significant yet it lacks early manuscript authority. Has it been added? How do we incorporate it into the canon of scripture?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The argument is that the rest of scripture supports what is in that disputed part of scripture.

 

[shrume]

Here are most of the ones I'm aware of:

Matt 12:47
Matt 17:21
Matt 23:14
Matt 28:19 (possibly altered, look up Eusibius' quote of this verse)

Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44, 46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Mark 16:9-19

Luke 22:43-44
Luke 23:17

John 5:3b-4
John 7:53-8:11

Acts 8:37
Acts 24:6b-8a
Acts 28:29

Rom 16:24

1 Cor 14:34-35

1 Tim 2:11-12 (altered, or not understood, thus poorly translated)

1 John 5:7

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The argument is that the rest of scripture supports what is in that disputed part of scripture.

Yet it does not support it, that is the issue.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

It is the understanding of all who study and learn by the Holy Spirit that nothing is going to hide truth from us if the Holy Spirit is guiding.

Scholars may convent and make "decisions" and vot on truth, but only the Holy Spirit seals the truth within us.

Okay...but the man wants to discuss what he wants to discuss. Why is it a problem for you to just let him have his discussion? Is he harming you in any way? If you wanted to discuss hockey, I'd let you have your discussion in peace but I wouldn't be able to add to it because I don't know a single thing about hockey and don't care to learn about it. Can the man just have his discussion on sections that aren't in the earliest manuscripts? Please?

 

[PennEd]

The thing I find interesting about those who embrace the long ending of Mark and that push it like a religious creed....they will claim the first two aspects, but NEVER have the faith to drink a cup of bleach to PROVE their faith.....

Incredible coincidence! Almost an hour ago I was relating a story to one of my co-workers about my crazy party days. I woke up with a terrible thirst after the previous nights activities. We had a dark brown Ice-tea container that we had used for yrs, so you couldn't see through it. It was left out on the kitchen counter, and like the slob I was, I picked it up to chug right out of it.

Now my mom would periodically pour bleach, and let it sit in it to sterilize because of slobs like me! I don't know if she diluted it, or by how much, but as soon as I chugged it I thought "Oh my God! That's it! I'm dead!". I can't describe how awful it was and how it took my breath away for a minute or so.

After that minute, and I really don't know how long it was, I discovered there were no ill effects from it! I am certain now thinking about it, that was yet another in a ridiculously long number of times, that it MUST have been the Lord protecting me from many insanely stupid acts I have done. I'm pretty certain I wasn't a true, born again Christian back then, but the Lord knew that one day I'd be His child! Praise His Holy Holy Name!!

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Yes, such as lectionaries of the period where some refer to those verses and others quote them outright.

I don't know...I'd rather go with manuscripts of the actual books rather than commentaries/lectionaries written by men...but I may be missing your point.

 

[oldhermit]

I am following...but, are we talking about a case where the earliest manuscript we have contains only a fragment/fragments of Mark? Does that earliest manuscript appear to have a torn last page of Mark?

As best I can remember, the oldest complete mss of Mark are the Vaticanus - 325-350, the Sinaiticus - 340-350 A.D, and the Alexandrinus - 450. The Washington Codex also from the 4th or 5th century contains all of Mark including the longer reading but it is missing Mark 15:13-38.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

As best I can remember, the oldest complete mss of Mark are the Vaticanus - 325-350, the Sinaiticus - 340-350 A.D, and the Alexandrinus - 450. The Washington Codex also from the 4th or 5th century contains all of Mark including the longer reading but it is missing Mark 15:13-38.

Well already the Washington Codex seems not the best to me. It contains the disputed section and does not contain an undisputed section?

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Well already the Washington Codex seems not the best to me. It contains the disputed section and does not contain an undisputed section?

And of the Vat, Sin, and Alex, the two from a century earlier than the Alex do not contain the disputed portion, so the two oldest manuscripts are in agreement and it is the one of a century later that includes it. I'm not a scholar and am a a simple woman, but that gives me sufficient evidence to doubt it's authenticity...

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I believe that the Holy Spirit is all we have for truth. I read scripture, but I also know the heart of God. I don't speak in letter, but by given words by the Holy Spirit. Is this Spirit not promised to us to divide the truth rightly? Have we allowed ourselves to believe the Spirit of the Almighty God has limitations? I think not! Constant prayer, and doing the will of God is all we have to do. Studying to show ourselves approved isn't through only reading! Study the Spirit and see what is revealed to you. It will give you a second nature that is not of this world. Jesus is the word of God. Does he not speak to us, and do we not speak to Him? We are commanded to love God with all our hearts, and to love each other, but we take the Bible, and we dissect, and dissect, and dissect, and become wise in our own minds, and try to find conspiracy theories in the scriptures, and try to say this means this, and this means that, and the kingdom becomes far from view.. This is what we are wasting our time doing? This is why Christ gave His life for us? Seriously, why can't we simply just pray and fast, worship God together, and have feasts, where we invite the poor. We dissect the Bible to make it more comfortable to live by, by twisting the truth around to satisfy the hunger of a perverse culture. Sorry, but becoming a Christian doesn't make life easy, it does make it better though, and if we really wanted to change the world we could, but we are too busy trying to be the best scripture quotes. I mean seriously, there is a hurting world out there and our only concern is making sure we are snappy script quoters????? If you are going to quote scripture at me, make sure we have time to read the entire Bible, because one script without all word is nothing, and all script without one word is nothing. I love you all, and may God's peace be with you.

Well intentioned, but ignorant.

 

[oldhermit]

Well already the Washington Codex seems not the best to me. It contains the disputed section and does not contain an undisputed section?

You have to remember that all these are only copies from other earlier texts. Some may have even been copied from manuscripts that may not have been in tact.

 

[oldhermit]

And of the Vat, Sin, and Alex, the two from a century earlier than the Alex do not contain the disputed portion, so the two oldest manuscripts are in agreement and it is the one of a century later that includes it. I'm not a scholar and am a simple woman, but that gives me sufficient evidence to doubt it's authenticity...

Again, when it comes to ancient texts, older does not mean better or more reliable. This is a fact that every scholar of NT Greek understands.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

You have to remember that all these are only copies from other earlier texts. Some may have even been copied from manuscripts that may not have been in tact.

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me that if it was copied a century later (Alex mss) that is sufficient time (100 years) that it is possible that what it was copied FROM might have been damaged or fragmentary. That might account for why the other portion mentioned was missing, even though it is in mss older than IT.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Last half of Romans 8:1 is considered by most to be an interpolation taken from Romans 8:4. This one strongly impacts doctrine IMO.