by jimwalton » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:58 am
> I was more interested in getting responses from a Christian perspective.
I am a Christian. That's why I jumped into the conversation.
> The long ending of Mark
Definitely a later addition. The earliest Greek manuscripts and the Church Fathers support the conclusion that Mark ended his Gospel at 16.8. The extra verses are not in Vaticanus (about AD 350), Sinaiticus (AD 375ish), the Old Latin manuscript *k*, The Sinaitic Syriac, and on and on. Eusebius writes that Mark ended at 16.8, and Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem don't seem to have any knowledge of it. We can reliably conclude it was added much much later and is not authentic.
> the Johannine Comma
None of the ancient manuscripts have the longer reading found in the KJV, and therefore the shorter reading is the accurate one. The longer reading doesn't even show up until the 9th century. The conclusion is obvious.
> You would agree that the long/short ending of Mark + JComma etc. are later additions or alterations?
Correct.
> So you would have no problem if a new version of the Bible came out that excluded these verses altogether or restored them to their original state?
Correct.
> If you have no issue with this, my next question is "why hasn't it been done?".
It has been done. My NIV Bible says, at Mark 16.9: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16.9-20." But then they put it there so people can see it.
At John 8.1-11, my NIV Bible says, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7.53 - 8.11."
At 1 John 5.7-8, my NIV reads: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." There is a footnote about the Vulgate having a longer version, and they write in the footnote what that longer version is.
My NASB Bible has Mark 16.9-20 bracketed and footnoted with a notation that the oldest manuscripts omit vv. 9-20. So also at John 8. At 1 Jn. 5.7-8 it reads: "For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
One more: the brand new CSV (Christian Standard Version), just came out. Same thing. Mark 16.9-20 with a line and a notation that early mss don't include it. John 8, same notation. 1 John 5.7-8, the shorter version.
In my King James Bible, there is a footnote at Mark 16.9 saying that vv. 9-20 "are not found in the most ancient manuscripts." So also at John 8. In 1 John 5.7-8, it has a footnote about the discrepancy but includes the longer version.
> Which variants do you consider to be part of the 1% then?
There are many variant readings, but only a few that are really questionable. I presume you want me to point out some of those.
- Mt. 1.18. There's an almost equal balance of manuscripts that read either "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus." Translators aren't quite sure which way to go on it. Some even just have "Christ." Ooh.
- Mt. 2.18. Again, almost an equal balance. Some read "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping"; others "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and mourning." Again, not exactly earth-shaking.
Let me look for a worse one...
Oh, here's one. Mt. 5.11. Some manuscripts say "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Others totally omit the "falsely" so that it reads, "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and say all kinds of evil against you because of me." The manuscript evidence isn't clear at all on this one. It's a toss of the coin.
So, does that give you the idea?
> I was more interested in getting responses from a Christian perspective.
I am a Christian. That's why I jumped into the conversation.
> The long ending of Mark
Definitely a later addition. The earliest Greek manuscripts and the Church Fathers support the conclusion that Mark ended his Gospel at 16.8. The extra verses are not in Vaticanus (about AD 350), Sinaiticus (AD 375ish), the Old Latin manuscript *k*, The Sinaitic Syriac, and on and on. Eusebius writes that Mark ended at 16.8, and Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem don't seem to have any knowledge of it. We can reliably conclude it was added much much later and is not authentic.
> the Johannine Comma
None of the ancient manuscripts have the longer reading found in the KJV, and therefore the shorter reading is the accurate one. The longer reading doesn't even show up until the 9th century. The conclusion is obvious.
> You would agree that the long/short ending of Mark + JComma etc. are later additions or alterations?
Correct.
> So you would have no problem if a new version of the Bible came out that excluded these verses altogether or restored them to their original state?
Correct.
> If you have no issue with this, my next question is "why hasn't it been done?".
It has been done. My NIV Bible says, at Mark 16.9: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16.9-20." But then they put it there so people can see it.
At John 8.1-11, my NIV Bible says, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7.53 - 8.11."
At 1 John 5.7-8, my NIV reads: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." There is a footnote about the Vulgate having a longer version, and they write in the footnote what that longer version is.
My NASB Bible has Mark 16.9-20 bracketed and footnoted with a notation that the oldest manuscripts omit vv. 9-20. So also at John 8. At 1 Jn. 5.7-8 it reads: "For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
One more: the brand new CSV (Christian Standard Version), just came out. Same thing. Mark 16.9-20 with a line and a notation that early mss don't include it. John 8, same notation. 1 John 5.7-8, the shorter version.
In my King James Bible, there is a footnote at Mark 16.9 saying that vv. 9-20 "are not found in the most ancient manuscripts." So also at John 8. In 1 John 5.7-8, it has a footnote about the discrepancy but includes the longer version.
> Which variants do you consider to be part of the 1% then?
There are many variant readings, but only a few that are really questionable. I presume you want me to point out some of those.
- Mt. 1.18. There's an almost equal balance of manuscripts that read either "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus." Translators aren't quite sure which way to go on it. Some even just have "Christ." Ooh.
- Mt. 2.18. Again, almost an equal balance. Some read "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping"; others "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and mourning." Again, not exactly earth-shaking.
Let me look for a worse one...
Oh, here's one. Mt. 5.11. Some manuscripts say "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Others totally omit the "falsely" so that it reads, "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and say all kinds of evil against you because of me." The manuscript evidence isn't clear at all on this one. It's a toss of the coin.
So, does that give you the idea?