Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by iskander »

rakovsky wrote:I agree with you, Iskander:
iskander wrote:
Yes the gospel of Mark ends in 16 :8.

The ending of Mark is the triumphant resurrection of Jesus.
It says 16 :6
6But he said to them, ‘Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised;
The youth in the tomb is not implied as telling a lie, but as telling the truth.
It intentionally ends on a cliffhanger, I believe.

The prophets' foretelling that Jesus will resurrect and the process of the virgin birth are not narrated in Mark's gospel, just like, symmetrically, the process of Jesus' resurrection apostles' telling that Jesus did resurrect is not narrated.


This chiastic symmetrical form was a major feature in Mark's gospel, as many scholars have noted.
Mark is the Shakespeare of religious literature.
His ending is beautiful and powerful . In Genesis God personally tells mankind that they will die for failing some unimaginative test . No one witnessed these frightful words.
In mark an angel of the Lord tells mankind that death has been abolished .No one witnessed these joyful words. Simple symmetry : the power of the Word.
People expanded on this simple statement in literature. music. paintings...

Much later the church transformed this simple message into a sinister doctrine for the subjugation of people : keeper of the keys !!!.
Last edited by iskander on Thu May 04, 2017 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by iskander »

james_C wrote:why would you end a text with the words
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

if the author knew that jesus was waiting near the tomb?

the women are seeking safety in flight.
Mark 16:6-8
The ending of Mark is an elegant ending that brings back to life the conflict it had narrated.
" Mark 16:6 ..Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. "


The rebel has been executed and the followers mourn their leader. But this verse says to them and to the executioners that the conflict is still on: the good news that Jesus proclaimed is alive and hence Jesus is alive and still preaching. This verse was understood then as in the chapter of Ezekiel about the resurrection of dried bones. Mk 16:6 says the fight continues , and these words make the women anxious and say nothing as commanded.


Jesus will speak to the leaders of the reform movement later and stories developing verses 16 : 6-8 will be written and some of them will be attached to the ending of Mark .
It is the continuing struggle what frighten the women ; the execution of Jesus will not persuade his followers to abandon hope.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by rakovsky »

The nice thing with getting cyber bullied on EW is that it helps prepare you for abuse elsewhere online. It's pretty widespread. Some people can't handle it and things end up more or less tragically, sadly. I have to admit, sometimes it's been hard for me.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by iskander »

rakovsky wrote:The nice thing with getting cyber bullied on EW is that it helps prepare you for abuse elsewhere online. It's pretty widespread. Some people can't handle it and things end up more or less tragically, sadly. I have to admit, sometimes it's been hard for me.
There is nothing nice about a bully.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by rakovsky »

iskander wrote:There is nothing nice about a bully.
Why? Don't you remember the saying: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.... unless its losing your hand due to Sharia law?
(joke)

I like your contributions here.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Steven Avery »

spin wrote:Because the Peshitta is a revision ...

I've never seen any real evidence for this claim. If you have any, please share. The Peshitta is radically different from the Curetonian and Old Syriac manuscripts, so it is unlikely to be a revision (they are also very different from each other.)

The fact that the original Peshitta lacked five books would indicate an early creation date. Plus, if the Peshitta Old Testament circulating in the first centuries, it would be natural for a New Testament to be a part of the picture.

Steven
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Greek and Latin textual traditions unified?

Post by Steven Avery »

Steven Avery wrote:And, more basically, why were the Greek and Latin textual traditions so different from one another, until the unification by the Reformation-era scholarship? (The development of the Received Text in the 1500s.)
Ulan wrote:I hope you didn't just read over my "respectively". They mostly lost contact already after the 3rd century. The eastern church fathers had a classical education and were mostly interested in philosophical questions (nature of God, trinity, etc.). They refused to learn and talk in a "barbaric" language like Latin. The western church fathers were mostly educated in rhetoric and politics and were interested in legal questions (original sin, etc.). Most couldn't read or write Greek, and after the Vulgate was written, there wasn't any need for it. Today's Protestants still carry the whole Catholic baggage with themselves, no matter what text they use. Needless to say that the Byzantine text type wasn't fully developed by then, either.

I don't understand your infatuation with the Textus Receptus. It was a remarkable effort for its time, but in the end, it's just a subpar text taken from manuscripts from the 12th century and later, which were available by chance. Why would this be the gold standard of anything?
Earlier, you had claimed that the Greek and Latin had been unified by the church in the early centuries. All this above is simply a meandering way of saying "I was wrong".

The superb scholarship behind the Received Text is a fine discussion. They were very well familiar with both the Greek and Latin traditions. However, my question above was highlighting your error in saying the Greek and Latin textlines had been unified in the early centuries.

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Sat May 06, 2017 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by andrewcriddle »

Steven Avery wrote:
spin wrote:Because the Peshitta is a revision ...

I've never seen any real evidence for this claim. If you have any, please share. The Peshitta is radically different from the Curetonian and Old Syriac manuscripts, so it is unlikely to be a revision (they are also very different from each other.)

The fact that the original Peshitta lacked five books would indicate an early creation date. Plus, if the Peshitta Old Testament circulating in the first centuries, it would be natural for a New Testament to be a part of the picture.

Steven
See viewtopic.php?f=3&t=294&p=69120#p69120
George Kiraz's edition shows the clear relation between these different Syriac translations.

Andrew Criddle
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Steven Avery »

andrewcriddle wrote:See viewtopic.php?f=3&t=294&p=69120#p69120
George Kiraz's edition shows the clear relation between these different Syriac translations.
Andrew Criddle

There is nothing specific there on our earlier page.

As for relations between Syriac translations, often the same evidence has multiple explanations. The fact that the texts are so radically different mitigates against one being a direct revision of another. "Relation" is loosey-goosey, meaning little. A familiarity with a text does not mean it was an exemplar used for a revision. Here Kenyon says of the Curetonian that it is:

"containing a completely different text from any manuscript previously known."
https://books.google.com/books?id=2Q4LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA153

Making it unlikely to be a direct exemplar or target of any extant manuscript.

Plus, the Egyptian provenance of the two desert Syriac manuscripts extant should be a warning sign. Aland emphasizes that papyri from Egypt should be considered very cautiously because of the strong gnostic influence. Why not apply this warning to the Old Syriac mss? (And Vaticanus for that matter, which may be considered a papyri descendant.)

Wikipedia even quotes Hermann Brockhaus as saying that the exemplars of the Curetonian and Old Syriac are different Greek texts.

Can you point out examples that you found very compelling?

Would you agree that the five missing books is an indicator of an early production?

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Sat May 06, 2017 3:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by andrewcriddle »

Steven Avery wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:See viewtopic.php?f=3&t=294&p=69120#p69120
George Kiraz's edition shows the clear relation between these different Syriac translations.
Andrew Criddle

There is nothing specific there on our earlier page.

As for relations between Syriac translations, often the same evidence has multiple explanations. The fact that the texts are so radically different mitigates against one being a direct revision of another. "Relation" is loosey-goosey, meaning little. A familiarity with a text does not mean it was an exemplar used for a revision.

Wikipedia even quotes Hermann Brockhaus as saying that the exemplars of the Curetonian and Old Syriac are different Greek texts.

Can you point out examples that you found very compelling?

I played a (minor) role in producing George Kiraz's work. It was many years ago but the cumulative impression that the different texts were related was very strong.
Steven Avery wrote: Would you agree that the five missing books is an indicator of an early production?

Steven
The five missing books were never fully accepted among Syriac speaking Christians. Their omission does not require a date for the Peshitta before 400 CE.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply