Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Gospels we have today contain passages that were added in later. 2 notable examples are the last half-chapter of Mark and the story of the adulterous woman in John. Even Christians have to admit that these were later additions. But, what is the explanation? I can think of 2.
(1) These stories were made-up
(2) These stories were real. This means that Christians went hundreds of years reading the wrong scriptures.
Neither of those is consistent with the idea that God was overseeing the process of giving us a reliable book.
The Gospels we have today contain passages that were added in later. 2 notable examples are the last half-chapter of Mark and the story of the adulterous woman in John. Even Christians have to admit that these were later additions. But, what is the explanation? I can think of 2.
(1) These stories were made-up
(2) These stories were real. This means that Christians went hundreds of years reading the wrong scriptures.
Neither of those is consistent with the idea that God was overseeing the process of giving us a reliable book.
Those?
The ending of Mark
The original Gospel of Mark has the women visit the tomb, be told Jesus rose from the dead and sent to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee. The absence of any reference to anyone seeing the risen Jesus would sound very suspicious to those not already predisposed to believe. Matthew’s Gospel even refers to tales being told about the body being stolen.
To avoid that embarrassment, a new ending was added on referring to post-resurrection events described in other subsequent Gospels.
Mark 16:9-20 with sources of references
9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it. Refers to John
12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either. Refers to Luke
14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
Refers to John
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Refers to Matthew
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. [/i] Refers to John
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” Refers to Luke 10:19 with elaboration
19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. Refers to Acts
John and the adulterous woman
Here is a very interesting commentary on the adulterous woman story in John. The passage has more the flavor of the Synoptic Gospels in ‘Jesus being challenged by the authorities’ than John’s typical writing. The linked commentary explains it very neatly and even gives a scriptural meaning to writing in the dust. The passage is not originally part of John but rather cleverly done nonetheless.
The Gospels we have today contain passages that were added in later. 2 notable examples are the last half-chapter of Mark and the story of the adulterous woman in John. Even Christians have to admit that these were later additions. But, what is the explanation? I can think of 2.
(1) These stories were made-up
(2) These stories were real. This means that Christians went hundreds of years reading the wrong scriptures.
Neither of those is consistent with the idea that God was overseeing the process of giving us a reliable book.
Those?
Who said God was overseeing the process of giving us a reliable book? I've never heard that before. The process was carried out by humans, including the scribes that copied texts and entered their own changes and errors. There's no reason to think a Divine hand was involved.
Who said God was overseeing the process of giving us a reliable book? I've never heard that before. The process was carried out by humans, including the scribes that copied texts and entered their own changes and errors. There's no reason to think a Divine hand was involved.
How about the supposed "Divine" guidance in writing these tales?
Who said God was overseeing the process of giving us a reliable book? I've never heard that before. The process was carried out by humans, including the scribes that copied texts and entered their own changes and errors. There's no reason to think a Divine hand was involved.
Most Christian churches hold that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God. (Not me, of course)
Here is the Catholic teaching. Inerrant and inspired, but note the difference between literal and literalistic. Jesus literally fed 5000 with a few loaves and fishes. But the Sun does not literally revolve around the Earth. That is the Catholic take on it.
As a Christian I am walking into the lions' den! But the fact is that the peripheral stories like the ending of Mark, or the woman caught in adultery in John, are the rather insignificant problems. The bigger ones lie less in the gospels and more in the letters. There are quite a few that appear to have additions to make them more palatable to early Christians.
For instance, Paul very clearly states that women can prophesy in church if their heads are covered (a social norm of that time) [I Cor. 11:35], but three chapters later [I Cor. 14:34] there are verses indicating a woman should keep silent in the church--the one fundamentalists use to tout their righteous stance of keeping women out of the pulpit.
Either Paul was a really mixed up dude (which I'm sometimes given to believe), or a scribe added the verse about women keeping silent. And there are some literary critics that say the flow of thought is interrupted by that verse.
Scripture was written by men of faith about how they believed God works with the community of faith. But as men, they were as prone to exaggeration, exclusivity, and creativity as any men of faith are today. I am a person of faith, but I'm not a complete idiot either. I try to look behind the written word to see the agenda that may have reflected the original writer's bias--and to discover where later biased men made "improvements" to the original writer.
What's even more interesting to speculate--and here we have no way to assess the prevalence of this tidbit---is how many copyists/editors/redactors REMOVED scripture from what we have now!!
Last edited by Wardendresden; 10-15-2014 at 07:04 PM..
Reason: added scripture references
The original Gospel of Mark has the women visit the tomb, be told Jesus rose from the dead and sent to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee. The absence of any reference to anyone seeing the risen Jesus would sound very suspicious to those not already predisposed to believe. Matthew’s Gospel even refers to tales being told about the body being stolen.
What is equally interesting is that throughout all of Mark Jesus keeps telling those He heals or interacts with to "tell no man," but, of course, they do. In the end of Mark, He tells the women to go tell the disciples. And in the correct ending of Mark---they don't!! I think all of that smacks more of the way things may have gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alt Thinker
John and the adulterous woman
Here is a very interesting commentary on the adulterous woman story in John. The passage has more the flavor of the Synoptic Gospels in ‘Jesus being challenged by the authorities’ than John’s typical writing. The linked commentary explains it very neatly and even gives a scriptural meaning to writing in the dust. The passage is not originally part of John but rather cleverly done nonetheless.
Thanks for the link to a great commentary on this apocryphal story. It really does reflect more on Jesus as found in the synoptic gospels. And the author of the commentary makes some valid points.
What has always gotten to me, is how often fundamentalists use the final sentence of this story--"Go and sin no more"---while avoiding the real message it has that Jesus KNEW the woman was guilty, KNEW she deserved punishment--but stood up for her against the religious leaders of His time. I've used this story to point out that no Christian anywhere should ever be speaking negatively against homosexuals most of whom have been threatened, ostracized, and left outside social circles. Instead Christians should be standing up for them against a society that frequently doesn't welcome them.
Unfortunately, the society that doesn't welcome them is more interested in "Go and sin no more," than in asking "Woman who condemns you?" Basically Jesus was saying--"Neither do I."
For instance, Paul very clearly states that women can prophesy in church if their heads are covered (a social norm of that time) [I Cor. 11:35], but three chapters later [I Cor. 14:34] there are verses indicating a woman should keep silent in the church--the one fundamentalists use to tout their righteous stance of keeping women out of the pulpit.
Either Paul was a really mixed up dude (which I'm sometimes given to believe), or a scribe added the verse about women keeping silent. And there are some literary critics that say the flow of thought is interrupted by that verse.
In context:
Quote:
1 Corinthians 14 NIV
26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[g]
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
[g] In a few manuscripts these verses come after verse 40.
If we look at the contentious verses (in italics above) in context we see that they do not really fit in several ways.
First, they interrupt the flow of thought. Try reading the passage omitting vv 34-35.
Quote:
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
Works fine, right? Now read v 35 and v 36.
Quote:
35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you?
Does not really work, does it? It sounds like Paul is criticizing his audience for letting women speak. Where did that come from? He is criticizing the disorder of everyone trying to speak at once.
The second issue is that Paul explicitly refers to women speaking in church immediately before and immediately after the contentious verses.
Quote:
26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.
…
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.
How can a woman offer “a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation” or “be eager to prophesy” while keeping silent?
The answer would seem to lie in the footnote to the contentious verses shown above: In a few manuscripts these verses come after verse 40. Speculation is that these verses were a comment someone put in the column, disagreeing with Paul. Subsequent copyists thought it was part of the original and inserted it in their copies. Some put it where the comment started inserting it after v 34 and a few put it where the comment ended, after v 40.
In other words, Paul never said any such thing. Someone stuck it in later.
Last edited by Alt Thinker; 10-15-2014 at 08:32 PM..
Who said God was overseeing the process of giving us a reliable book? I've never heard that before. The process was carried out by humans, including the scribes that copied texts and entered their own changes and errors. There's no reason to think a Divine hand was involved.
No there is no reason to see a divine hand in writing or in preserving the word of God. BUT, where fundamentalists get it wrong is in not seeing that the bible in no way MUST be inerrant and infallible. The entire Old Testament is full of stories about fallible, sinful men whom Christians today hold as men of great faith.
Moses was a murderer. Abraham lied about his wife Sarah being his sister. Jacob tricked his father into giving him Eli's blessing. Sampson fell to the guiles of a woman. David was both a murderer and an adulterer. His son Solomon may have been wise on some matters, but he taxed his people so heavily that upon his death his kingdom broke into two nations, Israel and Judah.
All of these men had committed the kind of acts to make us despise them. Yet God was able to use them to further the faith of millions down through the ages. They weren't perfect, but God could use them.
If we look at the contentious verses (in italics above) in context we see that they do not really fit in several ways.
First, they interrupt the flow of thought. Try reading the passage omitting vv 34-35.
Works fine, right? Now read v 35 and v 36.
Does not really work, does it? It sounds like Paul is criticizing his audience for letting women speak. Where did that come from? He is criticizing the disorder of everyone trying to speak at once.
The second issue is that Paul explicitly refers to women speaking in church immediately before and immediately after the contentious verses.
How can a woman offer “a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation” or “be eager to prophesy” while keeping silent?
The answer would seem to lie in the footnote to the contentious verses shown above: In a few manuscripts these verses come after verse 40. Speculation is that these verses were a comment someone put in the column, disagreeing with Paul. Subsequent copyists thought it was part of the original and inserted it in their copies. Some put it where the comment started inserting it after v 34 and a few put it where the comment ended, after v 40.
In other words, Paul never said any such thing. Someone stuck it in later.
As a non-believer you have rightly divided the word of truth far better than many Christians!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the fact is that the peripheral stories like the ending of Mark, or the woman caught in adultery in John, are the rather insignificant problems. The bigger ones lie less in the gospels and more in the letters. There are quite a few that appear to have additions to make them more palatable to early Christians.
