Originally posted by NemesioIf I understand you correctly, there are NO surviving copies of any of the full Gospels in their original language? How could this be, since according to Darfius, they were "widely circulating" as early as 60 AD?
It would have been aramaic, but we don't have 'an original.' The
sources used for modern Bible translations are the various unicals,
all of which are very late (like 3rd and 4th century). They are fairly
uniform. However, we have lots of fragments which are much older
which are less edited and have some differences.
I don't know the earliest so ...[text shortened]... ut whether there were one or two. My faith does not hinge on a
numerological error.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderDarfius is totally wrong, that is how it could be.
If I understand you correctly, there are NO surviving copies of any of the full Gospels in their original language? How could this be, since according to Darfius, they were "widely circulating" as early as 60 AD?
This website has a complete list of all pre-5th-century
NT sources.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/
It is comprehensive; it has dates, script types, dimensions,
everything a scholar could want (even a few scans of these
second- and third-century postage-stamp-sized sources). It's
cool stuff if you like source studies and stemmatics (which I
do, nerd that I am).
The only thing that it lacks is an appendix which lists the verses
of Scripture by source. That is, if you wanted to know how many
ancient sources had St Mark 12:3, you couldn't easily find out.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nyxie
This is not some belief that I have. Mathew saw two, mark and luke saw one. Mathew makes note of two distinct animals, while the other two do not.
Your point of the original is good, what if it is the same in the original langauge?
And if it is'nt why is it different now? Why were the other books not tranlated/changed in a way that made them more agreea ...[text shortened]... nguage the book of mathew was written in originally...that's a whole other debate.
Nyxie
Nyxie: "Why were the other books not tranlated/changed in a way that made them more agreeable with one another?"
Oops, that would be food for the hungry ones that are determined to prove that the Scriptures were indeed changed. This kind of reasoning, described by the hungry ones themselves as "rational", boils down to the acceptance of a massive deceit, a conspiracy where many many people must have been involved in during many many years, ages, in order to oppress the peoples of the earth and stop them from rising up against their oppressors or even prevent them from questioning anything at all.
People have to become sheep that swallow everything that is offered to them ......... they say .......
These hungry ones claim that this is the message the Gospel is communicating ....... They are so sadly and immensely mistaken.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, I'm not trying to poke holes through the gospels. Nor am I trying to test anyone's faith on this subject. There are some inconsistincies, however slight that do exist. I think by studying these and comparing them with the other gospels, we may find a better understanding of what the original disciples intended.
Nyxie: "Why were the other books not tranlated/changed in a way that made them more agreeable with one another?"
Oops, that would be food for the hungry ones that are determined to prove that the Scriptures were indeed changed. This kind of reasoning, described by the hungry ones themselves as "rational", boils down to the acceptance of a massive d ...[text shortened]... the message the Gospel is communicating ....... They are so sadly and immensely mistaken.
The ass and the colt. Jesus rode an ass into town. This was what all the disciples agreed upon. This ass had a colt with her. Some of the disciples did'nt mention that, as Jesus did'nt ride the colt, and it would be comman for an animal to have it's young with her.
This tells us something about Mathew, and his attention to detail. This teaches something about the diciple himself.
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieBingo! This tells about the Gospel writer and the community for
This tells us something about Mathew, and his attention to detail. This teaches something about the diciple himself.
which he wrote. All four Gospel writers were writing for different
groups of people, so the things they valued changed.
And I don't know how someone can seriously read St Mark and
St Matthew side by side in a synopsis and not believe that St
Matthew didn't edit what he saw.
Nyxie, do you have a good synopsis? I can recommend one if
you don't have one.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI'll take your recomendation.
Bingo! This tells about the Gospel writer and the community for
which he wrote. All four Gospel writers were writing for different
groups of people, so the things they valued changed.
And I don't know how someone can seriously read St Mark and
St Matthew side by side in a synopsis and not believe that St
Matthew didn't edit what he saw.
Nyxie, do you have a good synopsis? I can recommend one if
you don't have one.
Nemesio
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieThe one I use cost like 16 bucks about 10 years ago.
I'll take your recomendation.
Nyxie
It is called 'Synopsis of the Four Gospels' edited by
Kurt Aland, published by the United Bible Societies (1982).
Any deviations from ancient sources are noted carefully
in footnotes and the appedices are comprehensive.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioDo you know of an online symopsis?
The one I use cost like 16 bucks about 10 years ago.
It is called 'Synopsis of the Four Gospels' edited by
Kurt Aland, published by the United Bible Societies (1982).
Any deviations from ancient sources are noted carefully
in footnotes and the appedices are comprehensive.
Nemesio
Nyxie