why is my bible missing acts 8:37?!?!

[MarcR]

No, you are specifically talking past me. Please address the specifics of my previous points It is NOT demonstrable the Alexandrian church generally taught false teaching. Are you going to called the likes of Theophilus, Athanasius, Cyril, etc false teachers? 'Generally' doesn't cut it, you have to draw a line between specific transcribors, motivated by theological bias, and changes in the text.

I am speaking of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and all the mainstream teachings of the Alexandrian church!

For about 2 years I read extensively from what is available in translation from the ECF; and discovered IMO NOTHING OF VALUE coming from the teachings of the Alexandrian Church. My knowledge of Greek allows me to parse and IMO accurately analyze scripture linguistically. I do not have the skills to read the ECF in the original Greek..

When I suggested we were talking past each other, I was not trying to find fault. I was thinking that we are approaching the subject with different viewpoints and different assumptions. I was NOT suggesting that yoyr viewpoint or your assumptions were inferior to my own!



I prefer to actually study the texts than speculate about who may or may not have written a given text. Or perhaps I should speculate that Marcion is responsible for the Byzantine text of the gospels? Why not, while we're throwing speculation around.



Again, you're talking past me. No two Byzantine manuscripts are in agreement. Go back and read my discussion of Romans 5:1. Your comparison is false, because there is a greater diversity in the Byzantine tradition in terms of readings usually than in the Alexandrian. Mark 6:33 has about four or five different variants in the Byzantine text before you even look at Alexandrian type MSS.

And, again, you're presupposing deletions. Could it also not equally be said that all the additions were centered in a rough geographical area of about 3 or 4 regional centers, which explains the diversity of readings particularly in the 8th to 12 centuries.



I noted that I was speaking of substantial agreement rather than verbatim agreement By that I was indicating agreement that the long ending of Mark and other disputed verses were genuine.




Again, no two Byzantine MSS agree. 1 John 5:7, which is in the TR and in several English translations, does not appear in the vast majority of Greek Byzantine MSS. You'll need to qualify what you mean by "MSS from these 4 churches contain the disputed verses", and which disputed verses you're actually talking about.

Also, let me list some Byzantine heretics again. Marcion, Gregory of Nyssa, Appolinarius, Arius, Sabellius, Theodotus of Byzantium. Why is it relevant that there was false teaching in Alexandria, in terms of the MSS tradition, but not in the case of the Byzantine part of the empire?



But you have no way of knowing the motivations or theological persuasions of the copyists, or that ANY of the changes were deliberate and malicious. Without out that, your above point doesn't amount to alot, and it is far better in my mind to actually look at the texts for evidence, than speculating.



What qualifies as substantial agreement, in your view? What happens when there is substantial disagreement in the Byz MSS about a verse, and the variants at stake fundamentally change the meaning of the verse? E.G, Romans 5:1?

I am not attempting to be an apologist for the Byzantine Mss; I am attempting to be an apologist for the disputed verses


In this discussion I have not been trying to compare content of individual Mss. I have been trying to compare editorial assumptions between the editors of the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text with the editorial assumptions of the Wescott and Hort and the Nestle texts.

You have been focusing on individual Mss; but translations have been made from editions of the Greek Texts, NOT from individual Manuscripts.

 

[Nick01]

I think some of your reply may have been caught up in your quote. Forgive me if I miss bits of what you wrote

I am speaking of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and all the mainstream teachings of the Alexandrian church!

For about 2 years I read extensively from what is available in translation from the ECF; and discovered IMO NOTHING OF VALUE coming from the teachings of the Alexandrian Church. My knowledge of Greek allows me to parse and IMO accurately analyze scripture linguistically. I do not have the skills to read the ECF in the original Greek..

When I suggested we were talking past each other, I was not trying to find fault. I was thinking that we are approaching the subject with different viewpoints and different assumptions. I was NOT suggesting that yoyr viewpoint or your assumptions were inferior to my own!

No, I didn't think you were trying to belittle me, and I hope you don't think I am doing the same in reverse. I was specifically wanting you to refer to what I wrote about heretical figures in the early centuries. Certainly, there are chunks of Origen's writings that are questionable (though not all, or perhaps even most, if read against the Gnostic heresies he spent most of his time arguing against), but certainly there were heretical figures among the Gnostics against whom he disagreed. And, again, there were other figures who we would consider much more orthodox than Origen, who came from Alexandria. For instance, what do you make of Athanasius?

I've always found it fascinating that Origen is himself one of the earliest text critics, who in his own commentaries often makes remarks about the number of manuscripts and what they say about certain readings. It seems a little self-defeating that he would bother if the original text of the Scriptures didn't matter to him because of his hermaneutic, or if he was simply tampering with them himself.

A side note, I did find an excellent scholar-level book about Clement's writings recently, where each of his views are examined in their context (mostly against the primary source for much of Clement's writings, Photius). I'll see if I can dig up a citation, if that tickles your fancy

I am not attempting to be an apologist for the Byzantine Mss; I am attempting to be an apologist for the disputed verses

They often overlap, unless I misunderstand which 'disputed verses' you are referring to. What would be an example of a defensible disputed verse, in your view?

In this discussion I have not been trying to compare content of individual Mss. I have been trying to compare editorial assumptions between the editors of the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text with the editorial assumptions of the Wescott and Hort and the Nestle texts.

You have been focusing on individual Mss; but translations have been made from editions of the Greek Texts, NOT from individual Manuscripts.

That is true, but obviously the translations use certain critical editions (whether that be NA, the TR, or one of the two main Majority Texts editions), and those editions all make decisions based on actual MSS, not simply on a generic theoretical basis. The translation committees select critical editions most often based on a) their critical philosophy and b) specific readings of important verses, that ordinarily arise from specific MSS.

Even the MT editions contain readings that require studying specific manuscripts or text clusters within the Byzantine tradition in order to come to textual decisions on specific variants (again, Romans 5:1). A singular theory about a textual tradition just isn't enough to discern the text when dealing with the actual MSS - the very fact that the modern critical editions (particularly NA28 onwards) do incorporate a few Byzantine readings (Philippians 1:14 is one I recall off the top of my head) against the Alexandrian uncials shows that one simply can't make sense of the preservation and written tradition of the Scriptures with a monolithic theory, or without giving reference to real MSS.

Also worth noting that some of the NA/UBS based translations occasionally deviate from the critical editions on specific variants, if the translation committee disagree with the UBS appraisal. I think the NASB is one of the more frequent cases.

As a side note, thank you for the courteous, detailed, yet forthright posts you are making so far, Marc. It is refreshing to have this kind discussion with someone without descending into unpleasantness or name calling while also both maintaining a God-honouring stance towards the Lord, the Scriptures, and each other as we look to make sense of what is before us. Thank you greatly for that, brother

 

[Dan_473]

what kind of answer are you looking for ?

if you search online you can find why the greek society and the greek ways of partying and the greek false gods and the greek way of thinking(completely) hurt the life of faith of the believers then and now and every day in between.

a possible response would be 'the kjv has amazing numerics, and God said to look for a bible with amazing numerics'...

does greek thinking hurt christians? the nt quotes the lxx more often then the hebrew...

 

[MarcR]

I think some of your reply may have been caught up in your quote. Forgive me if I miss bits of what you wrote



No, I didn't think you were trying to belittle me, and I hope you don't think I am doing the same in reverse. I was specifically wanting you to refer to what I wrote about heretical figures in the early centuries. Certainly, there are chunks of Origen's writings that are questionable (though not all, or perhaps even most, if read against the Gnostic heresies he spent most of his time arguing against), but certainly there were heretical figures among the Gnostics against whom he disagreed. And, again, there were other figures who we would consider much more orthodox than Origen, who came from Alexandria. For instance, what do you make of Athanasius?

I've always found it fascinating that Origen is himself one of the earliest text critics, who in his own commentaries often makes remarks about the number of manuscripts and what they say about certain readings. It seems a little self-defeating that he would bother if the original text of the Scriptures didn't matter to him because of his hermaneutic, or if he was simply tampering with them himself.

A side note, I did find an excellent scholar-level book about Clement's writings recently, where each of his views are examined in their context (mostly against the primary source for much of Clement's writings, Photius). I'll see if I can dig up a citation, if that tickles your fancy



They often overlap, unless I misunderstand which 'disputed verses' you are referring to. What would be an example of a defensible disputed verse, in your view?



That is true, but obviously the translations use certain critical editions (whether that be NA, the TR, or one of the two main Majority Texts editions), and those editions all make decisions based on actual MSS, not simply on a generic theoretical basis. The translation committees select critical editions most often based on a) their critical philosophy and b) specific readings of important verses, that ordinarily arise from specific MSS.

Even the MT editions contain readings that require studying specific manuscripts or text clusters within the Byzantine tradition in order to come to textual decisions on specific variants (again, Romans 5:1). A singular theory about a textual tradition just isn't enough to discern the text when dealing with the actual MSS - the very fact that the modern critical editions (particularly NA28 onwards) do incorporate a few Byzantine readings (Philippians 1:14 is one I recall off the top of my head) against the Alexandrian uncials shows that one simply can't make sense of the preservation and written tradition of the Scriptures with a monolithic theory, or without giving reference to real MSS.

Also worth noting that some of the NA/UBS based translations occasionally deviate from the critical editions on specific variants, if the translation committee disagree with the UBS appraisal. I think the NASB is one of the more frequent cases.

As a side note, thank you for the courteous, detailed, yet forthright posts you are making so far, Marc. It is refreshing to have this kind discussion with someone without descending into unpleasantness or name calling while also both maintaining a God-honouring stance towards the Lord, the Scriptures, and each other as we look to make sense of what is before us. Thank you greatly for that, brother

I try to use the forum to exchange and ctitique ideas. I don't see how name calling, snide remarks or sarcasm further that goal. I like your approach to discussion, also; and I like the logical way you frame your arguments even when I disagree with you.

It seems that we are both concerned with our impression on onlookers as much as with getting our points across.

 

[MarcR]

I think some of your reply may have been caught up in your quote. Forgive me if I miss bits of what you wrote

No, I didn't think you were trying to belittle me, and I hope you don't think I am doing the same in reverse. I was specifically wanting you to refer to what I wrote about heretical figures in the early centuries. Certainly, there are chunks of Origen's writings that are questionable (though not all, or perhaps even most, if read against the Gnostic heresies he spent most of his time arguing against), but certainly there were heretical figures among the Gnostics against whom he disagreed. And, again, there were other figures who we would consider much more orthodox than Origen, who came from Alexandria. For instance, what do you make of Athanasius?

I had read Athanasius; but I had forgotten that he was associated with Alexandria; because he was definitely a literalist. I find him to be very sound and consider his teachings very well crafted; but he is the exception that proves the rule.

I've always found it fascinating that Origen is himself one of the earliest text critics, who in his own commentaries often makes remarks about the number of manuscripts and what they say about certain readings. It seems a little self-defeating that he would bother if the original text of the Scriptures didn't matter to him because of his hermaneutic, or if he was simply tampering with them himself.

When I read Oregin, I see what I consider unmistakable tampering with God's Word. He would not be the first nor the last to speak against something while knowingly or unknowingly doing it himself.

A side note, I did find an excellent scholar-level book about Clement's writings recently, where each of his views are examined in their context (mostly against the primary source for much of Clement's writings, Photius). I'll see if I can dig up a citation, if that tickles your fancy

They often overlap, unless I misunderstand which 'disputed verses' you are referring to. What would be an example of a defensible disputed verse, in your view?

Virtually all of them; but particularly the long ending of Mark and Acts 8:37.

Why should the long ending of mark be accepted in Lk Chapter 10 and rejected in Mk chapter 16.

That is true, but obviously the translations use certain critical editions (whether that be NA, the TR, or one of the two main Majority Texts editions), and those editions all make decisions based on actual MSS, not simply on a generic theoretical basis. The translation committees select critical editions most often based on a) their critical philosophy and b) specific readings of important verses, that ordinarily arise from specific MSS.

Even the MT editions contain readings that require studying specific manuscripts or text clusters within the Byzantine tradition in order to come to textual decisions on specific variants (again, Romans 5:1). A singular theory about a textual tradition just isn't enough to discern the text when dealing with the actual MSS - the very fact that the modern critical editions (particularly NA28 onwards) do incorporate a few Byzantine readings (Philippians 1:14 is one I recall off the top of my head) against the Alexandrian uncials shows that one simply can't make sense of the preservation and written tradition of the Scriptures with a monolithic theory, or without giving reference to real MSS.

Also worth noting that some of the NA/UBS based translations occasionally deviate from the critical editions on specific variants, if the translation committee disagree with the UBS appraisal. I think the NASB is one of the more frequent cases.

As a side note, thank you for the courteous, detailed, yet forthright posts you are making so far, Marc. It is refreshing to have this kind discussion with someone without descending into unpleasantness or name calling while also both maintaining a God-honouring stance towards the Lord, the Scriptures, and each other as we look to make sense of what is before us. Thank you greatly for that, brother

 

[Elin]

When I read Oregin, I see what I consider unmistakable tampering with God's Word. He would not be the first nor the last to speak against something while knowingly or unknowingly doing it himself.

Even the Catholic Church "sits lightly" to Oregin.

 

[Nick01]

I had read Athanasius; but I had forgotten that he was associated with Alexandria; because he was definitely a literalist. I find him to be very sound and consider his teachings very well crafted; but he is the exception that proves the rule.

He was born, raised, educated, and died in Alexandria. It's interesting you speak of him as a literalist - the Arians accused him and others of exactly the opposite during the homoousian controverises. There is much that could be said about the orthodoxy of the Alexandrian fathers, but I fear it would be too long and to dense to get into here. Perhaps another time. Suffiice, I think Athanasius alone is enough to show what you propose as the Alexandrian school of theology was not homogenous, or even heteredox in its outlook. Again, others such as Theopihlus and Alexander were similar in theology to Ath, and all also rose up to be the ecclesiastical leaders of the church in Alexandrian. That doesn't happen if your theology goes against the general grain to such a large degree.

When I read Oregin, I see what I consider unmistakable tampering with God's Word. He would not be the first nor the last to speak against something while knowingly or unknowingly doing it himself.

There's a difference between disliking Origen's theology, and thinking he, or others who had similar theology. actually tampered directly with the source text from which he interepreted. Is there evidence for this? Again, it just seems silly that, if the actual text of the Scriptures mattered to little in a literal sense, why even bother changing the text? Why write a text critical commentary? What does it matter?

Virtually all of them; but particularly the long ending of Mark and Acts 8:37.

Why should the long ending of mark be accepted in Lk Chapter 10 and rejected in Mk chapter 16.

Simply, because it appears in all of the MSS of Luke, but not in Mark, and it frankly makes much more sense that a scribe would add the extended ending, than remove it.. There are actual reasons of manuscript history that militate against the Long Ending in Mark being original (as well as the fact that there are actually different versions of the extended ending as well) - the logic of it is in Luke, therefore also in Mark' is not that clear cut.

The case is even more clear cut for Acts 8:37. which is missing most of the important Uncials, in the papyrii, and large chunks of the versions. Laudianus is the most significant witness, but the others are mostly much later (and again, worth noticing that the variant itself has variations within it amongst the MSS that witness it). And, again, it's one of those things where it makes much more sense for it to be inserted than for it to be omitted if it was original and widely present.

I try to use the forum to exchange and ctitique ideas. I don't see how name calling, snide remarks or sarcasm further that goal. I like your approach to discussion, also; and I like the logical way you frame your arguments even when I disagree with you.

It seems that we are both concerned with our impression on onlookers as much as with getting our points across.

Agreed. To me, it is just as important how we discuss, and how we are perceived, and how we edify with our discussion, as what we actually discuss.

 

[Dan_473]

...because it appears in all of the MSS of Luke, but not in Mark...

because it [the long ending of mark] appears in all of the MSS of Luke, but not in Mark

really? I hadn't heard that... not that I'm doubting it... then a better name would be 'the addition to Luke'...

 

[Jeff_56]

a possible response would be 'the kjv has amazing numerics, and God said to look for a bible with amazing numerics'...

does greek thinking hurt christians? the nt quotes the lxx more often then the hebrew...

e.w.bullinger shows amazing incite from NUMBERS IN SCRIPTURE if you like 'numerics' that lead to more righteousness.

yes. certainly. (no doubt at all). and very very obviously, btw.

see Greek vs Hebrew Education | Heart of Wisdom
for
biblical examples and lessons

excerpt:
Historians concur that the Greeks were destroyed by moral decay. Pursuing knowledge without God is a recipe for disaster. We simply cannot survive without clear moral direction. Look at the differences in education goals:


chart in link: partial here : >>


Ancient Greek Education
(as taught in
Public Schools today) | Ancient Hebrew Education
Goal
Prepare individuals to serve the state. | Prepare individuals to serve God.
How
Accomplished:"
see link for simple chart about the difference between the goals of worldly carnal teaching
and
righteous biblical teaching and living.

 

[Nick01]

because it [the long ending of mark] appears in all of the MSS of Luke, but not in Mark

really? I hadn't heard that... not that I'm doubting it... then a better name would be 'the addition to Luke'...

To clarify, Luke's ending is, of course, different to the Long Ending of Mark. The Long ending of Mark doesn't appear in Luke and Matthew, but both Luke and Matthew end later than Mark in terms of the chronology of the narrative. Luke's ending and Matthew's ending are almost certainly part of what they originally wrote (they are always present in the MSS, without the kinds of textual issues at the end of Mark), unlike the case with Mark.

In other words, what I'm saying is that Mark almost certainly originally ended with the women finding the tomb empty and being afraid (or the ending was lost very early - at the autograph stage or one generation later). However, the MSS is indisputable that Matthew and Luke both end later than Mark's chronology, including Jesus' actual post-resurrection appearances and other events.

If you look at the two accounts in Matt and Luke, while they both record similar events, there's very little of the mutual sharing of actual textual material that is so evident earlier on in the accounts (the endings of Matthew and Luke don't quote each other or show signs of sharing material), which, if nothing else, would perhaps suggest they didn't know of a post v.8 ending in Mark either.

 

[MarcR]

To clarify, Luke's ending is, of course, different to the Long Ending of Mark. The Long ending of Mark doesn't appear in Luke and Matthew, but both Luke and Matthew end later than Mark in terms of the chronology of the narrative. Luke's ending and Matthew's ending are almost certainly part of what they originally wrote (they are always present in the MSS, without the kinds of textual issues at the end of Mark), unlike the case with Mark.

In other words, what I'm saying is that Mark almost certainly originally ended with the women finding the tomb empty and being afraid (or the ending was lost very early - at the autograph stage or one generation later). However, the MSS is indisputable that Matthew and Luke both end later than Mark's chronology, including Jesus' actual post-resurrection appearances and other events.

If you look at the two accounts in Matt and Luke, while they both record similar events, there's very little of the mutual sharing of actual textual material that is so evident earlier on in the accounts (the endings of Matthew and Luke don't quote each other or show signs of sharing material), which, if nothing else, would perhaps suggest they didn't know of a post v.8 ending in Mark either.

While it is true that the long ending of Mark is not found at the end of either Matthew or Luke; it is found in Luke Chapter 10.

 

[jansbiz]

I read various versions of gods word. I pray for discernent when i read. Been saved for 61 years. Reading praying blieving i have had any attacks by satan especially trying his confusion tactics. Trust in the lord with all thy heart and he will see you thru. This world is not our home.just pray befor reading ask for gods assurance read several versions if they are true to gods teachings in their own way they will say the same things.god give you discerment in his word for jesus is the word and the word was with god

 

[Nick01]

While it is true that the long ending of Mark is not found at the end of either Matthew or Luke; it is found in Luke Chapter 10.

While there are some similar elements (apostles are sent out being the main one), it seems clear that even if the two accounts are remembering similar things, they are not working from a shared source of material, and certainly Luke is not working from a written version of 16:9-20. No mention of baptism, no mention of picking up snakes or poisons (snakes are mentioned, but the fact that those specific elements are missing, actually seems to me to make it less likely he knew of a Markan testimony), no mention of the specific power to drive out demons, no mention of tongues/languages.

The very fact that the two accounts appear in very different contexts and chronologies (Long Mark's commission is tied very much to the ascension, and the apostles being sent out once and for all with the Lord departing,while Luke's is connected with the oracles against Bethsaida and Chorazin, and the apostles actually come back from being sent in chapter 10) would support that as well - it seems more likely a later scribe thought it troublesome that the lack of those elements in Mark, and the lack of a resurrection appearance in particular, warranted their inclusion.

I certainly would not say Luke 10 contains the Long Ending, as the very way it is written makes it unlikely Luke even knew of a specific account in Mark of those things, or he would certainly have included it and quoted verbatim at least portions of it, as he so readily does elsewhere.

 

[Dan_473]

e.w.bullinger shows amazing incite from NUMBERS IN SCRIPTURE if you like 'numerics' that lead to more righteousness.

yes. certainly. (no doubt at all). and very very obviously, btw.

see Greek vs Hebrew Education | Heart of Wisdom
for
biblical examples and lessons

excerpt:
Historians concur that the Greeks were destroyed by moral decay. Pursuing knowledge without God is a recipe for disaster. We simply cannot survive without clear moral direction. Look at the differences in education goals:


chart in link: partial here : >>


Ancient Greek Education
(as taught in
Public Schools today) | Ancient Hebrew Education
Goal
Prepare individuals to serve the state. | Prepare individuals to serve God.
How
Accomplished:"
see link for simple chart about the difference between the goals of worldly carnal teaching
and
righteous biblical teaching and living.

well, did God say to look for a bible with amazing numerics?

about greek education, interesting website... what do you think about the nt quoting the ot from greek more often than from hebrew?