https://errancywiki.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Peter+Kirby&feedformat=atom
Errancy Wiki - User contributions [en]
2024-03-29T11:49:05Z
User contributions
MediaWiki 1.35.0
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends2&diff=73387
Legends2
2012-09-12T03:18:06Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Notes & References */ this Old Writings . com is a rogue site, correcting link</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication'''''<br />
<br />
'''by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
=='''Introduction: Problem and Significance'''==<br />
<table width=400 cellpadding=16 align=right border=0><br />
<tr><td><br />
<table style="background:#C0D8FF" cellpadding=16 width=100% border=0><br />
<tr><td><br />
<p><b>About Dr. Richard Carrier</b></p><br />
<p>Dr. Richard Carrier is one of the most popular authors at the [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ Secular Web], and author of the books [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1420802933/ ''Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism''] (2005) and [http://www.amazon.com/Not-Impossible-Faith-Richard-Carrier/dp/0557044642/ ''Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed''] and contributing author for [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159102286X/ ''The Empty Tomb''] (2005) and [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Delusion-Why-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689/ ''The Christian Delusion''] (2010), and he has written articles for several print publications. He has a B.A. in history and classical civilizations from UC Berkeley, and an M.A., M.Phil. and Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University. While acquiring his degrees Dr. Carrier formally studied ancient Greek for over seven years, including papyrology, linguistics, paleography, and textual criticism. To learn more about him see [http://www.richardcarrier.info/ About Richard Carrier] and to help support his work see [http://www.richardcarrier.info/support.html Support Richard Carrier].<br />
</p><br />
</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
Honest Bibles will tell you (in a footnote at least) that in the Gospel according to Mark all the verses after [[Mark 16|16:8]] are not found in "some of the oldest manuscripts." In fact, it is now the near unanimous agreement of experts that all those verses were either forged, or composed by some other author and inserted well after the original author composed the Gospel (I'll call that original author "Mark," though we aren't in fact certain of his name). The evidence is persuasive, both internal and external. In fact, this is one of the clearest examples of Christians meddling with the manuscripts of the canonical Bible, inserting what they wanted their books to have said (and possibly even subtracting what they didn't want it to have said, although I won't explore that possibility here). For the conclusion that those final verses were composed by a different author and added to Mark is more than reasonably certain.<br />
<br />
If Mark did not write verses [[Mark 16|16:9-20]], but some anonymous person(s) later added those verses, pretending (or erroneously believing) that Mark wrote them (as in fact they must have), then this Gospel, and thus the Bible as a whole, cannot be regarded as inerrant, or even consistently reliable. Were those words intended by God, he would have inspired Mark to write them in the first place. That he didn't entails those words were not inspired by God, and therefore the Bible we have is flawed, tainted by sinful human forgery or fallibility. Even the astonishing attempt to claim the ''forger'' was inspired by God cannot gain credit.<span id="up1"></span><b>[[#ref1|1]]</b> For it is so inherently probable as to be effectively certain that a real God would have inspired Mark in the first place and not waited to inspire a later forger. The alternative is simply unbelievable. And in any case, a lie cannot be inspired, nor can a manifest error, yet this material is presented as among that which is "according to Mark," which is either a lie or an error.<br />
<br />
This has a further, even greater consequence. Since we are actually ''lucky'' the evidence of this meddling survived, we should expect that other instances of meddling have occurred for which the evidence ''didn't'' survive, calling into doubt the rest of the New Testament (hereafter NT). Since the survival of evidence is so unlikely for changes made before c. 150 A.D. (fifty to eighty years after the NT books were supposedly written), and in some cases even for changes made before c. 250 A.D. (well over a hundred more years later)—as we have few to no manuscripts of earlier date, and none complete, and scarce reliable testimonies—we can expect that many other changes could have survived undetected.<span id="up2"></span><b>[[#ref2|2]]</b> And yet alterations in the earlier period are the most likely. For when the fewest copies existed, an emender's hope of succeeding was at its greatest, as well as his actual rate of success. Such was the case for all other books, so it should be expected for the Gospels. As Helmut Koester says, "Textual critics of classical texts know that the first century of their transmission is the period in which the most serious corruptions occur," and yet "textual critics of the New Testament writings have been surprisingly naive in this respect," despite the fact that they all agree "the oldest known archetypes" we can reconstruct from surviving manuscripts "are separated from the autographs by more than a century."<span id="up3"></span><b>[[#ref3|3]]</b><br />
<br />
The interpolation of the Markan ending thus refutes Biblical inerrancy. As Wilbur Pickering put it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Are we to say that God was unable to protect the text of Mark or that He just couldn't be bothered? I see no other alternative—either He didn't care or He was helpless. And either option is fatal to the claim that Mark's Gospel is 'God-breathed'.<span id="up4"></span><b>[[#ref4|4]]</b></blockquote><br />
<br />
The whole canon falls to the same conclusion. This dichotomy is entailed by the fact of the Markan interpolation. It forces us to fall on either of two horns, yet on neither of which can a doctrine of inerrancy survive. If God ''couldn't'' protect His Book from such meddling, then he hardly counts as a god, but in any case such inability entails he can't have ensured the rest of the received text of the Bible is inerrant (since if he couldn't in this case, he couldn't in any), which leaves no rational basis for maintaining the inerrancy of the Bible, as then even God could not have produced such a thing. On the other hand, if God ''could'' but did not ''care'' to protect His Book from such meddling, then we have no rational basis for maintaining that he cared to protect it from any other errors, either, whether those now detectable ''or not''. Since the Bible we now have can only be inerrant if God wanted it to be, and the evidence proves he didn't want it to be, therefore it can't be inerrant. It does no good to insist the Bible was only inerrant in the ''originals'', since a God who cared to make the originals inerrant would surely care to keep them that way. Otherwise, what would have been the point? We still don't have those originals. <br />
<br />
Only the most convoluted and implausible system of excuses for God can escape this conclusion, and any faith that requires such a dubious monstrosity is surely proven bankrupt by that very fact.<br />
<br />
=='''The Ending(s) of Mark'''==<br />
<br />
==='''The OE, LE, and SE'''===<br />
<br />
Presently in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) the Gospel of Mark ends as follows ([[Mark 16|Mark 16:1-20]], uncontested portion in bold):<br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>[1] When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. [2] Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. [3] They were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" [4] Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. [5] Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. [6] And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. [7] But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.'" [8] They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.</b><br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [9b] Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. [10] She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. [11] When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it. [12] After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country. [13] They went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. [14] Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. [15] And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation: [16] He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. [17] These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; [18] they will pick up serpents {in their hands}, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [19] So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. [20] And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.</blockquote><br />
<br />
What is commonly called (and hypothesized to be) the 'Original Ending' of Mark (OE) is presented in bold above. The material not in bold is called the 'Longer Ending' of Mark (LE). There is another ending in some manuscripts, completely replacing or preceding the lengthy text above, which reads:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[9a] And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.</blockquote><br />
<br />
This is called the 'Shorter Ending' of Mark (SE).<span id="up5"></span><b>[[#ref5|5]]</b> Some manuscripts have neither SE nor LE (and thus have only the OE), and one manuscript contains only the SE (and that is among the oldest) while others give indications that many other such manuscripts once existed, but most (a great many in each case) have either the LE alone or both the SE ''and'' the LE (always with the LE following the SE, not the other way around, unlike the order shown in the NASB).<span id="up6"></span><b>[[#ref6|6]]</b> The SE and LE are logically and narratively incompatible, however, and thus cannot have been composed by the same author.<br />
<br />
==='''The VLE'''===<br />
<br />
There is also a third ending found in one surviving manuscript (and already known to Jerome in the 4th century), which you generally never hear of, but which I shall call the 'Very Long Ending' (VLE), as it is an extension of the LE, expanding [[Mark 16|verse 15]] into:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[15] And they defended themselves saying, "This world of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the unclean things that are under the spirits to comprehend God's true power.<span id="up7"></span><b>[[#ref7|7]]</b> Because of this, reveal your righteousness now." They said these things to Christ, and Christ replied to them, "The term of years of the authority of Satan has been fulfilled, but other dreadful things are drawing near, even to those for whose sake as sinners I was delivered up to death so they might return to the truth and no longer sin, and might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven. But go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."</blockquote><br />
<br />
Such are the various endings of Mark.<span id="up8"></span><b>[[#ref8|8]]</b> All scholars now reject the VLE (if they even know of it) and now regard verse [[Mark 16|16:8]] to have been the OE, even though it is an odd way to end a book (though it is not without precedent, and does make more literary sense than is usually supposed <span id="up9"></span><b>[[#ref9|9]]</b>). The VLE, by contrast, is unmistakably a forgery, so its existence further proves that Christians felt free to doctor manuscripts of the Gospels.<br />
<br />
==='''The BE'''===<br />
<br />
The same point is proven further by the fact that, in addition to the endings just surveyed, there is at least one known interpolation ''within'' the OE itself (expanding [[Mark 16|verse 3]]), extant in one ancient manuscript, which can be considered yet another 'ending' to Mark (making five altogether), the addition here given in bold:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[3] They were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" <b>Then all of a sudden, at the third hour of the day, there was darkness over the whole earth, and angels descended from heaven and [as he] rose up in the splendor of the living God they ascended with him, and immediately it was light.</b> [4] Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large.</blockquote><br />
<br />
This is from Codex Bobiensis, a pre-Vulgate Latin translation, which also deletes the last part of [[Mark 16|verse 8]] before attaching the SE (thus eliminating the contradiction between them: see section [[#The_SE|4.1.3]]). The manuscript itself physically dates from the 4th or 5th century, but contains a text dated no later than the 3rd century, and some evidence suggests it ultimately derives from a lost 2nd century manuscript.<span id="up10"></span><b>[[#ref10|10]]</b> No one accepts this Bobbio Ending (BE) as having any chance of being authentic, yet it must be quite ancient. It was also manifestly forged.<br />
<br />
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/6417/sendingj.jpg<br />
<br />
==='''Assessment of the Markan Endings'''===<br />
<br />
Some scholars theorize that Mark's original ending did indeed extend beyond the OE but was lost (accidentally or deliberately) and then replaced by the SE and LE in different manuscripts (hereafter <b>mss.</b> (plural) and <b>ms.</b> (singular)), originating two separate traditions which were eventually loosely combined into a sixth 'Double Ending' (DE) in later manuscripts (even though they don't logically fit together), while in other mss. the LE was preferred or was expanded into the VLE, or the OE was expanded into the BE. Though many of the arguments for a 'Lost Original Ending' (LOE) are intriguing, none are conclusive, nor can any produce the actual text of such an ending even if it existed, nor can scholars agree which ending it should be (some scholars find the original ending redacted in Matthew's Galilean mountain narrative, others in John's Galilean seashore narrative, yet others in Luke's Emmaus narrative, and still others in the SE or LE itself, and so on). I will not discuss those debates, as they are too speculative and inconclusive. It is the sole task here to demonstrate that, regardless of how Mark originally ended his Gospel, it was not the ending we have now (whether SE or LE; the DE, BE and VLE are ruled out heretofore). Quite simply, the current ending of Mark was not written by Mark.<br />
<br />
=='''The Principal Scholarship'''==<br />
<br />
The literature on the ending of Mark is vast. But certain works are required reading and centrally establish the fact that the current ending of Mark was not written by Mark. They cite much of the remaining scholarship and evidence, and often go into more precise detail than I will here. So to pursue the issues further, consult the following (here in reverse chronological order):<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span id="PEM"></span>David Alan Black, ed., ''Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views'' (2008). <b>Hereafter PEM</b>.<br><br><br />
<br />
<span id="MAC"></span>Adela Yarbro Collins, ''Mark: A Commentary'' (2007): pp. 797-818. <b>Hereafter MAC</b>.<br><br><br />
<br />
<span id="TNT"></span>Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, ''The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration'', 4th ed. (2005): pp. 322-27. <b>Hereafter TNT</b>.<br><br><br />
<br />
<span id="MNT"></span>Joel Marcus, ''Mark 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary'' (2000): pp. 1088-96. <b>Hereafter MNT</b>.<br><br><br />
<br />
<span id="MAM"></span>James Kelhoffer, ''Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark'' (2000). <b>Hereafter MAM</b>.<br><br><br />
<br />
<span id="JETS"></span>John Christopher Thomas, "A Reconsideration of the Ending of Mark," ''Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society'' 26.4 (1983): 407-19. <b>Hereafter JETS</b>.<br><br><br />
<br />
<span id="NTS"></span>Bruce Metzger, ''New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic'' (1980): pp. 127-47. <b>Hereafter NTS</b>.<br><br><br />
<br />
<span id="TCG"></span>Bruce Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', 3rd ed. (1971): pp. 122-28. <b>Hereafter TCG</b>.</blockquote><br />
<br />
There are also a few online resources worth consulting (with due critical judgment). Most worthwhile is Wieland Willker's extensive discussion of the evidence and scholarship.<span id="up11"></span><b>[[#ref11|11]]</b> Though Willker is only (as far as I can tell) a professor of chemistry, and biblically conservative, he did a thorough job of marshaling the evidence. Much briefer but still adding points of note is the treatment of the problem at Wikipedia.<span id="up12"></span><b>[[#ref12|12]]</b> Other threads can be explored but will only end up with the same results that all the above scholars document.<span id="up13"></span><b>[[#ref13|13]]</b><br />
<br />
=='''The Internal Evidence'''==<br />
<br />
Internal evidence is what we can conclude from the reconstructed text, such as its internal logic and literary content and style. In order of physical creation, the 'internal' evidence is earlier and so will be treated here first. Other scholars usually treat it last, but the order of examination doesn't matter. Either way, the internal evidence still confirms the LE is not by Mark, in three different ways: the SE and LE are too incongruous with the OE to have been composed by its author (i.e. the transition from the OE to either the SE or the LE is illogical); the SE and LE are written in a completely different style from Mark (which proves a different author composed them); and the LE betrays (in fact assumes) knowledge of the Canonical New Testament, which did not exist when Mark wrote (and to a lesser extent the same can be said of the SE).<br />
<br />
==='''Transition Is Illogical'''===<br />
<br />
The transition from the OE to the LE violates logic and grammar, while the transition from the OE to the SE is grammatical but even more illogical. This alone greatly reduces the probability of common authorship.<br />
<br />
===='''The LE'''====<br />
<br />
In the LE the transition from [[Mark 16|verse 8 to 9]] is ungrammatical and thus cannot have been composed by the same author. In fact, this oddity suggests the LE actually derives from another text (possibly a 2nd century commentary on the Gospels) and was only appended to Mark by a third party. There is more evidence for this hypothesis in the manuscripts (which will be discussed later) and in every other element of this illogical transition (to be explored shortly). For the present point, it is enough to note the internal evidence. First, the grammatical subject in [[Mark 16|verse 8]] is "they" (the women), but in [[Mark 16|verse 9]] it is "he" (Jesus). But the word "he" is not present in [[Mark 16|verse 9]]. Thus we have the strange transition, "For they were afraid and having risen on the first day of the week appeared first to Mary," which makes no sense. The pronoun "he" is expected (or the name "Jesus") but it is absent, creating a strange grammatical confusion. The oddity is clearer in the Greek than in English translation. In the Greek, verse 9 begins abruptly with a nominative participle with no stated subject, a strange thing to do when transitioning from a sentence about a wholly different subject.<br />
<br />
The transition is not only ungrammatical, it is narratively illogical. [[Mark 16|Verse 9]] reintroduces Mary Magdalene with information we would have expected to learn much earlier (the fact that Jesus had cast seven demons out of her). Instead it is suddenly added in the LE, completely out of the blue without any explanation, suggesting the author of the LE was trying to improve on the OE or wasn't even writing an ending to Mark but a separate narrative altogether (in which this is the first time Mary Magdalene appears in this scene or in which the story of her exorcism appeared many scenes earlier). Either entails that the same author did not write the OE. Indeed, it makes no sense to add this detail in the LE, as it serves no narrative function, adds nothing relevant to the story, and alludes to an event that Mark never relates. If the author of the LE were Mark, he would have added this exorcism story into the narrative of Jesus' ministry, and then alluded to it (if at all) when Mary Magdalene was first introduced in [[Mark 15|verse 15:40]], or when she first appears in the concluding narrative ([[Mark 16|verse 16:1]]). Furthermore, not only does the subject inexplicably change from the women to Jesus, but suddenly Mary Magdalene is alone, without explanation of why, or to where the other two women have gone.<br />
<br />
We should also expect some explanation of when these appearances occurred, yet we get instead an inexplicable confusion. [[Mark 16|Verse 9]] says they happened after Jesus rose on the first day of the week, but it's then unclear as to how many days after. This single temporal reference would normally entail everything to follow occurred on the same day. But that would contradict the OE's declaration that Jesus had already gone ahead to Galilee and would appear there, as it would have taken several days for the women (or anyone else) to travel from Jerusalem to Galilee. It is unlikely Mark would produce such a perplexing contradiction or allow a distracting ambiguity like this in his story, as he is elsewhere very careful about marking relevant chronological progression (e.g. [[Mark 16|Mark 16:2]], [[Mark 15|15:42]], [[Mark 14|14:30]], [[Mark 14|14:12]], [[Mark 6|6:35]], [[Mark 4|4:35]], etc.). Mark also wouldn't repeat the declaration that it was "the first day of the week," as he already said that in [[Mark 16|verse 16:2]]. Instead, he would simply say "on the same day," or not even designate the day at all, as there would be no need for it (his narrative would already imply it), until the story entailed the passage of several days (perhaps either at [[Mark 16|16:12]] or [[Mark 16|16:14]]). Apparently the author of the LE assumes the day hasn't yet been stated (and thus appears unaware of the fact that it was already stated in the OE only a few verses earlier) and then assumes all these events took place over a single day, and thus in and around Jerusalem, which contradicts Mark's declaration that the appearances were to occur in Galilee ([[Mark 16|16:7]], [[Mark 14|14:28]], corroborated in [[Matthew 28|Matthew 28:16-20]]), yet conspicuously agrees with Luke and John (a telling contradiction that will be discussed later).<br />
<br />
All four oddities (the incorrect grammar, the strange reintroduction of Mary, the unexplained disappearance of the other women, and the chronological redundancies and contradictions) make the transition from the OE to the LE too illogical for the same author to have written both. On the hypothesis that the LE was written by another author in a different book and just copied into Mark by a third party, all these oddities are highly probable. But on the hypothesis that Mark wrote the LE, all these oddities are highly improbable. Indeed, any one of them would be improbable. All of them together, very much so.<br />
<br />
===='''The Terry Thesis'''====<br />
<br />
Bruce Terry claims such odd transitions exist elsewhere in Mark and thus are not improbable, but his proposed grammatical parallels actually demonstrate what's so odd about this one, and he has no parallels for any of the other oddities.<span id="up14"></span><b>[[#ref14|14]]</b> In [[Mark 2|Mark 2:13]] we actually have a nested pericope in which the subject (Jesus) is already established at [[Mark 2|2:1-2]], and he remains the primary subject for the whole story, which story ''includes'' [[Mark 2|2:12]], which clearly explains the temporary transition of subject from Jesus to the man he healed: Jesus gives a command in [[Mark 2|v. 11]], the man follows it in [[Mark 2|v. 12]], then Jesus moves on in [[Mark 2|v. 13]]. There is no parallel here to [[Mark 16|16:9]], where Jesus has never been a subject of any prior sentence much less the whole pericope, yet suddenly he is the subject without explanation, whereas it is the ''women'' who have been the primary subject of the entire pericope up until now (beginning at [[Mark 16|16:1]]), and yet even they inexplicably vanish, and suddenly all we hear about is Mary Magdalene alone. That is not a logical transition. Moreover, Mark's narrative in chapter 2 follows a clear structure of chronological stations, beginning when Jesus is introduced into the story ([[Mark 1|1:9]]), then sojourns in the desert ([[Mark 1|1:13]]), then returns to the seashore ([[Mark 1|1:14]]), then goes to Capernaum ([[Mark 1|1:21]]), then leaves ([[Mark 1|1:35]]) and goes through Galilee ([[Mark 1|1:39]]), then he returns "again" to Capernaum ([[Mark 2|2:1]]), where he heals the paralytic, then he returns "again" to the seashore ([[Mark 2|2:13]]). The structure and transitions are clear. There is nothing of the sort for [[Mark 16|16:9]]. Hence the transitions in [[Mark 2|chapter 2]] are logical and grammatical, but the transition at [[Mark 16|16:8-9]] is not.<br />
<br />
A similar structure accompanies [[Mark 6|Mark 6:45]]: the subject is already established as Jesus at [[Mark 6|6:34]], then Jesus gives commands to his Disciples to deliver food to the multitude ([[Mark 6|6:37-39]]), and in result the multitude eat ([[Mark 6|6:40-44]]), thus temporarily becoming the subject, then Jesus gives another command to his Disciples ([[Mark 6|6:45]]). The nested structure already has the subject clearly established as Jesus. So there is no parallel here to [[Mark 16|16:9]]. The same structure accompanies [[Mark 7|Mark 7:31]]: the subject is already established as Jesus at [[Mark 7|7:6]], then Jesus teaches and interacts with the crowd, then heads toward Tyre and enters a house ([[Mark 7|7:24]]), then a woman begs his aid and they have a back-and-forth conversation ([[Mark 7|7:25-30]]), in which the subject shifts entirely as expected from her ([[Mark 7|7:26]]) to him ([[Mark 7|7:27]]) to her ([[Mark 7|7:28]]) to him ([[Mark 7|7:29]]) to her ([[Mark 7|7:30]]), and then back to him ([[Mark 7|7:31]]). The woman has departed in [[Mark 7|verse 7:29]], so obviously we expect the subject at [[Mark 7|7:31]] to pick back up with who the primary subject has been all along: Jesus. Mark even indicates this by telling us he "again" went toward Tyre (thus leaving no mistake who the subject is). Again, there is no parallel with [[Mark 16|16:9]]. In just the same way, at [[Mark 8|8:1]] we already know Jesus is the subject: he is the subject all the way up to [[Mark 7|7:36]], then we hear a brief audience reaction at [[Mark 7|7:37]], then Jesus is again the subject at [[Mark 8|8:1]], as we should already expect. In a comparable fashion, at [[Mark 14|14:3]] Jesus has already been the primary subject throughout chapter [[Mark 13|13]], then is temporarily the subject of ''conversation'' for just two verses ([[Mark 14|14:1-2]]), then becomes the primary subject again ([[Mark 14|14:3]]). There is no comparable nested structure at [[Mark 16|16:9]].<br />
<br />
Moreover, all these alleged parallels show how different the style of the LE is, as Mark uses ''kai'' ("and") dozens of times to mark almost every transition in [[Mark 2|Mark 2]] (19 out of 28 verses begin with ''kai''), [[Mark 6|6]] (40 out of 56 verses begin with ''kai''), and [[Mark 7|7]] (18 out of 37 verses begin with ''kai''), yet the author of the LE shows no comparable fondness for ''kai'' (apart from two un-Markan transitions with ''kakainos'', he begins only 1 of 12 verses with ''kai'', and this despite the fact that the LE runs through no fewer than 9 comparable sentence transitions in just 12 verses), and more importantly, he doesn't use it to transition in [[Mark 16|16:9]], as we would expect if this is supposed to parallel the Markan style of [[Mark 2|2:13]], [[Mark 6|6:45]], [[Mark 7|7:31]], and [[Mark 14|14:3]] (which all transition with ''kai'') as Terry claims. Only [[Mark 8|8:1]] uses instead the device of a participle-verb construction similar to [[Mark 16|16:9]], yet ''doesn't'' transition with the particle ''de''. The LE does. And again, the subject of [[Mark 8|8:1]] was already established two verses earlier, in an obvious nested structure not at all parallel to [[Mark 16|16:9]]. Another stylistic oddity comes from another verse that Terry mistakenly considers a parallel: only once, he says, does Mark elsewhere ''begin'' a new pericope with a participle, and that's at [[Mark 14|14:66]], which he claims is a parallel for [[Mark 16|16:9]]. But in fact [[Mark 14|14:66]] begins with a genitive absolute, which is indeed a very Markan feature (it's also how he transitions in [[Mark 8|8:1]], another of Terry's alleged parallels). It's just that this is exactly what the author of the LE ''doesn't'' do at [[Mark 16|16:9]]. Since [[Mark 16|16:9]] does not use the genitive absolute to mark its transition, but [[Mark 14|14:66]] does, even [[Mark 14|14:66]] fails to be a parallel, but instead shows just how different Mark's style was from the author of the LE.<br />
<br />
===='''The SE'''====<br />
<br />
The transition from the OE to the SE is smoother than for the LE, yet it is still too incongruous for the SE to have come from the original author. For the SE immediately contradicts the very preceding sentence (and without any explanation) by first saying the women told nothing to no one, then immediately saying they told everything to everyone, an error no competent author would commit. This was so glaringly illogical that in at least one manuscript a scribe erased the contradiction by deleting the end of [[Mark 16|verse 16:8]] before continuing with [[Mark 16|16:9a]], but that ms. (designated "k" = Codex Bobiensis, Latin, 4th/5th century) is actually known for many occasions of such meddling with the text (the BE itself being an example: see [[#The_BE|section 2.3]]). The SE is thus even more illogical than the LE. Though otherwise a grammatically correct transition, it was clearly not written by Mark but by someone who could not accept his ending and had to change it, directly reversing what it just said. Mark would not have done that without explaining the incongruity (such as by mentioning a passage of time or otherwise indicating why the women changed their mind).<br />
<br />
==='''Style Is Not Mark's'''===<br />
<br />
That the LE was clearly written by another author is also sufficiently proved by its unique style. Some examples of this were already given in [[#The_Terry_Thesis|section 4.1.2]] (above), but the evidence is far more extensive than that. It is nearly impossible for a forger to imitate an author's style perfectly, because there are too many factors to control and no one is cognizant of even a fraction of them (from the choice and frequency of vocabulary to average sentence length, grammatical idioms, etc.). And this is entirely the case when the forger makes no effort even to try. It is also very difficult for an author to completely mask his own style, especially since authors are always unaware of all the ways in which their style differs from anyone they may be emulating. And an author never even tries to do that unless he aims to.<span id="up15"></span><b>[[#ref15|15]]</b> Thus, if the LE was originally written in a separate work, and thus not even intended as an ending to Mark, it should exhibit a wildly different style, indicative of a different author. But if the LE was written by Mark, it should be the reverse, with far more similarities than deviations. This is not what we find.<br />
<br />
===='''Deviations of Narrative Style'''====<br />
<br />
In the LE the series of events is far too rapid and terse and lacks narrative development, which is very unlike the rest of Mark, who as an author would surely cringe at the obscure, unexplained jumble of the LE. Mark composes all his pericopes with clever and elaborate literary structure, nearly everything is present for a reason and makes sense (if you understand the point of it).<span id="up16"></span><b>[[#ref16|16]]</b> But the contents of the LE are simply rattled off like a laundry list without explanation or even a clear purpose. There is nothing in the passage that resembles the way Mark writes or composes his stories. He never rapidly fires through a laundry list of ill-described events, as if alluding to half a dozen stories not yet written. So the whole nature of the passage is starkly uncharacteristic of Mark, being "a mere summarizing of the appearances" of the risen Jesus, "a manner of narration entirely foreign" to Mark's Gospel. Indeed, as Ezra Gould had already observed over a hundred years ago, the OE's narration of "the appearance of the angels to the women is a good example of his style" and yet it's in "marked contrast" to the LE.<span id="up17"></span><b>[[#ref17|17]]</b><br />
<br />
Even the cursory temptation scene ([[Mark 1|Mark 1:12-13]]) is no comparison. It still reads like a complete unit, for which we would not need or expect any further details had we not otherwise known of them (from the expansion of [[Matthew 4|Matthew]] and [[Luke 4|Luke]]). The LE, by contrast, is unintelligible without knowing the details alluded to, and is not a single event, but a long compressed series of them. Never mind that each one is of phenomenally greater narrative importance than the relatively trivial fact that Jesus was once tested by the Devil. What remains inexcusably peculiar is the ''great number'' of events, compressed to so small a space—compressed so far, in fact, that each one bears even less detail than the temptation, and what details got added make no inherent sense (as will be shown in [[#The_LE's_Use_of_the_NT|section 4.3.1]]). Moreover, Mark composed a unified Gospel from beginning to end, so if Mark had written the LE, we would expect the LE to mention Galilee: he has set this detail up twice already ([[Mark 14|14:28]] and again in [[Mark 16|16:7]]), anticipating an appearance in Galilee. So that he would drop this theme in the LE is inconceivable. Indeed, as observed in [[#The_LE|section 4.1.1]] (above), the LE not only drops that theme, it contradicts it by evidently presuming a series of appearances in and around Jerusalem.<br />
<br />
===='''Deviations of Lexical & Grammatical Style'''====<br />
<br />
The stylistic evidence is alone decisive. For the vocabulary and syntax of the LE could hardly be further from the style of Mark's Gospel. This has been known for over a hundred years, most famously demonstrated to devastating effect by Ezra Gould in 1896.<span id="up18"></span><b>[[#ref18|18]]</b> Unattributed quotations in the present section are from Gould's seminal commentary (where also the evidence is given). Following is a mere selection of the style deviations demonstrating the LE was not written by Mark:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>(1.) In the LE (a mere 12 verses), the demonstrative pronoun ''ekeinos'' is used five times as a simple substantive ("she," "they," "them"). But Mark never uses ''ekeinos'' that way (not once in 666 verses), he always uses it adjectively, or with a definite article, or as a simple demonstrative (altogether 22 times), always using ''autos'' as his simple substantive pronoun instead (hundreds of times).<span id="up19"></span><b>[[#ref19|19]]</b><br><br><br />
<br />
(2.) In the LE, ''husteron'' is used as a temporal ("afterward"), but never by Mark, who only uses cognates (the noun and verb) and only in reference to poverty (2 times), never to express a succession of events.<br><br><br />
<br />
(3.) In the LE the contraction ''kan'' is used to mean "and if" but Mark only uses it to mean "even, just" ([[Mark 5|5:28]] and [[Mark 6|6:56]], "if I touch ''even just'' his garment..."). Mark always uses the uncontracted ''kai ean'' to mean "and if" (8 times).<br><br><br />
<br />
(4.) In the LE, ''poreuomai'' ("to go") is used three times, but never once in the rest of Mark (Mark only ever uses compound forms), which is "the more remarkable, as it is in itself so common a word," used 74 times in the other Gospels alone, and in Mark "occasions for its use occur on every page."<br><br><br />
<br />
(5.) In the LE, ''theaomai'' ("to see") is used twice, but never once in the rest of Mark, who uses several other verbs of seeing instead, none of which are used in the LE. And this despite the fact that ''theaomai'' is normally a common word.<br><br><br />
<br />
(6.) In the LE, the verb ''apiste&ocirc;'' ("to disbelieve") is used twice, but never once in the rest of Mark, who always uses nominal and adjectival expressions for disbelief instead (3 times).<br><br><br />
<br />
(7.) The LE employs ''blapt&ocirc;'' ("to hurt"), a word that appears nowhere else in Mark, nor even anywhere else in the whole of the NT (except once, and there very similarly: [[Luke 4|Luke 4:35]]); and ''synergountos'' ("working with," "helping") and ''bebaioun'' ("to confirm"), words that appear nowhere else in Mark, nor in any Gospel (but commonplace in the epistles of Paul); and ''epakolouthein'' ("to come after," "to follow"), a word that appears nowhere else in Mark, nor in any Gospel (but used in the epistles 1 Tim. and 1 Pet.); and several other words that appear nowhere else in Mark: ''penthein'' ("to mourn"), ''heteros'' ("other"), ''morph&ecirc;'' ("form"), ''endeka'' ("eleven"), ''parakolouthein'' ("accompany"), ''ophis'' ("snake"), ''analamban&ocirc;'' ("take up"), and ''thanasimon'' ("deadly thing," e.g. "poison"). Not all of these novelties are unexpected, but some are.<br><br><br />
<br />
(8.) In the LE, the expression ''meta de tauta'' ("after these things") is used twice, but never once in the rest of Mark. Among the Gospels the expression ''meta de tauta'' (or just ''meta tauta'') is used only in John and Luke-Acts. In fact, ''meta tauta'' is so commonplace in those authors as to be stylistically distinctive of them.<br><br><br />
<br />
(9.) In the LE, the disciples are called "those who were with him," a designation Mark never uses, and employing ''genomenos'' in a fashion wholly alien to Mark (who uses the word 12 times, yet never in any similar connotation).<br><br><br />
<br />
(10.) The LE says "lay hands on [''x'']" with the idiom ''epitith&ecirc;mi epi'' [''x''], using a preposition to take the indirect object, but Mark uses the direct dative to do that, i.e. ''epitith&ecirc;mi'' [''x''], with [''x''] in the dative case (4 times). He only uses the prepositional idiom when he uses the uncompounded verb (''tith&ecirc;mi epi'' [''x''], 8:25). Thus Mark recognized the compound idiom was redundant, while the author of the LE didn't.<br><br><br />
<br />
(11.) The LE employs several other expressions that Mark never does: ''etheath&ecirc; hypo'' ("seen by"); ''pas&ecirc; t&ecirc; ktisei'' ("in the whole world"); ''kal&ocirc;s hexousin'' ("get well"); ''men oun'' ("and then"); ''duo hex aut&ocirc;n'' ("two of them," an expression not used by Mark with ''any'' number, 'two' or otherwise); ''par' h&ecirc;s'' ("from whom"), which Mark never uses in any context, much less with ''ekball&ocirc;'' ("cast out," "exorcise"), in which contexts Mark uses ''ek'' instead (7:27); and finally the LE uses ''pr&ocirc;t&ecirc; sabbatou'' (16:9) where we should expect some variation of ''t&ecirc; mia t&ocirc;n sabbat&ocirc;n'' (16:2).<br><br><br />
<br />
(12.) The LE also lacks typical Markan words (like ''euthus'', "early, at once" or ''palin'', "again," and many others) while using Markan words with completely different frequencies, e.g. ''pisteuein'' ("to believe"), used only 10 times by Mark in 666 verses, in the LE is used 4 times in just 12 verses (a frequency far more typical of John, where the word appears nearly a hundred times). Any one or two of these oddities might happen in any comparably extended passage of Mark, but not so many.</blockquote><br />
<br />
In all, of 163 words in the LE, around 20 are un-Markan, which by itself is not unusual. What is unusual is how common most of these words normally are, or how distinctive they are of later NT writers or narratives, hence the concentration of so many of these words in the LE is already suspicious. But more damning are all the ways words are used contrary to Markan style, using different words than Mark uses or using Markan words in a way Mark never does. We also find 9 whole expressions in the LE that are un-Markan, which in just 12 verses is something of a record.<br />
<br />
Certainly, any single deviation of style will occur at the hand of the same author in any passage or verse, sometimes even several deviations of different kinds, and unique words will be common when they are distinctive to the narrative. But to have ''so many'' instances of ''so many'' deviations in such a short span of verses (against a compared text of hundreds of verses) is so improbable there is very little chance the LE was written by the same author as the rest of Mark. And the above list is but a sample. There are many other stylistic discrepancies besides the twelve just listed (and the others in [[#The_Terry_Thesis|section 4.1.2]] above, which must be added to those twelve). James Kelhoffer surveys a vast number of them in [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']] (pp. 67-122).<br />
<br />
As Darrell Bock says, "it is the combination of lexical terms, grammar, and style, especially used in repeated ways in a short space that is the point." Hence appealing to similar deviations elsewhere in Mark fails to argue against the conclusion, which carries a powerful cumulative force matched by no other passage in Mark. This is emphasized by Daniel Wallace:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>First, the most important internal argument is a ''cumulative'' argument. Thus, it is hardly adequate to point out where Mark, in ''other'' passages, uses seventeen words not found elsewhere in his Gospel, or that ''elsewhere'' he does not write ''euth&ocirc;s'' for an extended number of verses, or that ''elsewhere'' he has other abrupt stylistic changes. The cumulative argument is that these 'elsewheres' are all over the map; there is not a ''single'' passage in Mark 1:1-16:8 comparable to the stylistic, grammatical, and lexical anomalies in 16:9-20. Let me say that again: there is not a ''single'' passage in Mark 1:1-16:8 comparable to the stylistic, grammatical, and lexical anomalies that we find clustered in vv. 9-20. Although one might be able to parry off individual pieces of evidence, the cumulative effect is devastating for authenticity.</blockquote><br />
<br />
In fact, all the most renowned experts on this linguistic question conclude that the LE was not written by Mark and that the stylistic evidence for this is conclusive. Thus as J.K. Elliott puts it, "It is self-deceiving to pretend that the linguistic questions are still 'open'."<span id="up20"></span><b>[[#ref20|20]]</b><br />
<br />
The SE is even more incongruent with Markan style. Despite being a mere single verse, 8 of the 12 words in it "that are not prepositions, articles, or names" are never used by Mark—but half of them are found in the Epistles (and sometimes, among NT documents, ''only'' there).<span id="up21"></span><b>[[#ref21|21]]</b> The whole verse consists of just 35 words altogether, 9 of which Mark never uses, in addition to several un-Markan phrases (including, again, ''meta de tauta''). Discounting articles and prepositions and repeated words, the SE employs only 18 different words, which means fully half the vocabulary of the entire SE disagrees with Markan practice. Half the SE also consists of a complex grammatical structure that is not at all like Mark's conspicuously simple, direct style. You won't find any verse in Mark with the convoluted verbosity of "and after these things even Jesus himself from east and as far as west sent out away through them the holy and immortal proclamation of eternal salvation." The SE was clearly not written by Mark.<br />
<br />
===='''The Terry Thesis Revisited'''====<br />
<br />
Bruce Terry again claims there is nothing odd about so many unusual phrases, for even in Mark [[Mark 15|15:42-16:6]] "there are nine phrases" that appear nowhere else in Mark.<span id="up22"></span><b>[[#ref22|22]]</b> But that's not true. Terry chooses as 'phrases' entire clauses, which obviously will be unique, since authors tend not to repeat themselves. Hence he is either being disingenuous, or he doesn't understand what a 'common phrase' is. Phrases like "after these things," "those with him," "seen by," "whole world," "get well," "and then," "[#] of them," and "from whom" are entirely generic phrases that authors tend to use frequently, or certainly often enough to expect to see them at least a few times in over six hundred verses, unless they are not phrases the author uses. Which is exactly why their presence in the LE tells us Mark didn't write it. And this conclusion follows with force because there are so many of these oddities, and some go against Mark's own preferences, e.g. using ''para'' instead of ''ek'' in "cast out from," and using ''pr&ocirc;t&ecirc; sabbatou'' instead of ''t&ecirc; mia t&ocirc;n sabbat&ocirc;n'' to say "first day of the week." <br />
<br />
In contrast, almost none of Terry's 'examples' are generic phrases—and what generic structure we ''can'' discern among them is often ''confirmed'' in Markan style elsewhere. For example, he claims "now evening having come" (''&ecirc;d&ecirc; opsias genomen&ecirc;s'') is a unique 'phrase' but what's actually generic in this phrase is ''&ecirc;d&ecirc; [x] genomenos'', "now [''x''] having come," which Mark uses two other times ([[Mark 6|Mark 6:35]] and [[Mark 13|13:28]]). So this is ''not'' unique in [[Mark 15|15:42]]. Likewise, Terry claims "know from" (''gin&ocirc;sko apo'') is a unique phrase, but it's not, as [[Mark 13|Mark 13:28]] has "learn from" (''apo mathete''), the exact same grammatical construction, just employing a different verb, while the same verb was not unknown to Mark (who used it at least three times, just never in a context that warranted the preposition). Meanwhile, "roll on" (''proskulio epi'') isn't a generic phrase at all—it's just an ordinary verb with preposition, and Mark uses verbs with ''epi'' to describe placing objects on things quite a lot (e.g. [[Mark 4|Mark 4:5]], [[Mark 4|4:16]], [[Mark 4|4:20]], [[Mark 4|4:21]], [[Mark 4|4:26]], [[Mark 4|4:31]], [[Mark 6|6:25]], [[Mark 6|6:28]], [[Mark 8|8:25]], [[Mark 13|13:2]], [[Mark 14|14:35]]), so there is nothing unique about that here, either. And there is nothing generic whatsoever about "the door of the tomb" or "white robe." These are highly specific constructions, using established Markan words. For ''leukos'' ("white") and ''stol&ecirc;'' ("robe") appear elsewhere in Mark, and ''mnemeion'' ("tomb") appears two other times in Mark (and the equivalent ''mn&ecirc;ma'' twice as well), and ''thura'' ("door") likewise appears four other times. Likewise, "be not afraid" (''me ekthambeisthe'') is not a generic clause, but a whole sentence (it is an imperative declaration), none of which is unusual for Mark, who routinely uses ''m&ecirc;'' for negation and uses the exact same verb (''ekthambe&ocirc;'') in [[Mark 9|9:15]]. Similarly, "come very early" (''lian pr&ocirc;i erchomai'') is not a generic phrase, either, it's just a verb with a magnified adverb of time, nor is it an unusual construction for Mark, who has "go very early" (''lian pr&ocirc;i exerchomai'') in [[Mark 1|1:35]], and who otherwise uses ''pr&ocirc;i'' and ''lian'' several times, and ''erchomai'' often.<br />
<br />
That leaves only two unusual phrases in verses in [[Mark 15|15:42-16:6]]: ''mia t&ocirc;n sabbat&ocirc;n'', literally "on the first [day counting] from the Sabbaths" (i.e. "first day of the week") and ''en tois dexiois'' ("on the right"). The former simply paraphrases the Septuagint ([[Psalms 24|Psalm 24:1]]), which Mark is known to do (e.g. [[Psalms 22|Psalm 22]] all throughout [[Mark 15|Mark 15:16-34]]). Only the latter is very unexpected as Mark otherwise (and quite often) uses ''ek dexi&ocirc;n'' to say "on the right." So these two phrases ''are'' unique to [[Mark 15|15:42-16:6]]. It's just that 2 unique generic phrases in 12 verses is simply not enough to doubt their authorship (especially when one is a quotation). But 9 unique generic phrases definitely is, especially in conjunction with all the other deviations: the Markan vocabulary that's missing, the non-Markan vocabulary that's present, the un-Markan frequencies of Markan words, and the un-Markan idioms where Mark has established a completely different practice. It is all these oddities ''combined'' that makes for a vanishingly small probability of Markan authorship. Indeed, if this is not enough evidence to establish the LE wasn't written by Mark, then we should just assume everything ever written in the whole of Greek history was written by Mark.<br />
<br />
===='''Agreements of Style'''====<br />
<br />
Though there ''are'' several Markan words and phrases in the LE, there are not enough to be peculiar. Most are words and phrases common to ''all'' authors and thus not unique to Mark. Excluding those, there are only a very few agreements with Markan style in the LE which can be considered at all distinctive. And yet there are as many agreements with the distinctive style of ''all'' the authors of the NT (including both the Gospels and Epistles)—very much unlike Mark. Kelhoffer (in [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']], pp. 121-22, 138-39) lists over forty stylistic similarities with all four Gospels (and Acts). Notably those drawn from Mark show more deviation from Markan style, using different words and phrases to say the same things, while exact verbal borrowing from the other Gospels is frequent. It is thus more probable that the LE's author was influenced by NT style as a whole (see [[#Content_Betrays_Knowledge_of_the_New_Testament|section 4.3]] next), because the similarities to Markan style are no greater than similarities to the rest of the NT, whereas the ''deviations'' from Markan style are frequent and extreme. This aspect of the LE's style is very probable if the author of the LE knew the NT, but much less probable if the LE had been written by Mark. <br />
<br />
Of course, such agreement can also be found by mere chance between any two authors. But it's even more likely when a later author has been influenced by the earlier one, and an author familiar with the whole NT could easily exhibit influence from all its authors, Mark included. This would be all the more likely if the author of the LE deliberately attempted to emulate Markan style (as a forger would be inclined to do), but if that was his intent, his effort was marvelously incompetent. For as we've seen, the ''disagreements'' of style are so enormous they far outweigh any agreement there may be. In fact, the deviations are so abundant and clear, they could argue against the original author of the LE intending it to be used as a forgery (if we assume a forger would do better). The 'forger' would then instead be some additional third party who attempted to pass off the LE as belonging to Mark. It's also possible the LE became attached to Mark by accident. But the SE can only have been a deliberate forgery, yet it deviates as much or more from Markan style, so being a lousy forgery is evidently not a valid argument against forgery. Nevertheless, I have already presented evidence (in [[#Transition_Is_Illogical|section 4.1]] above) and will present more (in following sections) that, more probably, the author of the LE did not write it as an ending to Mark but as a harmonizing summary of the appearances in all four Canonical Gospels, originally in a separate book (quite possibly a commentary on the Gospels), which was simply excerpted and attached to Mark by someone else (whether deceitfully or by accident).<br />
<br />
==='''Content Betrays Knowledge of the New Testament'''===<br />
<br />
The NT didn't exist when Mark wrote, yet the LE not only betrays knowledge of the Canonical NT (all four Gospels ''and'' Acts), it assumes the ''reader'' is aware of those contents of the NT or has access to them. As noted in [[#Deviations_of_Narrative_Style|section 4.2.1]], this makes no sense coming from Mark, and very little sense coming from anyone at all, ''except'' someone who already knew all the stories related in the other three Gospels (and Acts) and who thus set out to quickly summarize them, knowing full well the reader could easily find those accounts and get all the details omitted here (or would already know them). Mark never writes with such an assumption. But a commentator writing a separate summary of the Gospel appearances in the NT would write something exactly like this. That the LE exhibits stylistic similarities with the whole NT, including the Epistles (as just surveyed in [[#Style_Is_Not_Mark's|section 4.2]]), further supports the conclusion that the author of the LE knew the whole NT, and in fact was so influenced by it as to have adopted many elements of its diverse style. The author of the LE therefore cannot have been Mark.<br />
<br />
James Kelhoffer (in [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']], esp. pp. 48-155) has already extensively proved the LE used the other three Gospels (and Acts) and has refuted every critic of the notion. I will only summarize some of the evidence here. But from this and all that Kelhoffer adds, it's very improbable these elements would exist in the LE unless the author of the LE knew the Canonical NT and intended his readers to have access to it themselves.<br />
<br />
===='''The LE's Use of the NT'''====<br />
<br />
As Joel Marcus observes, the LE looks like "a compressed digest of resurrection appearances narrated in other Gospels" ([[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MNT'']], p. 1090), so compressed, in fact, it "would not make sense to readers who did not know" the other Gospels and Acts. Indeed. The entire content of the LE is a pastiche of elements drawn from the three other Gospels, stitched together in a new way that eliminates contradictions among their different accounts, and written in the writer's own voice (i.e. not copying the other Gospels verbatim, but rephrasing and paraphrasing, a technique specifically taught in ancient schools):<br />
<br />
<table width=500 cellpadding=4 align=left border=0><br />
<tr><td><br />
<table width=100% cellpadding=4 align=left border=1><br />
<tr><td>16:9b</td><td>Jesus appears (a) to Mary Magdalene (b) alone (c) on the first day of the week (John 20:1, 14-18)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:9c</td><td>from whom he had cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:10a</td><td>she goes to tell the men (Luke 24:9-10; John 20:18)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:10b</td><td>as they are mourning and weeping (John 16:20; Matthew 9:15)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:11</td><td>the men refuse to believe her (Luke 24:11)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:12</td><td>Jesus appears (a) in a different form (b) to two of them (c) on a road (Luke 24:13–32)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:13a</td><td>those two return and tell the others (Luke 24:34-35)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:13b</td><td>who still don't believe them (fr. John 20:24-25; Luke 24:36-41)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:14a</td><td>Jesus appears (a) to the Eleven (b) indoors (c) in a context of taking food (Luke 24:33-43; and combining John 20:19-29 and 21:5-14)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:14b</td><td>and remarks on their unbelief (Luke 24:38-39; John 20:26-29)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:15</td><td>delivers the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19; Acts 1:8; Mark 6:12; with direct verbal similarities in Mark 14:9; Matthew 24:14, 26:13)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:16</td><td>emphasizes salvation and judgment (Acts 2:38, 16:31-33; John 3:18-21)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:16</td><td>and the necessity of baptism (Acts 2:38-43; Matthew 28:19; John 3:5)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:17a</td><td>their powers will be a sign (Acts 2:43, 4:30, 5:12, 14:13)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:17a</td><td>casting out demons in his name (Mark 6:7, 6:13, 9:38-40; Luke 9:1, 10:17; Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:18, 19:12-17; Matthew 7:22)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:17b</td><td>speaking with new tongues (Acts 2:4, 10:45-46, 19:6; 1 Cor. 14)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:18a</td><td>picking up serpents (Luke 10:19; Acts 28:2-6)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:18b</td><td>laying hands on the sick (Mark 5:23, 6:5; Luke 9:1-2; Acts 5:16, 6:6, 8:7, 9:17, 14:13, 19:11-12, 28:8; James 5:14-15)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:19a</td><td>Jesus ascends to heaven (Luke 24:51; John 20:17; Acts 1:2, 1:9-11)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:19b</td><td>sits down at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56, 5:31, 2:33; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:1; Col. 3:1; Mark 12:35-37, 14:62)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:20a</td><td>the disciples go out and preach everywhere (Mark 6:12; Luke 9:6, 24:47; Acts 1:4, 1:8, 2ff.)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16:20b</td><td>and Jesus confirms the word by the signs that followed (Acts 14:3; Heb. 2:2-4)</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
The only element of the LE that doesn't derive from the other three Gospels is the remark about 'drinking deadly poison' without effect. Papias claimed it was being said several generations after Mark that Justus Barsabbas (of [[Acts 1|Acts 1:23]]) drank poison without harm "by the grace of the Lord," the only (surviving) reference to such a power in the first two centuries.<span id="up23"></span><b>[[#ref23|23]]</b> How that would influence the LE is anybody's guess. But the LE's claim is more likely an inference from [[Luke 10|Luke 10:19]], in which Jesus says "I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over ''all'' the power of the enemy, and ''nothing'' shall in any way hurt you" (emphasis mine), which would certainly include poisons, especially given the juxtaposition of immunity to poisonous animals. Luke mentions scorpions ''and snakes''; the LE, snakes ''and poison''; hence the substitution would be an easy economization of the whole thought of [[Luke 10|Luke 10:19]] and a typical example of the composition skills ancient schools inculcated.<br />
<br />
The LE thus looks unmistakably like a summary of Matthew, Luke, Acts, and John—particularly Luke-Acts and John (whose styles also influenced the vocabulary and grammar of the LE, as noted in [[#Style_Is_Not_Mark's|section 4.2]]), which are notably the two last Gospels to be written, and only ever logically found together in the canonical NT. And conspicuously, ''only'' these four Gospels are aped here, not a single other Gospel, despite there being many dozens to choose from. Which is practically a giveaway: the LE author is simply summarizing (and briefly harmonizing) the NT Gospels. Contrary to a common assumption, there is evidence that the traditional canon was assembled in codex form already by the mid-2nd century (even though not yet declared the official NT by any particular authority).<span id="up24"></span><b>[[#ref24|24]]</b> But that's still long after Mark would have died. One element is a near giveaway: the phrase 'two of them' ([[Mark 16|16:12]]) is verbatim: ''duo hex aut&ocirc;n'', "two of them," in fact a very unusual way to say this, yet found verbatim in [[Luke 24|Luke 24:13]], the very story being alluded two here. That suggests direct influence from Luke's actual narrative. Kelhoffer (in [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']], pp. 140-50) adduces many more direct lifts from Luke-Acts and the other Gospels.<br />
<br />
In fact, the LE would make no sense to a reader who had no access to the NT. Why is Mary suddenly alone? How did Jesus appear to her? Where? What did he say? Who are "the two men" and why are they traveling in the country? Where are they going? And what is meant by Jesus appearing "in a different form," and why does he appear in that way only to them? Why in fact are there only "the eleven"? It's commonly forgotten that Mark never narrates or even mentions Judas' death, nor specifically describes him as expelled from the group or in any other way less likely to see the risen Jesus (as [[1 Corinthians 15|1 Corinthians 15:5]] implies he did), so if Mark were the author of the LE, his narrative would be inexplicably missing a major plot point. The LE clearly assumes familiarity with the NT explanations of Judas' death and thus his absence at the appearance to the Disciples (e.g. [[Acts 1|Acts 1:17-26]]), and is obviously alluding to the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene in [[John 20|John]] (a story not told in Matthew or Luke) and to the appearance of Jesus in disguise to Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus in [[Luke 24|Luke]] (a story not told in Matthew or John). To a reader unfamiliar with those tales, the LE's narrative is cryptic and frustratingly vague, and essentially inexplicable. Why would anyone write a story like that? Only someone who knew the other stories—and knew his audience would or could as well.<br />
<br />
The LE is not only a pastiche of the other Gospel accounts, it's also an attempt at harmonization. To make the narrative consistent, the LE's author did not incorporate every element of the canonical stories (which would have been logically impossible, or preposterously convoluted). He also deliberately conflates several themes and elements in the interest of smoothing over the remaining contradictions, giving the appearance of a consistent sequence of events—and forcing the whole into a narratively consistent triadic structure (examined below). This kind of harmonizing pastiche exemplified by the LE is an example of the very practice most famously exemplified in Tatian's ''Diatessaron'' (begun not long after the LE was probably composed), which took the same procedure and scaled it up to the entire Gospel (only copying words verbatim rather than writing in his own voice). Kelhoffer (in [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']], pp. 150-54) discusses other examples, demonstrating that the LE fits a literary fashion of the time.<br />
<br />
===='''Testing the Reverse Thesis'''====<br />
<br />
Confirmation of this conclusion comes from the fact that the thesis doesn't work as well in reverse. Though the LE clearly exhibits knowledge of the NT Gospels, the NT Gospels show no knowledge of the LE as a whole. Luke and Matthew follow Mark closely up to verse 16:8, but then diverge completely. What themes they share with the LE have no similar order or context between them, or with the LE. The LE harmonizes them, but they fail to retain any of the LE's harmony. Thus, we can prove the LE was aware of their divergent accounts (so as to harmonize them), but the same evidence argues against the NT being aware of the LE (because no element of that harmony was retained in them).<br />
<br />
Instead, the LE appears to be a coherent narrative unit inspired by the NT. It depicts three resurrection appearances, in agreement with [[John 21|John 21:14]], which says Jesus appeared three times. And all three appearances have a related narrative structure: all three involve an appearance of Jesus ([[Mark 16|16:9]], [[Mark 16|16:12]], [[Mark 16|16:14]]), followed by a report or statement of that fact, always to the Disciples ([[Mark 16|16:10]], [[Mark 16|16:13]], [[Mark 16|16:14]]), which the first two times is met with unbelief ([[Mark 16|16:11]], [[Mark 16|16:13]]), while the third time the Disciples are berated for that unbelief, when Jesus finally appears to them all ([[Mark 16|16:14]]). This running theme of doubt also appears in the other Gospels, but in entirely different ways, showing no cognizance of the LE ([[Matthew 28|Matthew 28:16-17]], [[Luke 24|Luke 24:10-11]] and [[Luke 24|24:36-41]], and [[John 20|John 20:24-28]]). The author of the LE clearly intended to harmonize the three other accounts by merging them together in a semblance of a coherent sequence, a sequence that makes no sense ''except'' at the hands of someone who knew the three other Gospels and had in mind to unite and harmonize their accounts while glossing over their discrepancies.<br />
<br />
One might hypothesize that this shared theme of doubt, as well as other shared themes (e.g. [[Mark 16|Mark 16:15-20]] summarizes the "commission" theme present in the other three Gospels: [[Luke 24|Luke 24:46-47]], [[John 20|John 20:23]], [[Matthew 28|Matthew 28:18-20]]), indicates the LE was the source for the Gospels. But that does not fit. Those later authors must have each chosen coincidentally to drop entirely different elements from each other, and to completely rewrite the rest, all in a different order, and in consequence repeatedly and irreconcilably contradicting Mark. Which all makes far less sense than the opposite thesis, that the author of the LE was harmonizing their accounts after the fact. The LE also lacks the details that are necessary to make sense of each story, and thus assumes those details were already in print. So the LE more likely abbreviates the Gospel narratives. Those narratives are far less likely to be embellishing the LE. Moreover, the LE summarizes the appearances and events in ''all'' of the Gospels, whereas none of those Gospels used all of the LE, but each (we must implausibly suppose) must have chosen different parts to retain. Instead, they seem unaware of the other appearances and events related in the LE. It's thus improbable that the Gospels used the LE (but conveniently left out exactly those stories that the other Gospels left in, completely altered what they included, and sharply contradicted Mark in the process) but very probable that the LE used the Gospels (smartly changing or leaving out the details that contradict each other). The result, as noted, is a situation in which none of the Gospels follow the LE even in outline, while the LE follows all three Gospels, though only as closely as is logically possible, assembling all their diverse stories into a single narrative. The coincidence is unbelievable on any other theory.<br />
<br />
===='''The Robinson Thesis'''====<br />
<br />
Maurice Robinson attempts to argue the LE was composed by Mark because it employs the rhetorical storytelling devices of self-emulation by which Mark is well known to have composed his Gospel, e.g. as shown by Randel Helms in ''Gospel Fictions'' (1988). However, the triadic structure just revealed (in [[#Testing_the_Reverse_Thesis|section 4.3.2]]) and the harmonizing pastiche of material using the sources tabulated (in [[#The_LE's_Use_of_the_NT|section 4.3.1]]) explains far better all the details Robinson implausibly claims emulate earlier sections of Mark. Moreover, a forger could just as easily parody Mark as Mark himself could, thus even if correct, the Robinson thesis fails to independently establish that the LE was written by Mark.<br />
<br />
In his first example ([[Mark 1|Mark 1:32-39]], cf. Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], pp. 68-69) many of the parallels Robinson adduces are specious (i.e. one must stretch the imagination to see a meaningful connection) and few make any literary sense (i.e. there is no intelligible reason for the parallels and reversals being alleged), while any connections we might expect to exist on his thesis (e.g. resisting serpents and poisons, the role of laying on hands, the significance of baptism, the theme of doubt, the first day of the week, appearing "in a different form," etc.) are all absent. Not that all of these would be expected, of course, but some at least should be, e.g. Robinson's claim of an earlier parallel use of exorcism and healing entails that the matching third component (immunity to poison) should be present. Otherwise the ending does ''not'' match the beginning. All we have are generic elements repeated throughout Mark and the whole NT.<br />
<br />
There is a better case to be made that [[Mark 16|Mark 16:1-8]] reverses [[Mark 1|1:1-9]], which would instead argue that verse 8 is the original ending—as framing a story this way (ending it by reversing the way it began) was a recognized literary practice of the era (called ironic ''inclusio''), and would neatly explain many of the peculiar features of the OE (as a manifestation of irony, a device Mark uses repeatedly), making them intelligible, in exactly the way Robinson's theory does not make [[Mark 16|16:9-20]] any more intelligible in light of [[Mark 1|1:32-39]]. This is not to argue here that Mark ''did'' end at verse 8, only that Robinson's thesis is less plausible than applying his own method to arguing Mark ''did'' end at verse 8.<span id="up25"></span><b>[[#ref25|25]]</b><br />
<br />
Similarly Robinson's attempt to see parallels elsewhere in Mark (in Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], pp. 70-72) are either contrived ("appointing the twelve" is supposed to parallel "appearing to eleven" even though neither verb nor number are the same; [[Mark 6|Mark 6:13]] refers to healing by anointing with oil, not laying on hands, which actually argues ''against'' the connection Robinson claims), or simply erroneous (e.g. he mistakenly claims [[Mark 3|Mark 3:15]] contains a reference to healing). The features he claims as parallels are also nonsensically out of order and lack any of the precise cues typical of Mark's practice of emulation. As with Robinson's first hypothesis, none of the features actually peculiar to the LE (e.g. immunity to poisons, damning the unbaptized, appearing "in a different form," etc.) are explained this way, whereas ''every'' feature (these ''and'' the ones Robinson singles out) are already explained (and explained much more plausibly, thoroughly, and accurately) by the triadic harmonization thesis.<br />
<br />
I am normally quite sympathetic to the kind of analysis Robinson attempts, but his applications fail on every single relevant mimesis criterion (order, density, distinctiveness, and interpretability). The patterns he claims to see simply aren't there. There are only generic elements ubiquitous throughout early Christian and NT literature. In fact, every feature Robinson identifies is not only explicable on the theory that Mark didn't compose the LE (but instead a harmonizer using Mark and the other Gospels did), but ''more'' explicable, particularly as the latter theory explains far more of the content of the LE (in fact, all of it).<br />
<br />
===='''The SE's Use of the NT'''====<br />
<br />
Now to revisit the SE. The SE is so obviously inept (since it immediately and inexplicably contradicts the sentence before it, and is implausibly brief) we can be certain it was not original. The SE also has an obvious apologetic function, of positively fixing Peter's primacy, and to 'complete' or 'answer' the OE. Its position in the manuscripts indicates it was intended to follow verse 8, not verse 16, hence it is the women who are the 'they' who inform Peter, which makes logical sense (it is clearly written by someone aware of the content of 16:7-8 and intent on completing the ending in a grammatically sound and intelligible way), and it clearly is meant to end the Gospel (it brings the story all the way to the exit of Jesus and beginning of the mission, and concludes with an 'amen'). Thus it had to have been forged by someone who didn't know of the LE (or any other ending), or someone who deliberately removed the LE (or some other ending) and replaced it with the SE. The former is more probable. For if such a forger knew the LE (or any LOE), he would far more likely alter it than replace it (see [[#In_Ethiopic|sections 5.1.4]] and [[#The_SE-LE_Sequence_and_the_Robinson_Thesis|5.1.8]]).<br />
<br />
The SE is also far too brief to make sense from the pen of Mark: it seems to assume knowledge of the Book of Acts (e.g. [[Acts 1|Acts 1:8]], and the subsequent missions to east and west depicted therein) and the Gospel of Luke (e.g. [[Luke 1|Luke 1:77]]). Otherwise it makes no sense, since Mark has never once mentioned 'salvation' before, much less what the 'message of salvation' is supposed to be that the Apostles then spread across the world (no such message is stated in Mark [[Mark 16|16:5-8]], for example). Likewise, [[Mark 16|Mark 16:7-8]] anticipates, if anything, an ''appearance'' of Jesus, yet the SE lacks any—it simply says Jesus sent them, thus it assumes the reader is already familiar with what that means and how Jesus did that, and thus is already familiar with the NT appearance narratives in the other Gospels. This fact, combined with the lack of Markan style, condemns the SE as a forgery already from internal evidence alone.<br />
<br />
==='''Assessment of Internal Evidence'''===<br />
<br />
Already from the internal evidence it is clear neither the LE nor SE were written by Mark. As continuations of Mark's Gospel they are illogical, written in a completely different style, and betray knowledge of the Canonical NT and thus long-post-date the composition of Mark. Arguments to the effect that Mark would not likely have ended his Gospel at verse [[Mark 16|16:8]] are of no consequence to this conclusion, as they in no way entail or even imply the LE was the ending lost (there are several contenders more plausible: see [[#Assessment_of_the_Markan_Endings|section 2.4]]).<br />
<br />
=='''The External Evidence'''==<br />
<br />
When we turn our attention to the external evidence, this conclusion is confirmed. External evidence consists, first, of the evidence of the actual surviving manuscripts themselves, their evident dates and relationships, and the actual text they contain, as well as other physical evidence in them, such as scribal marks and marginal notes, and, second, the evidence of outside witnesses. In this case that means the Church Fathers, who are the earliest Christian writers outside the NT, several of whom quote or cite the Gospel of Mark, or even discuss what they saw in different manuscripts of Mark. The former is called the manuscript evidence, the latter is called the Patristic evidence.<br />
<br />
==='''The Manuscripts: Textual Evidence'''===<br />
<br />
A common misconception is that counting manuscripts decides what reading to regard as original. But a later reading will often have been copied many more times, precisely because it was more popular (and often for the very same reasons the emendation occurred in the first place). So often the original reading is the rarest in surviving manuscripts, not the most common. But occasionally the reverse is the case. So a more judicial analysis of the evidence is necessary. Ancient translations of the Bible afford an important source of information, as they will reflect the state of the text at the time the translation was first made, no matter how late the surviving copies of that translation are. Likewise, from many surviving copies of the original text we can often reconstruct what the manuscripts they were copied from contained, and even date when those 'source manuscripts' were made or copied from, even though those manuscripts are now lost. And some manuscripts carry far more weight than others, because they are the oldest, or used very early in contexts that entail their text held wide authority, or both.<br />
<br />
===='''In Greek'''====<br />
<br />
The oldest and most authoritative manuscripts of Mark are found in the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B), both of which lack the LE and the SE. There are a few older papyrus fragments of Mark, but none contain any part of chapter 16 and thus are of no help in determining the state of Mark's ending.<span id="up26"></span><b>[[#ref26|26]]</b> Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus date to the mid-4th century and bear signs of having been treated as authoritative texts within the Church. Many of their readings agree with numerous other early mss. Both do leave a blank space at the ending of Mark, which some scholars believe may indicate awareness of a missing ending (although, of course, a lost ending may have simply been assumed). But the Vaticanus usually indicates known textual variants with a scribal mark, which is absent here, arguing ''against'' awareness of any lost ending; the space left is only large enough for the SE, which argues against awareness of the LE; and the Vaticanus leaves blank spaces after other books, demonstrating that such does not in fact indicate awareness of a lost ending.<span id="up27"></span><b>[[#ref27|27]]</b> Likewise, the Sinaiticus also leaves a blank space after Acts, thus such does not entail awareness of a lost ending to Mark, either.<span id="up28"></span><b>[[#ref28|28]]</b> And experts have determined the original form of Codex Sinaiticus ''also'' lacked enough room for the LE, which ''also'' argues against knowledge of the LE.<span id="up29"></span><b>[[#ref29|29]]</b><br />
<br />
J.K. Elliott asserts that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were produced by the same scribe (in Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], pp. 85-86), but as he adduces no arguments or evidence in support of that claim, I'm compelled to reject it as spurious. Even if they derive from the same scriptorium (a more plausible claim, although it's widely debated), Elliott himself admits such mss. can still derive from different exemplars (ibid., p. 83 n. 4), and we know for a fact these two must have, as their texts frequently do not agree. For example, [[Mark 1|Mark 1:40]], [[Mark 2|2:22]], [[Mark 10|10:26]], and [[Mark 15|15:44]], all differ between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and I just flipped to four random pages of the Aland text. Such disagreements between them number in the thousands.<span id="up30"></span><b>[[#ref30|30]]</b> Moreover, expensive projects like these would not have relied on a single exemplar but been checked against several (e.g. the Vaticanus frequently indicates the existence of variant readings, and shows influence from both major text types, the Western and Alexandrian). Apologists like to denigrate the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as aberrant texts, 'exceptions to the rule' (combining the fallacies of special pleading and poisoning the well) when in fact ''all'' early NT mss. are at least as deviant and flawed as they are (so cannot claim any greater authority over them on grounds of 'accuracy'), and yet these two were clearly very authoritative texts, expensively produced by the church, based on multiple exemplars, and of the earliest date among all known mss. (some scholars estimate their exemplars dated as early as the late 2nd century; and no extant mss. date earlier than these mss. themselves). They are therefore far more authoritative than deniers would have it.<br />
<br />
===='''In Syriac'''====<br />
<br />
The SE and LE are also absent from the oldest Syriac manuscript (an erased palimpsest of the late 4th century), the Sinaitic Syriac. The LE finally appears in the Syriac tradition a century later, the earliest being the Curetonian Syriac (dated to the 5th century), which shows signs of revision from a Greek exemplar, unlike the Sinaitic which appears to be more original and, unlike the Curetonian, shows direct influence from (or upon) the ''Diatessaron'', which rather supports the conclusion that the original ''Diatessaron'' also lacked the LE (see [[#Tatian|section 5.3.3]]).<span id="up31"></span><b>[[#ref31|31]]</b> The fact that other translations whose early representatives lack the LE were ultimately derived from the earliest Syriac confirms that the original Syriac tradition lacked the LE (see [[#In_Georgic_and_Armenian|section 5.1.6]]).<br />
<br />
===='''In Coptic'''====<br />
<br />
In Coptic, all but one include the LE, but all surviving mss. date centuries after the translations were originally made, and the earliest version indicates it wasn't originally there. According to P.E. Kahle, the Coptic translation in the Sahidic dialect is the oldest (originating in the late 2nd century), yet "of the Sahidic manuscripts" that contain the LE "only one...regards 16:9-20 as part of the original text," while all "the other Sahidic manuscripts...contain evidence that some (older) manuscripts ended at 16:8." And now we know one Coptic ms. indeed lacks the LE altogether (see below). Of the others, all but one include the SE and LE "but indicate by short notes that these are alternatives found [only] in ''some'' manuscripts" (many Greek mss. indicate the same, see [[#The_Manuscripts:_Physical_Evidence|section 5.2]]; as also the Ethiopic, see [[#In_Ethiopic|section 5.1.4]]). The same thing is observed in the only surviving Fayyumic ms. containing the ending of Mark (extant only in fragments, whose date is unknown but must be very ancient), despite having been translated from a different Western Greek text type than the Sahidic (no later than the early 4th century). Here, "in a short note after [the SE] it points out that [the LE] was not read by all the manuscripts before the translator."<br />
<br />
Confirming these scribal notes, we have at least one Sahidic ms. (Codex P. Palau Rib. 182, from the 5th century) that clearly lacks the LE (ending with the OE), without any indication of knowing any other text, thus confirming the conclusion that the earliest Coptic translator did not know the LE. Only mss. containing the Coptic translation in the Bohairic dialect (rendered in the 3rd or 4th century) all contain the LE without comment, so either the LE was added to the Bohairic in the later 4th century or the Bohairic derives from a copy of Mark to which the LE had become appended in the 3rd or early 4th century—while the earlier Sahidic did not (it appears to have had it added later—unless it was dropped without comment by or before the Palau scribe, but even that entails the original Sahidic translator knew the LE was not in some mss., because then the original translation must have indicated this fact, as that indication is preserved in almost all subsequent copies surviving). Then the later Fayyumic was produced by a translator aware of the fact that some mss. lacked the LE (because he said so).<span id="up32"></span><b>[[#ref32|32]]</b> All of these facts combined indicate the LE was a rare reading and not original to Mark when the earliest translations to Coptic were made, but became incorporated later.<br />
<br />
===='''In Ethiopic'''====<br />
<br />
The Ethiopic manuscripts all contain the SE and LE (or only the LE), but all date well after the 4th or 5th century when the translation was made. The earliest are the Garima Gospels, recently re-dated to the 7th century, which contain the LE alone, and beyond that the earliest surviving ms. dates no earlier than the 9th century. And as with the Coptic, evidence suggests the original Ethiopic translation lacked the LE. Of 65 Ethiopic mss. now extant, 18 contain the LE alone, while the other 47 contain the SE followed by the LE, and 13 of those indicate the LE was an addition (with symbols or terminations separating it from the SE, or actual scribal notes declaring it).<span id="up33"></span><b>[[#ref33|33]]</b> Although a few of the oldest mss. (one dating as far back as the 7th century) have only the LE, the later mss. that indicate otherwise (i.e. that the LE was later appended and earlier mss. ended with the SE alone) likely derive from an even earlier tradition.<br />
<br />
Since the original Ethiopic translation was made at the end of the 5th century, there had been plenty of time (around four centuries) for one tradition to append the LE and another tradition to append the SE (or the original translation may have simply begun with the SE). The second tradition then came to append the LE by influence from the first tradition. One might instead hypothesize that the original translation was derived from a Greek exemplar containing the DE and scribal indications of the LE being unknown in some mss. (which by the 5th century, when the Ethiopic translation was made, would be entirely plausible), but that would not explain the Ethiopic mss. that lack the SE. So one tradition must have contained the LE alone, and the other the SE alone, and then the SE tradition was merged with the LE tradition by adding the latter to the former. The reverse is far less likely, as it would require interpolating the SE between the OE and LE, which makes no logical sense, since the SE and LE contradict each other, and the SE adds nothing not already in the LE. And if the SE were appended as an alternative to an original tradition that ended with the LE, then the SE would more likely be placed ''after'' the LE, or in the margins. Even more likely, the SE would simply be rejected (and thus not appear at all), or else the LE would be replaced with the SE (see [[#The_SE's_Use_of_the_NT|sections 4.3.4]] and [[#The_SE-LE_Sequence_and_the_Robinson_Thesis|5.1.8]]).<br />
<br />
Consequently, the only plausible way so many Ethiopic mss. could have the SE followed by the LE (''and'' for so many of those to clearly indicate that the LE was not original ''and'' for there to be so many Ethiopic mss. that contain only the LE and no hint of the SE) is if the LE was ''not'' in the original Ethiopic but came to be appended to some Ethiopic mss. sometime between the 5th and 7th centuries, while all other mss. in that period contained (or acquired) only the SE—and then these two traditions became combined in the later middle ages (exactly as would happen in the Greek, and possibly even inspired thereby). Thus if the Ethiopic translation began ''without'' the LE, all the evidence is easy to explain, but if it began ''with'' the LE, that same evidence is harder to explain. Therefore, the original Ethiopic tradition probably lacked the LE. And even if not, it must still have begun with explicit knowledge of the fact, by outright stating it, that many of the mss. it was translated from lacked the LE.<br />
<br />
===='''In Latin'''====<br />
<br />
The late-4th century Vulgate translation contains the LE, but the earliest Latin translation lacks it: the 4th century Codex Bobiensis contains only the SE (altered, as noted in [[#The_BE|section 2.3]]). This represents a translation dating at least as far back as the 3rd century and possibly even the late 2nd century (based on telltale evidence in the mss., according to experts who have examined it), which establishes that the absence of the LE predates the 4th century (and possibly even the 3rd). This demonstrates that the LE did not exist in the exemplar used by one of the earliest Latin translators. Codex Vercellensis dates from around the same time, containing yet another Latin translation (thus originating from a different Greek archetype), yet it, too, lacked the LE. Vercellensis actually had a page containing the LE ''tacked into it by a later scribe''. Experts have verified that the original leaves lacked the space to have ever contained the LE before this.<span id="up34"></span><b>[[#ref34|34]]</b> Thus the two oldest Latin mss. (which are in fact older than even most ''Greek'' mss.) directly attest the absence of the LE.<br />
<br />
Other non-Vulgate Latin translations (collectively called Old Latin) contain the LE, but all extant mss. of these are of late date. The only early mss. in this category date from the 5th or even as late as the 6th century, exhibiting translations made in the 3rd or 4th century (though we still can't confirm the LE was in these original translations). There are only three of these: Codex Bezae, Codex Sangallensis 1394, and Codex Corbeiensis II.<span id="up35"></span><b>[[#ref35|35]]</b> All these Old Latin mss. are thus late enough that they could have had translations of the LE added onto them well after it had already become popular in Greek mss. (just as happened in every other translation tradition). Or any of them could have been translated from a copy of Mark containing the LE circulating in the 4th century (see [[#Eusebius|section 5.3.10]]). Otherwise, the Bobiensis and Vercellensis translations predate these, and they lacked the LE. Only a century or more later does the LE appear in any Latin translations (just as we see in the Syriac and Coptic traditions), and in every case these later translations either derive from a time after the LE was already being accepted as the ending of Mark (e.g. the Vulgate was translated by Jerome exactly when the LE was starting to become popular in the Greek: see [[#Jerome_and_Later|section 5.3.12]]) or are suspect as later additions. As noted above, we can already see one case of the LE being surreptitiously 'inserted' into a Latin tradition. So we have good reason to suspect this is how the LE may have ended up in other Old Latin texts—because the oldest Latin mss. and translations lacked the LE.<br />
<br />
===='''In Georgic and Armenian'''====<br />
<br />
The oldest Georgic manuscript (dating to the 9th century) lacks the LE. The LE starts to appear in the Georgic tradition a century later. The Georgic translation is believed to have been made in the late 5th century, and not from the Greek but from the Armenian translation, which was made in the early 5th century by Mesrop Mashtots, itself originally from a Syriac translation, later corrected against the Greek. Although extant Armenian manuscripts are much later, most of them (nearly a hundred) lack the LE, including the earliest. Based on the trend already exhibited by the Latin, Syriac, and Georgic (and the trend evident in Coptic and Ethiopic), this suggests the LE was not known to Mesrop and only added later. This agrees with the fact that most Armenian mss. lack the LE (the LE being added so late, it had less time to propagate) and the fact that the earliest Georgic mss. lack the LE (having derived from the original Armenian, which thus must have lacked the LE), which in turn confirms the Syriac began without the LE (as the Armenian translation was originally based on it), which further argues the ''Diatessaron'' lacked the LE (see [[#In_Syriac|sections 5.1.2]] and [[#Tatian|5.3.3]]).<span id="up36"></span><b>[[#ref36|36]]</b> These translation traditions are very early and wildly diverse geographically and culturally, and in every case the absence of the LE is earlier. Though the Armenian and Georgic ultimately derive from the earliest Syriac translation of the late 2nd century, the Latin and Coptic and Ethiopic are all independent of that, and yet all of these attest the LE was not commonly known until the 4th century. That this is directly confirmed by two expert witnesses (Eusebius and Jerome, per sections [[#Eusebius|5.3.10]] and [[#Jerome_and_Later|5.3.12]]) settles the fact. This supports the conclusion that the LE was a late addition to the text of Mark.<br />
<br />
Corroborating this conclusion is the fact that an Armenian author, Eznik of Kolb, quotes the LE in the middle of the 5th century, a decade or two after the Armenian Bible was translated, yet he does not quote any known translation of the Bible, but composes his own, possibly from a Greek original, which verifies the Armenian translation originated without the LE. And since we already know there were Greek mss. of Mark containing the LE at that time, Eznik's awareness of it affords no proof of its originality.<span id="up37"></span><b>[[#ref37|37]]</b> Likewise, an Armenian translation of the Syriac of Aphraates a few decades after Eznik also attests the LE, but that ''also'' doesn't derive from the Armenian Bible, but a late Syriac copy of the ''Diatessaron'' (see [[#Tatian|sections 5.3.3]] and [[#Aphraates,_Ephrem,_Ambrose|5.3.11]]).<br />
<br />
===='''In Gothic'''====<br />
<br />
The only early translation that likely began with the LE is the Gothic: a 6th century Gothic ms. (the Speyer fragment of Codex Argenteus) attests the LE in a translation probably made by Ulfilas shortly after 348 A.D. in what is now Bulgaria (just north of Greece). But as we know there were mss. of Mark containing the LE by then (see [[#Eusebius|section 5.3.10]]), this only confirms the rarity of source mss. containing the LE, as apparently only one early translation tradition began with one (apart from ''perhaps'' one or two Latin translations of the 3rd or 4th century: see [[#In_Latin|section 5.1.5]]).<span id="up38"></span><b>[[#ref38|38]]</b><br />
<br />
===='''The SE-LE Sequence and the Robinson Thesis'''====<br />
<br />
The existence of the SE in numerous mss. (in several languages, including the original Greek) entails there were many root mss. that lacked the LE. The invention of the SE itself entails the LE was absent very early in the history of the text, necessitating the creation of the SE in order to address growing dissatisfaction with the OE. An even more essential clue is that all the manuscripts that include both the SE and LE always place the SE ''before'' the LE, whether in Greek or any other language (see [[#In_Ethiopic|section 5.1.4]]). Since the SE was most likely created by an author unaware of the LE (thus all these mss. still attest that the LE did not exist in earlier copies of Mark), any manuscript that places the SE before the LE has clearly ''added'' the LE, i.e. their ultimate 'source manuscript' (or archetype) must have contained only the SE, to which the LE was appended later. This is decisively confirmed in the physical evidence of the mss. (see [[#The_Manuscripts:_Physical_Evidence|section 5.2]]). It's also inherently obvious. No one would interpolate the SE before the LE anyway (see [[#The_SE's_Use_of_the_NT|sections 4.3.4]] and [[#In_Ethiopic|5.1.4]], and following). A large number of manuscripts containing the LE thus attest to the previous absence of the LE in the very act of including it. This happens to include numerous Greek and Latin manuscripts, and most Ethiopic manuscripts, and the earliest Coptic manuscripts that even contain the LE at all. When all those examples are thus rightly excluded, the evidence from all the earliest mss. (and translations) strongly favors the LE being a late addition to Mark.<br />
<br />
This evidence is fairly damning. Which is why Maurice Robinson desperately advances the claim that this universal sequence (SE followed by LE) is explained by a lectionary use of the SE as a forged "optional ending" (in Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], pp. 58-59). Thus he can maintain the LE was the original ending. But his theory is too absurd to credit. Indeed, it's incredible five times over:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>(1) It's implausible to presume all extant mss. (even in the various translation traditions) derive from a lectionary (which at any rate would be special pleading, and that against all probability).<br><br><br />
<br />
(2) There is no evidence of such a practice (of providing an optional shorter ending to a whole story, much less interposed before the longer genuine one) in any lectionary. So his theory is not only wholly without precedent, it stands against all extant precedent; indeed, his own evidence of editing in lectionaries contains no instance comparable to what he is proposing: the insertion of an entire elaborate verse from whole cloth (cf. Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], p. 59 n. 74).<br><br><br />
<br />
(3) It's self-defeating. Such a practice would entail Christians so little valued the canonical text of their scriptures that they felt free to substantially alter it just to suit lectionary convenience, and then let this error infect all other Bibles in the whole of the world, and that without any marginal note explaining the fact, but instead passing off the alteration as "according to Mark," which fact if accepted undermines rather than supports the authenticity of the LE, as it ensures Christians would have no compulsion against inventing the LE for the very same reason Robinson alleges would motivate them to invent the SE. Moreover, Robinson's theory ''guarantees'' pervasive biblical errancy. It thus kills the doctrine of inerrancy in the very effort to save it.<br><br><br />
<br />
(4) It's directly refuted by the physical evidence in the manuscripts themselves, which uniformly declare a divergence of mss. and not a reliance on lectionary practice (see [[#The_Manuscripts:_Physical_Evidence|section 5.2]]), and by the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome (see [[#Eusebius|sections 5.3.10]] and [[#Jerome_and_Later|5.3.12]]), who would certainly not be so uninformed as Robinson's theory requires them to have been—for if his theory were correct, we would have heard it from them. To the contrary, Eusebius and Jerome don't even know about the SE, and know only mss. with or without the LE. If the SE originated in texts with the LE, their testimony would be impossible. As their testimony exists, it's Robinson's theory that's impossible.<br><br><br />
<br />
(5) It suffers the final defect that the problem this egregious and implausible doctoring of the text is supposed to have solved (not wanting to end a daily reading at such a defeatist place as verse 8) would have been far more easily and plausibly solved by simply ending the lection at verse 10 (or even verse 6 or 7), a solution so vastly more probable that Robinson's theory fails even on the mere consideration of its prior probability. Indeed, as Darrell Bock notes, "The liturgical unit of Mark 15:43-16:8 is not long (13 verses). So why cut it off at v. 8?" (Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], p. 133). Indeed. Why not just continue all the way to verse 20? Clearly Robinson so badly ''wants'' his theory to be true that he can't even see how ridiculous it is.</blockquote><br />
<br />
So Robinson's theory is to be rejected. We must conclude that the universal presence of the SE before the LE (where they appear together) argues against the authenticity of the LE. <br />
<br />
===='''Assessment of Textual Evidence'''====<br />
<br />
Combine the above fact with all the more direct evidence that the earliest mss. and traditions lacked the LE, and we have a strong external case against the authenticity of the LE. There are only three theories that can explain all this evidence: (1) neither the LE nor the SE were in the original text of Mark (and are therefore forgeries, either of composition or insertion); (2) either the LE or SE was original to Mark but then lost by accident, and very early (and whichever was original, whether LE or SE, the other is not original and therefore a forgery); (3) either the LE or SE was original to Mark but then deliberately removed, and very early (and whichever was deleted, whether LE or SE, the other is not original and therefore a forgery). Thus, no matter which theory you adopt, you cannot escape the conclusion that Mark contains a forgery. Inerrancy is thus defeated.<br />
<br />
And only the first theory is credible. Not only does all the other internal and external evidence confirm this, but the other two theories are deficient. The SE is not likely to have been accidentally lost, as it is much too short. Even the LE is too short. The loss of a codex page could destroy up to four whole columns of text, but the LE consumes not even two; the SE, a mere fraction of one. And early loss from a scroll is prohibitively improbable (the ending would be on the inside of the roll, attached to the cog, the least likely section to lose). The SE is also unlikely to have been ''deliberately'' removed, because it cannot possibly have contained anything anyone would want to remove. Even the LE is unlikely to have been deliberately removed, for though it contains some content that might have been undesired by some (though its prevalence in the record suggests hardly anyone disliked its content, rendering that theory implausible from the start), most other instances of motivated deletion in the manuscript tradition involve excising only the offensive material, leaving the rest—or simply altering the material to be agreeable. This is particularly evident in how material in Mark was redacted by Luke and Matthew, and how passages in Mark were emended by later scribes.<span id="up39"></span><b>[[#ref39|39]]</b> Only occasionally did anyone delete whole sections of Mark, and not (so far as we can tell) because they were doctrinally offensive. Thus, for example, if the remark about handling snakes was offensive, we would more likely find manuscripts in which simply that one phrase or verse was removed (as indeed it was in one 15th century lectionary), or if Jesus upbraiding the Apostles was offensive, we would find altered manuscripts in which Jesus simply didn't upbraid them. If the transition was recognized as awkward, we would find manuscripts in which this was repaired by emendation. And so on. In other words, deliberate deletion cannot explain the loss ''of the whole LE''. Hence the second and third theories are improbable, while the first theory is very probable. That it is fully corroborated in the remaining evidence (internal and external) only confirms this. Therefore, Mark did not write the SE or the LE.<br />
<br />
==='''The Manuscripts: Physical Evidence'''===<br />
<br />
Apart from the textual evidence of the manuscripts, the surviving manuscripts also contain physical clues to the late origin of the SE and LE. Annotations to this effect are actually found in numerous mss. Some mss. indicate the end of the Gospel after [[Mark 16|16:8]] by subscribing the title of the book there or placing some other symbol there (the same ways the ends of other Gospels were indicated), and then follow ''that'' with the LE (or SE and LE), demonstrating the scribe was aware of the fact that the LE (or even SE) was not originally the ending of Mark.<span id="up40"></span><b>[[#ref40|40]]</b> This practice is evident even in other languages, including the Coptic and Ethiopic (see [[#In_Coptic|sections 5.1.3]] and [[#In_Ethiopic|5.1.4]]) and the Armenian.<span id="up41"></span><b>[[#ref41|41]]</b> The most likely explanation of this strange juxtaposition is that their ultimate 'source manuscript' lacked the LE originally (and thus had the concluding subscription after [[Mark 16|16:8]]), and then the LE (or SE & LE) was added by a second hand (i.e. a later scribe than the one who originally transcribed the ms.), and when this whole collage was copied out again it was simply copied verbatim in exactly that order (by a third scribe, transcribing either the ms. we have now or the archetype from which ours ultimately derives). That entails each 'source manuscript' lacked the LE, and the LE was snuck in later on. We actually have examples of this process in the making: actual mss. in which the LE was clearly added later in a second hand.<span id="up42"></span><b>[[#ref42|42]]</b> We even have a medieval scribe confessing to doing this (see [[#Eusebius|section 5.3.10]]).<br />
<br />
Not only is the LE (or SE & LE) "often separated from 16:8 by scribal signs" like these but in some mss. there are actual "notations that state or suggest that what follows is not found in some witnesses," e.g. minuscule 199 (from the 12th century) says "in some of the copies this [the LE] is not found; rather, it stops here."<span id="up43"></span><b>[[#ref43|43]]</b> Some of these notes derive from common ancestors, but even counting archetypes there are numerous independent notations like this, and (as just noted above) many more indicators in other mss. ''besides'' these explicit scribal notations. This confirms that numerous root mss. lacked the LE. And though in some medieval mss. there are scribal notes claiming the LE is the older reading, by then it may have appeared to be—especially to medieval scribes, who only had a few mss. to compare and no knowledge of the modern science of textual criticism. <br />
In addition to scribal markings in many mss. and scribal notes in many other mss., some mss. (like minuscule 274, and several Syriac and Coptic mss., and in a similar way even Codex Regius, commonly known as manuscript L) add the SE in the margins as an alternate ending.<span id="up44"></span><b>[[#ref44|44]]</b> This also suggests knowledge of other now-lost mss. in which Mark ended only with the SE. The scribe of L is the most explicit, concluding Mark at 16:8 with a dotted line in one column, and then using the other column for endnotes stating that "some" mss. "also" had the SE (by itself) and that others had only the LE (and in each note providing the text of the respective ending), which could even mean L's exemplar had neither, but at the very least it means some mss. had the SE by itself. Similarly, the 7th century manuscript 083 ends with the SE and then adds a note "there is also this, appearing after 'and they were afraid'" and appends the LE. The SE and LE are even found attached in some mss. to the ending of Gospels ''other'' than Mark (usually Luke or John).<span id="up45"></span><b>[[#ref45|45]]</b> This is most peculiar, and a fact that may be a clue to the origin of the LE.<br />
<br />
===='''Ariston the Presbyter'''====<br />
<br />
In a 10th century Armenian ms. the LE is uniquely separated from the rest of the Gospel with a note saying 'of Ariston the Presbyter'. This note appears to have been added to that ms. by a later scholar in the 13th or 14th century, and thus could be a mere conjecture.<span id="up46"></span><b>[[#ref46|46]]</b> But it would be a strange thing to conjecture—in fact, the only plausible motive for anyone to scribble this in the margin would be their discovery that it was true. Although Metzger concludes "the probability that an Armenian" scribe of such late date "would have access to historically valuable tradition on this point is almost nil" ([[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''TNT'']], p. 325), that's not a sound argument, because it's even ''less'' probable that an Armenian scribe of ''any'' date would write such a note unless he ''did'' have a 'historically valuable tradition' confirming the very point being noted.<br />
<br />
The name most likely refers to Aristion, an early 2nd century Christian elder who may have written lost commentaries on the Gospels.<span id="up47"></span><b>[[#ref47|47]]</b> Some scholars conjecture instead that it refers to an 'Ariston' believed to be an actual disciple of Jesus, and thus (the note would be claiming) the LE was written by an eyewitness. Although passing his testimony off as Mark's would still be an act of forgery, it would also be foolish, since to pass off eyewitness testimony as instead the testimony of another author (Mark), whom everyone believed ''wasn't'' an eyewitness, would actually ''diminish'' that testimony's authority. There is thus no reason for any disciple to have done this, nor does the LE read at all like an eyewitness report (quite the contrary, as shown in [[#Content_Betrays_Knowledge_of_the_New_Testament|section 4.3]]). This conjecture is thereby implausible. There is no evidence to support it anyway.<br />
<br />
A 2nd century author is far more likely. There were two men of similar name around the same time (early-to-mid 2nd century): a certain Aristion the Elder, who (as noted above) may have written a commentary on the Gospels, and an Ariston of Pella, who composed a now-lost ''Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus the Jew'', which was known to Origen and Jerome and which many scholars suspect was employed by Justin Martyr. Either would explain any use Justin may have made of the LE, i.e. if the LE originally appeared in either of those works (the ''Commentaries'' of Aristion or the ''Dialogue'' of Ariston), Justin could have employed it without having any idea of it being passed off later as the ending of Mark (see [[#Justin|section 5.3.2]]).<br />
<br />
===='''Accidental or Deliberate Transfer'''====<br />
<br />
There is an actual commentary on the Gospels that does survive (from another author), on which Maurice Robinson observes, "the primary matter [in ms. 304] is the commentary. The gospel text is merely interspersed between the blocks of commentary material, and should not be considered the same as a 'normal' continuous-text MS. Also, it is often very difficult to discern the text in contrast to the comments" and "following ''gar'' at the close of [16:8], the MS has a mark like a filled-in 'o', followed by many pages of commentary, all of which ''summarize[s] the endings of the other gospels'' and even quote[s] portions of them" before continuing on (emphasis mine).<span id="up48"></span><b>[[#ref48|48]]</b> Note the eerie relevance of his remarks: it was often ''difficult'' to tell where the Gospel text ended and the commentary began, and commentaries on the Gospel of Mark naturally inspired commentators into ''summarizing the endings of the other gospels'', a perfect description of the LE. Could someone have deliberately (or even accidentally) copied out a paragraph from such a commentary and inserted it into an actual copy of the Gospel? Like, say, a commentary by an Aristion whom at least one medieval scholar had reason to believe originally wrote it?<br />
<br />
Even Bruce Metzger has suspected something like this, concluding that "in view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ''ad hoc'' to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century" ([[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''TCG'']], p. 125). A brief summary and harmonization of all the actual appearance narratives (from the other three Gospels and Acts), is exactly the sort of paragraph we might expect to find in a ''Commentary on the Stories of the Lord'' (such as Aristion may have written), or even in Ariston's ''Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus'', such as a summary of appearances from the extant Gospels placed in the mouth of the dialogue's Christian advocate Jason (which might even have been later mistaken as a quotation of the LE, once it had crept into some mss. of Mark). Its extraction and transfer to Mark would not be unheard of in ancient practice, particularly for someone keen on borrowing a more satisfying ending. This is all the more credible when we observe that the Western text, in which the LE first appears, typically placed Mark at the end of the Gospels, thus inviting the need to summarize (and harmonize) the appearances of the other Gospels that would all have just been read.<span id="up49"></span><b>[[#ref49|49]]</b><br />
<br />
This theory would explain every single oddity in the evidence: (1) it would explain the origin of the Armenian scholar's marginal note (only if he found the LE in its original context—whether an actual work by Ariston, or by some later author who clearly indicated deriving it from Ariston—would he be likely to have made a note attributing it to such an obscure author, especially an author who wrote early enough to actually be the LE's author, which is otherwise a remarkable coincidence); (2) it would explain the fact that the LE mysteriously became appended to other Gospels, not just Mark (as if originally it was not associated with Mark alone but all the Gospels, as a commentary would be—in fact, the passage may have originally been appended to the Gospels as a whole and thus became attached to whatever Gospel ended each individual collection, which in the majority Western text was the Gospel of Mark); (3) it would explain the fact that the LE shows no awareness of having just followed verses 16:1-8 (as noted in [[#Transition_Is_Illogical|section 4.1]]); (4) it would explain why the author of the LE made no notable effort to emulate Markan style (and yet exhibits influence from the style of all the texts of the NT, including Mark); (5) it would explain the LE's brief summarizing character and its evident harmonizing intent (the LE reads just like a paragraph taken out of context from a commentary on the Gospels, or even a dialogue in which their content was summarized); (6) it would explain the LE author's knowledge of the whole NT (and why he limits his summary of accounts to stories appearing only in the Canonical NT); (7) it would explain the LE author's manifest assumption that his readers must know or have access to the NT (especially if the LE appeared in a commentary on the Gospels or, as in the Western text, Mark was positioned at the end of them, for then those other stories would already be in the reader's hands—being, in fact, in the very same book); (8) it would explain why the OE-to-LE transition is both illogical and ungrammatical (which makes no sense for a deliberate forger of the LE but makes perfect sense if the LE was simply cut and pasted from another book); (9) it would explain why all the physical evidence in the mss. suggests the LE began as an appendix to Mark and not an actual continuation of Mark's narrative; (10) and, of course, it would explain why all the indications are that the manuscript tradition for Mark originally and widely lacked the LE.<br />
<br />
The LE therefore almost certainly derives from another work (whether of Aristion, Ariston, or someone else) and was transferred to the end of Mark and thus mistaken (or passed off) as Markan material.<br />
<br />
==='''The Patristic Evidence'''===<br />
<br />
That leaves only one more category of evidence: the Patristic. A major problem with relying on Patristic authority is that the manuscripts of the Church Fathers have ''themselves'' been doctored to reflect later canonical readings of the Bible. This is particularly a problem for the mss. of Irenaeus, which is thus a problem for the ending of Mark because Irenaeus is the ''only'' 2nd century author who clearly attests the existence of the LE.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The MS traditions of virtually all the church fathers show that later copyists tended to "correct" quotations of the Bible to the form of text prevalent in their own day. Consequently, Patristic writings that survive only in Medieval MSS or that are available only in uncritical editions, such as Migne's ''Patrologia Graeca'', are of practically no value for establishing the original wording of the NT.<span id="up50"></span><b>[[#ref50|50]]</b><br><br><br />
<br />
Before patristic evidence can be used with confidence, however, one must determine whether the true text of the ecclesiastical writer has been transmitted. As in the case of the New Testament manuscripts, so also the treatises of the fathers have been modified in the course of copying. The scribe was always tempted to assimilate scriptural quotations in the fathers to the form of the text that was current in the later manuscripts of the New Testament.<span id="up51"></span><b>[[#ref51|51]]</b></blockquote><br />
<br />
Quotations in the Church Fathers also commonly contradict each other and are in other ways notoriously unreliable. We even have some confirmed instances in which later Christian redactors added entire sentences or paragraphs to an earlier Patristic text.<span id="up52"></span><b>[[#ref52|52]]</b> While the manuscripts we have now exhibit several very different textual traditions of equal antiquity, only the Western Text (whose best extant representative is Codex Bezae, although it still deviates from the Western text-type in numerous ways) is most commonly used by early Patristic authors (especially Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian), "all of which are characterized by longer or shorter additions and by certain striking omissions," while other text-types, such as the Alexandrian, may be closer to the originals.<span id="up53"></span><b>[[#ref53|53]]</b> Patristic authors after the 4th century are also of no use in the present case, since we know the SE and LE were circulating as endings of Mark by then, and manuscripts containing them were growing more numerous thereafter, eventually eclipsing altogether the original text of Mark. Keeping all these cautions in mind, only the following authors are of use in evaluating how Mark originally ended.<br />
<br />
===='''Papias'''====<br />
<br />
Papias reported the miracle of Justus Barsabbas drinking poison and coming to no harm "by the grace of the Lord," which is sometimes cited as evidence Papias knew the LE (see [[#The_LE's_Use_of_the_NT|section 4.3.1]]). But in fact this entails Papias ''didn't'' know the LE, which further argues the LE did not exist in the Gospel of Mark at that time (early 2nd century). For Papias definitely knew the Gospel of Mark.<span id="up54"></span><b>[[#ref54|54]]</b> Yet he credits all this information to oral tradition, not the Gospel of Mark, and shows no knowledge of Jesus having predicted it (which surely he would mention) or that this was in any way a ''common'' sign among apostles. He instead appears to have reacted as though the effect were a surprise (uniquely "by the grace of God" and experienced by Barsabbas alone). Though we do not have a full direct quote from Papias to confirm these conclusions, they seem undeniably apparent from Eusebius' account of them. This then stands as evidence ''against'' the authenticity of the LE, not in favor of it. To the contrary, the LE's inclusion of immunity to poison may have been inspired by stories like this, not the other way around (see [[#Hippolytus|section 5.3.6]]).<br />
<br />
===='''Justin'''====<br />
<br />
The earliest author usually cited is Justin Martyr (c. 160 AD), but he provides no real evidence of the presence of the LE in Mark. In only one passage (''Apology'' 1.45.5) he uses together the same three words appearing in [[Mark 16|Mark 16:20]], but does not indicate he is quoting ''any'' Gospel there, much less Mark. Where Justin mentions the OT had predicted "the powerful word that His Apostles preached everywhere after having left Jerusalem," the "preached everywhere after having left" is all that echoes the LE, just three words in Greek and not even in the same order (the LE word ''logos'' is also used by Justin elsewhere in the same sentence but is common and expected here and thus not telltale). In contrast, the LE does not have the words 'Apostles' or 'Jerusalem', nor does Justin mention anything else that would suggest knowledge of the LE (such as the specific signs declared there, or even its appearances of Jesus). The similarity thus appears to be coincidental, or at most evidence of an idiom in wide use that separately influenced both Justin and the author of the LE (the predicted sentiment is already inherent in [[Luke 24|Luke 24:47-52]] and [[Acts 1|Acts 1:8]], as well as [[Matthew 28|Matthew 28:19]]). Moreover, even if we could consider this as evidence of the LE's influence on Justin, as noted in [[#The_Manuscripts:_Physical_Evidence|section 5.2]], Justin may have only known the LE in a text other than Mark. For Justin doesn't in fact say he is citing a Gospel, and everyone agrees he is not quoting one. Therefore, this passage cannot demonstrate the LE was in Mark at that time. Of course, even if it was, it could have been appended to copies of Mark in the early 2nd century, so even a direct quotation from Justin would be insufficient to establish the LE was ''originally'' in Mark. But we don't have any such quotation anyway.<span id="up55"></span><b>[[#ref55|55]]</b><br />
<br />
===='''Tatian'''====<br />
<br />
It's possible that Justin's pupil Tatian incorporated the LE in his ''Diatessaron'' (or 'Harmony of the Four Gospels') after 175 A.D. But we cannot confirm that this was originally the case, as we do not have Tatian's version of the ''Diatessaron''.<span id="up56"></span><b>[[#ref56|56]]</b> We know the ''Diatessaron'' had additions and changes made to it over the centuries, few versions agree, and the texts we have now date centuries after Tatian. For example, a famous interpolation in John (on the adulteress, [[John 7|John 7:53-8:11]]) was evidently not originally in the ''Diatessaron'', yet found its way in centuries later.<span id="up57"></span><b>[[#ref57|57]]</b> The LE may have done the same. In fact, different textual traditions have the LE incorporated into the ''Diatessaron'' in different ways. Other sections of the ''Diatessaron'' also differ among the various textual traditions. So it does look like the LE was added later by different editors in different ways. At best the earliest references to the LE being in the ''Diatessaron'' appear in the works of Aphraates and Ephrem in the mid-4th century (though these are to some extent questionable: see the footnote in [[#Aphraates,_Ephrem,_Ambrose|section 5.3.11]] below). But they also attest to many other interpolations in their copies of the ''Diatessaron'' (i.e. many passages that do not now exist—and certainly did not originate—in any of the four Canonical Gospels). Thus the ''Diatessaron'' had already become corrupt by then. It is therefore of little use in determining the origin of the LE. Moreover, even if Tatian incorporated the LE, that would only confirm that it had entered some mss. of Mark by mid-2nd century, which still would not establish that it was originally a part of Mark almost a hundred years earlier.<br />
<br />
===='''Tertullian'''====<br />
<br />
Supposed evidences of Tertullian's knowledge of the LE (c. 190 A.D.) are invalid because they can more easily derive from the other Gospel texts and Christian teachings that the LE itself drew upon. Passages from Tertullian exhibit no features distinctive of the LE, nor give any indication Tertullian is quoting anything, much less the Gospel of Mark. Tertullian, ''On the Soul'' 25.8 (seven demons expelled from Mary) derives from Luke; ''On the Cure for Heretics'' 30.16 (Apostles given powers) derives from Acts and the Epistles; ''On the Resurrection'' 51.1 and ''Against Praxeas'' 2.1 and 30.5 (Jesus rising to sit at the right hand of God) obviously derive from Acts 1:11 (and Mark 12:36 and 14:62), not the LE; likewise, ''On Fleeing Persecution'' 10.2 (believers given power over demons) can just as easily derive from Mark 6:7 and elsewhere. See table in [[#The_LE's_Use_of_the NT|section 4.3.1]] for obvious alternative sources. Other references are even less relevant, e.g. ''On Baptism'' 10.7 explicitly interprets a saying of John the Baptist, not Jesus, and conspicuously ''lacks'' reference to the Gospel of Mark; and Tertullian's remarks here otherwise doesn't resemble the LE at all, but merely echo standard Christian belief of the time. In other words, we can't argue from any of this evidence that Tertullian knew the LE. To the contrary, the absence of any direct reference in any of these passages to what Jesus says in the LE argues Tertullian ''didn't'' know the LE. For a declaration of Jesus on these facts would have clinched Tertullian's point in almost every case, which makes the ''absence'' of the LE in these passages far more telling. Nor can we argue from any of these passages that Tertullian knew the LE was in Mark, for like Justin, even if we could prove Tertullian knew the LE (and we can't), that would not prove he knew it as the ending of Mark, rather than as a text in some other work (see [[#The_Manuscripts:_Physical_Evidence|section 5.2]]).<br />
<br />
===='''Irenaeus'''====<br />
<br />
The only other relevant author from the 2nd century is Irenaeus (c. 185 AD). He appears to provide the only reliable evidence that the LE was in any copies of Mark in the 2nd century. But the mss. of Irenaeus are notoriously corrupt and problematic. He only mentions the LE once, and that in a passage that only survives in Latin translation, yet the Latin texts of Irenaeus are among those most tampered with. The claim has been made that Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 450 A.D.) quotes this passage in the original Greek, confirming that if it had been interpolated, it happened in the Greek before the Latin translation was made (which would certainly be possible). But this is not in fact true. Theodoret's quotation is from a previous section of Irenaeus, not this one.<span id="up58"></span><b>[[#ref58|58]]</b> It has also been claimed this passage is quoted in Greek in a marginal note added next to the LE in a medieval Bible, but that's also not true.<span id="up59"></span><b>[[#ref59|59]]</b> The scholium in question only says "Irenaeus, who was near to the apostles, in the third book against heresies quotes this saying as found in Mark." It does not quote the text of Irenaeus. As that ms. dates to the mid-10th century (and the author of it's marginalia dates no earlier than the 5th century), this testimony confirms nothing, for the referenced passage could be an interpolation made anytime in the two hundred years or more after Irenaeus wrote—even in the Greek, yet for all we know this scholar could be referring to a Latin text of Irenaeus.<span id="up60"></span><b>[[#ref60|60]]</b> So we have no Greek text of this passage. It exists only in the medieval Latin.<br />
<br />
Certainly, on its face we would still accept this passage as confirmation that Ireneaus' copy of Mark by the late 2nd century contained the LE. But there is a persuasive argument to be made that this passage was not written by Irenaeus but interpolated (at least within two or three centuries, or even later), quite possibly by accident. The passage looks like a marginal note added by a scribe intending to add to Irenaeus' arguments in that chapter. As there was no standard notation for distinguishing marginal notes from accidentally omitted text, we have countless examples of such notes being accidentally interpolated into the text of other manuscripts. This could be one such case. According to manuscript specialist F.W. Hall, "the casual jottings of readers and correctors are often imported into the text," hence in his manual on textual criticism he dedicates an entire section to "Insertion of interlinear or marginal glosses or notes" as a common cause of erroneous interpolation in manuscripts. Robert Renehan agrees, "marginal confusions...occur frequently in mss.," giving several examples (e.g. &sect; 35 shows several "marginal scholia which have been incorporated into the text" of the letters of Epicurus, in some cases entire sentences). In his own brief survey, Miroslav Marcovich documents at least 33 examples of this kind of mistake in the works of the early Church Fathers.<span id="up61"></span><b>[[#ref61|61]]</b><br />
<br />
To understand why the passage attesting the LE in Irenaeus may be an interpolation, the entire section must be quoted to reveal the flow of Irenaeus' argument, and why the LE does not appear to fit. Before this Irenaeus has spent an entire chapter arguing that Jesus is God and there is only one God in Jesus, extensively quoting the NT and OT, every instance confirming his thesis that he can find. He then concludes (emphasis added):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, ''make the paths straight before our God''." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as ''God'' and ''Lord''; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in "the spirit and power of Elijah," "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight paths before ''our God''." For the prophets did not announce one and another God, ''but one and the same'', under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attributes is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this, and as I shall show from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. <b>Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God," confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."</b> Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same: He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel, whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.<br />
<br />
(Irenaeus, ''Against All Heresies'' 3.10.5)</blockquote><br />
<br />
Note that before the sentence in bold, Irenaeus appears already to have concluded his argument. Yet then, out of the blue, he adds, as if an afterthought, "Also..." and quotes [[Mark 16|Mark 16:19]] as verifying [[Psalms 110|Psalms 110:1]] (which had already been verified, and by Jesus himself, in [[Mark 12|Mark 12:35-37]]). Even more strangely, in none of this additional sentence does the word 'Father' appear, yet this passage is supposed to support Irenaeus's argument that 'thus God and the Father' are one and the same, because this is the argument of the preceding sentence, ''and'' the conclusion declared in the ''following'' sentence. If the material in bold is removed, we have a consistent argument from premise to conclusion. But reinsert the material in bold and there is an illogical disconnect between the argument Irenaeus is supposed to be making, and the passage being quoted—because that passage does not support this argument. <br />
<br />
So why is it here? It would make sense as an addition to the whole theme of chapters 9 through 12, but it makes no sense appearing exactly here. And even though his section 3.10.5 is where we would expect all his quotations from Mark to appear, this particular quotation still does not fit the specific argument Irenaeus is making. It would support only a different argument, albeit one that would reinforce his ''overall'' thesis, and thus should appear as a separate argument either before or after the present one, not inexplicably inserted in the middle of it. But a scholar who wished to add reinforcing evidence from Mark to Irenaeus' overall theme would certainly place it in the margins of section 3.10.5, if he would place it anywhere. Which would explain how it later came to be so arbitrarily inserted into the text.<br />
<br />
In further support of this conclusion, Irenaeus knows that his argument from [[Mark 1|Mark 1:1-3]] requires considerable elucidation (consisting of several sentences), but the comparably required elucidation of his supposed argument from [[Mark 16|Mark 16:19]] is missing. As written, the text in bold actually refutes rather than supports Irenaeus, for it plainly says Jesus was a different entity from God (sitting next to him, not in his place, and addressing each other in the third person), and it is not explained how the Psalm quoted makes any different conclusion out of this. Irenaeus would have needed to explain the connections here: how the Psalm supports reinterpreting [[Mark 16|Mark 16:19]] as a confirmation rather than refutation of the thesis that Jesus and God are one and the same. He would certainly have called into service [[Mark 12|Mark 12:35-37]], and explicitly identified the links we are supposed to make between the different Lords named and God and the Messiah and why we are to presume David is speaking of the latter in [[Psalms 110|Psalm 110:1]]. Yet none of this is present. A marginal note would easily consist of a single sentence, leaving the connecting arguments implied, but Irenaeus himself would not likely deliver such a presumptuous and unfinished argument, especially one so manifestly supporting his opponents (the heretics he is here engaged in refuting). The fact that it doesn't even support the argument it is attached to only confirms the conclusion that Irenaeus didn't write this. I conclude this testimony is probably spurious.<br />
<br />
Another passage in Irenaeus is sometimes adduced as evidence he knew the LE, but the passage in question actually argues ''against'' such knowledge.<span id="up62"></span><b>[[#ref62|62]]</b> For it neither quotes the LE, nor uses the same vocabulary as the LE, nor even implies he is drawing any information from the Gospels at all—for he is providing his ''own'' description of current activity in the Church, which he lists not as exorcism, speaking in tongues, immunity to poison, and healing, but exorcism, prophecy, healing, and resurrecting the dead (and each described elaborately), thus showing no congruity with the LE. His list simply reflects common Christian practice and belief at the time.<span id="up63"></span><b>[[#ref63|63]]</b> And since his point is that these powers prove the Christian gospel true, the fact that ''Jesus himself had said so'' ([[Mark 16|16:17-18]]: "these signs shall accompany them that believe," thereby confirming the truth of the gospel) would so soundly secure his argument that for him to neglect citing it here is patently strange. This all but proves he did not know the LE. Similarly, Irenaeus mentions "speaking with all kinds of tongues" as a power Christians displayed, but only far away from this list, in a completely different book, showing no awareness that this was ever predicted by Jesus, much less in the same place as healing and exorcism. The phenomenon is already ubiquitously discussed in the Epistles and obviously still going on, so this passage does not attest knowledge of the LE. Indeed, again, this argues against such knowledge, since here as elsewhere he fails to associate the powers listed in the LE, and fails to mention that these powers were predicted by Christ himself. That he never shows any knowledge of 'immunity to snakes and poison' being a power any Christians should or did have only confirms the point. So from these passages as well it seems much more likely that Irenaeus did not know of the LE.<br />
<br />
===='''Hippolytus'''====<br />
<br />
Hippolytus (c. 210 A.D.) refers to eaters of the Eucharist becoming immune to poison, which is said to demonstrate knowledge of the LE, but it cannot be anything of the kind.<span id="up64"></span><b>[[#ref64|64]]</b> It neither quotes the LE, nor mentions snakes, nor even attributes the claim to Jesus, despite the supreme authority this would establish. And unlike the LE, Hippolytus associates the power with the eucharist, not baptism. Since other tales of immunity to poison were already circulating (see [[#Content_Betrays_Knowledge_of_the_New_Testament|sections 4.3]] and [[#Papias|5.3.1]]), the LE is not the only possible source of Hippolytus' claim. In fact, given the incongruities, it's the ''least'' likely source for it. Instead, unless the author of the LE was making that claim up out of whole cloth (and thus the claim is completely false, which then refutes inerrancy), the author of the LE must have been drawing on independent traditions regarding immunity to poison, which traditions could just as well be what informed Hippolytus. And even if there was no such tradition, an inference to this same conclusion from [[Luke 10|Luke 10:19]] would be as obvious to Hippolytus as to the author of the LE (see [[#The_LE's_Use_of_the_NT|section 4.3.1]]), so knowledge of the LE would not be required (and by his associating the power with the eucharist rather than baptism, his knowledge of the LE should even be rejected). Other alleged references to the LE in Hippolytus are nothing of the kind, e.g. that Jesus sat on the right hand of God (''Treatise on Christ and Antichrist'' 46) derives from Luke-Acts (and elsewhere). Thus, there is nothing in Hippolytus that confirms the LE even existed, much less was known as the ending of Mark.<br />
<br />
===='''Origen, Clement, and Other 3rd Century Authors'''====<br />
<br />
There are a large number of Christian authors from 100-300 A.D. who never mention the LE, which taken together is significant but not compelling (since many NT verses are likewise unattested but still certainly authentic). But most telling is the silence of Origen and Clement (c. 200-230 A.D.), who each left us a huge corpus erudite with discussions and quotations of the Gospels. Similarly other copious authors, like Tertullian and Cyprian, erroneously believed to have attested the LE, in fact very curiously did not. Likewise Lactantius, despite his having written extensive treatises on Christian abilities and beliefs. Though it is always possible they just never happened to strike upon an occasion to reference the LE, given the vast extent of their respective writings this at least approaches the improbable, the more so when combined with the silence of all other authors before the 4th century (apart from, at most, Irenaeus, per [[#Irenaeus|section 5.3.5]]).<br />
<br />
Clement actually had credible occasions to quote the LE yet didn't (e.g. ''Stromata'' 4.6; ''On the Rich Man'' 34; ''Comments on the Epistle of Jude''; etc.). So his silence is notable, even if still not conclusive. Tertullian might likewise be expected to cite the LE in several passages yet doesn't (e.g. ''Against Marcion'' 5.8; ''Exhortation to Chastity'' 4; and the passages noted in [[#Tertullian|section 5.3.4]]). Cyprian, too (see [[#Vincentius_(via_Cyprian)|section 5.3.8]]). Origen also had occasion to quote or address the LE in his extensive treatise ''Against Celsus'' (e.g. 1.6, 1.67, 2.48, 2.56-70, etc.), but most especially where he had to rebut Celsus' claim that Mary was insane. Some now claim Celsus was there referring to Mary having once been possessed by demons (and hence ''he'' must be referring to [[Mark 16|Mark 16:9]]), but the context disproves this. In ''Against Celsus'' 2.55 Origen tells us Celsus said only two people saw the ''wounds'' Jesus had suffered, one woman who was ''paroistros'' ("driven frantic; beside herself" or "half-mad; practically insane") and one other man ("from among those engaged in the same charlatanry"). This is clearly the scene in John (the one man being Thomas), not the LE, which contains no reference to seeing wounds, nor any appearance to a single man. Origen assumes nothing else in his rebuttal (in 2.59-62). In fact, Origen's most direct rebuttal (in 2.60) is that Celsus' claim that Mary was insane is "a statement which is not made by the history recording the fact" but a calumny entirely made up by Celsus. That suggests neither Celsus nor Origen knew of [[Mark 16|Mark 16:9]], which ''would'' be a historical record of the fact (directly declaring her an ex-demoniac). Moreover, Celsus would surely have lambasted the Gospel of Mark for including other material in the LE (such as its claim of immunity to poisons and snakes), compelling Origen to make a rebuttal. Yet instead all Celsus attacks is the account in John. So the silence here argues the LE was not known to Celsus, and it supports (though does not prove) the LE was not known to Origen.<span id="up65"></span><b>[[#ref65|65]]</b><br />
<br />
===='''Vincentius (via Cyprian)'''====<br />
<br />
Cyprian reports that in 256 A.D. bishop Vincentius of Thibaris had said at a council that the Lord "commanded his apostles, saying, 'Go ye, lay on hands in my name, expel demons'. And in another place: 'Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'." But the latter is an exact quotation of [[Matthew 28|Matthew 28:19]], while the former is ''not'' an exact quotation of [[Mark 16|Mark 16:17]]: the LE does not have Jesus giving this as a command (but rather as promising it as a sign, and descriptively in the third person, not in the imperative; the imperative is only used for his command to go and preach the gospel two verses earlier), and in the LE Jesus does not link laying on hands and the expelling of demons, but connects laying on hands and healing (a whole verse later). Hence Vincentius must be quoting some other lost Gospel or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrapha agrapha], or some tertiary source that conflated the contents of the LE (which, as already noted in previous sections, could have originated in some source other than Mark, and probably in the early-to-mid 2nd century), or he is conflating several passages from the NT (e.g. [[Mark 6|Mark 6:7-13]] and [[Mark 9|9:38-40]] and [[Acts 14|Acts 14:3]], cf. also [[Luke 10|Luke 10:17]] and [[Luke 9|9:49-50]]). Since Vincentius does not say this passage is in Mark (or even a Gospel) and the quoted words do not match those of the LE, we can derive no conclusion from this that the LE was then in Mark. To the contrary, that none of the many dozens of bishops quoted on the role and importance of baptism in this text ever quote the LE is rather an argument ''against'' anyone knowing it as scripture even by the middle of the 3rd century.<span id="up66"></span><b>[[#ref66|66]]</b><br />
<br />
===='''Other Dubious Witnesses Before the 4th Century'''====<br />
<br />
Other documents from the 2nd century have been proposed as witnesses to the LE, but none are credible. The ''Epistle of Barnabas'' 15:9, which quotes no Gospel, merely says Jesus ascended the day he rose, which claim derives from Luke. Similarly ''Hermas'' 102 (Parable 9.25.2) contains common phrases shared with [[Mark 16|Mark 16:15]], but used in a different way, in no similar order or even together, and without any indication of deriving any of this from any source, much less a Gospel (to the contrary, it is there portrayed as a direct communication from an angel). Like the reference in Justin (see [[#Justin|section 5.3.2]]), this only looks like a common set of idioms and phrases in Christian preaching (derived from Gospel passages ''other'' than the LE: see table in [[#The_LE's_Use_of_the_NT|section 4.3.1]]), which independently influenced Hermas, Justin, and the author of the LE. Similarly, the last verses of the extant fragment of the Gospel of Peter (vv. 58-60) do not attest the LE but in fact contradict it, saying there were twelve, not eleven disciples, no appearance to Mary, and Jesus doesn't appear to the disciples indoors at dinner, but outdoors in Galilee. All the contents of this passage are more clearly adapted from [[John 21|John 21]] (or a common source shared by John 21) and possibly other passages tabulated in [[#The_LE's_Use_of_the_NT|section 4.3.1]].<br />
<br />
The 3rd century ''Didascalia'' has one passage that comes close to the LE, reading (in Syriac), "But when we had divided the whole world into twelve parts, and were gone forth among the Gentiles into all the world to preach the word, then Satan set about and stirred up the People to send after us false apostles for the undoing of the word." But this is clearly not a quotation of the LE (Jesus is not even the one speaking), and it conspicuously does not conform to [[Mark 16|Mark 16:15]] or [[Mark 16|16:20]]. It appears to merely embellish [[Matthew 28|Matthew 28:19]], or simply derives from Justin (see [[#Justin|section 5.3.2]]).<span id="up67"></span><b>[[#ref67|67]]</b> Several passages in the anonymous ''Epistula Apostolorum'' (originally composed mid-2nd century) likewise bear no demonstrable connection to the LE (deriving instead from the other Gospels), and we have no reliable text of the latter anyway, only distant translations of it.<span id="up68"></span><b>[[#ref68|68]]</b> And the extant portion of the ''Acts of Pilate'' that clearly employs the LE is unmistakably late. Some form of the ''Acts of Pilate'' may derive from the early 2nd century, but such cannot have been the text that cites the LE. Justin refers to the Acts of Pilate (in ''Apology'' 1.35.9 and 1.48.3), but the only part of the extant Acts of Pilate that could be of such early date is the appendix called ''The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius'' which lacks any reference to the LE, yet contains all the material Justin claims to have found there. All other content of the extant ''Acts of Pilate'' dates from the late 4th century and later. So it is also of no use in answering the present question.<span id="up69"></span><b>[[#ref69|69]]</b><br />
<br />
===='''Eusebius'''====<br />
<br />
So that leaves us with the 4th century and later. The next relevant author is therefore Eusebius (c. 320 A.D.). In his ''Letter to Marinus'' (a.k.a. ''Ad Marinum'') Eusebius specifically addresses the authenticity of the LE. He says "it is not current in all the copies," and in fact not only do "the accurate copies" end at verse 16:8, but "nearly all the copies" do, the LE only "being rarely found in some copies." Eusebius was a renowned publisher of Bibles, supervised a scriptorium, and had charge of the most extensive Christian library then in the world, whose members had actively sought the gathering of countless manuscripts of the Bible on an ongoing basis for over a century (from Origen to Pamphilus to Eusebius himself), and Eusebius' authority on the Biblical text was universally accepted by his peers and successors. So the fact that he observed the LE to be rare, and not present at all in the most trusted manuscripts, proves that the later mss. tradition, in which most copies contain the LE, is a later medieval development. <br />
<br />
This testimony supports the conclusion that the LE is not original to Mark, but was interpolated in only a few mss. sometime before the 4th century. The Eusebian Canons also exclude the LE, so Eusebius himself considered it non-canonical.<span id="up70"></span><b>[[#ref70|70]]</b> And there is no valid basis for rejecting his testimony. He had seen vastly more manuscripts of the first three centuries than any modern scholar could ever hope to, and thus we are in no position to gainsay him. No early witness contradicts his testimony. And even if he could be exaggerating, he can't be lying, since Jerome corroborates him (see [[#Jerome_and_Later|section 5.3.12]]), and Jerome would know, having extensive experience with even more manuscripts than Eusebius. In fact, were the evidence any different Eusebius would have defended the LE's authenticity, not doubted it, much less have supported that doubt with a lie. We must conclude Eusebius has given us a sufficiently accurate report on the state of the LE text. Eusebius shows no knowledge at all of the SE.<br />
<br />
Eusebius' testimony alone is clear and authoritative, at least establishing the existence of the LE as of c. 300 A.D. Had it originated any later, Eusebius would have been aware of its recent appearance, but he shows no certainty as to its origin, so it can't have been composed and inserted later than the 3rd century. Accordingly, I find none of the later patristic attestations of any relevance. They merely repeat what we already know from Eusebius. Some even appear to have been using Eusebius as their source on the matter.<span id="up71"></span><b>[[#ref71|71]]</b> Kelhoffer even shows how a remark attributed (possibly pseudonymously) to the 6th century author Victor of Antioch deviously rewrites the same argument from ''Ad Marinum'' into an argument for exactly the opposite conclusion, thus betraying knowledge of the ''Ad Marinum'' in the very effort to gainsay it. This very same passage from Pseudo(?)-Victor then confesses to having ''added'' the LE to manuscripts that lacked it! We can thus see how the LE came to proliferate in copies of Mark and the OE eclipsed.<span id="up72"></span><b>[[#ref72|72]]</b><br />
<br />
===='''Aphraates, Ephrem, Ambrose'''====<br />
<br />
A certain Aphraates composed a collection of ''Demonstrations'' in Syriac, the relevant portion of which in 337 A.D. We don't have the originals, only much later copies, so we can't be sure he actually quoted the LE. Aphraates was employing the ''Diatessaron'' in some form. Ephrem the Syrian then composed a Syriac commentary on the ''Diatessaron'' about forty years later (c. 375 A.D.). Again we lack the originals and have only much later copies. Both seem to quote the LE and attest its presence in their copies of the ''Diatessaron'' (though one might still have doubts: see the following note). But we already know the LE had crept into copies of Mark by then (see [[#Eusebius|section 5.3.10]]). So it could just as easily have also crept into the ''Diatessaron'' (see [[#Tatian|section 5.3.3]] above). Neither author, therefore, affords any useful evidence regarding the origin of the LE.<span id="up73"></span><b>[[#ref73|73]]</b><br />
<br />
Ambrose (c. 375 A.D.) also unmistakably quotes the LE. But this again post-dates Eusebius, and Eusebius already attests the existence of the LE in some mss. of Mark.<span id="up74"></span><b>[[#ref74|74]]</b> Although Ambrose never specifies what document he knew the LE from (and though he quotes it many times, he only ever quotes exactly the same section: vv. 15-18), from the evidence of Eusebius we can assume Ambrose found it in a copy of Mark and regarded it as of that Gospel. This and all later examples in Patristic sources afford no further evidence, as they merely corroborate what has already been proved: that after the 3rd century copies of Mark were circulating that ended with the LE.<br />
<br />
===='''Jerome and Later'''====<br />
<br />
The next relevant author is Jerome (late 4th century). In his ''Letter to Hedybia'' (''Epistles'' 120.3) Jerome explicitly says essentially the same thing Eusebius did: the LE is not in most mss. and in none of the best (and he also shows no knowledge of the SE at all). He is almost certainly relying on Eusebius for this. But he would have known if Eusebius' observation was at all dubious, since Jerome's own acquaintance with the mss. was unrivaled in his day. So by approving what Eusebius said Jerome in fact corroborates him. Elsewhere Jerome says the VLE appears in some mss., especially in Greek mss., thus attesting the VLE was forged sometime in the 4th century (and thus barely one or two centuries after the LE itself was interpolated).<span id="up75"></span><b>[[#ref75|75]]</b><br />
<br />
Everything else after Eusebius is useless, only verifying what we already know: that by the 4th century the LE was circulating in some copies of Mark. The ''Apostolic Constitutions'' (''AC'') are of the late 4th century and thus of no use. Indeed, their primary source document, the 3rd century ''Didascalia'', lacks any quotation of the LE (see [[#Other_Dubious_Witnesses_Before_the_4th_Century|section 5.3.9]]). Hence those elements were added to the ''AC'' later, exactly when the LE was circulating in copies of Mark.<span id="up76"></span><b>[[#ref76|76]]</b> Later in the 5th century, Hesychius appears to reject the LE without argument (though only in a vague context), while in the 6th century Severus (in a work once attributed to Hesychius) essentially just repeats what Eusebius said about it (see section [[#Eusebius|section 5.3.10]] above). Since unlike Jerome their vast knowledge of the mss. is not established, their testimony doesn't independently corroborate Eusebius. The same goes for all subsequent Patristic sources.<span id="up77"></span><b>[[#ref77|77]]</b> All other texts attesting to the LE (e.g. the late appendix added to the ''Pistis Sophia'', which itself is in no way earlier than the late 4th century) are of such late date as to have no use in deciding the question. We know some copies of Mark ended with the LE in the 4th century, and this version began thereafter to gain in popularity. Hence further evidence only attests to what we already know. There is no other relevant evidence.<br />
<br />
==='''Assessment of External Evidence'''===<br />
<br />
From the Patristic evidence we can say with certainty that if the LE existed in the 2nd century, it was extremely rare and hardly anyone knew of it. And there is good reason to believe it was not then known as a part of Mark at all. The only evidence of such is a single passage in Irenaeus (which we have seen is of questionable authenticity) and its use in the ''Diatessaron'' (of which we have no 2nd century copies but only later corrupted ones). Only by the 4th century can we be certain it was clearly known, and known as an ending to Mark, yet even then it was explicitly known to be rare. Eusebius' account, paraphrased or gainsaid by many authors thereafter, is fairly damning: he certainly had access to numerous mss., and it was his observation that most mss. lacked the LE and that none of the mss. he trusted as the most reliable contained it. He does't even know about the SE.<br />
<br />
Such was the state of the matter in the early 4th century. More than half a century later Jerome approvingly echoes Eusebius on this point. But we know Jerome also had access to numerous mss. and was a famous philologer and linguist (himself producing the Vulgate translation of the Bible still used by the Catholic Church and discussing in his letters many manuscripts and variants), so he would not have echoed Eusebius if he did not observe the same still to be true. Only in later centuries did the LE become increasingly more common, eventually eclipsing nearly all mss. that lacked it, even gradually leaking back into all foreign translations in the middle ages. The evidence of the manuscripts (particularly in the myriad early traditions of translation) corroborates this sequence (see sections [[#The_Manuscripts:_Textual_Evidence|5.1]] and [[#The_Manuscripts:_Physical_Evidence|5.2]]). Hence "what became the majority reading in the Middle Ages started out as a minority reading," which indicates the LE was not in the original.<span id="up78"></span><b>[[#ref78|78]]</b><br />
<br />
Before the 4th century, none of the evidence that has been touted actually attests to the LE at all, much less as the ending of Mark, except one single reference in Irenaeus. Which by that very fact comes under suspicion. How could no one else ever show any awareness of Mark ending with the LE for nearly two whole centuries, except Irenaeus alone? Indeed, even more inexplicably, he is even represented as taking it for granted, as an undisputed fact, as if he knew of no mss. that lacked the LE and it therefore was in everyone's copy of the Bible—everyone who themselves failed to notice it. And that despite the fact that Eusebius informs us it was a rarely found reading a century later. It can easily be just luck that no one else who knew of it found occasion to reference it. But this and all other evidence still weighs against this reference in Irenaeus being authentic, and when we combine that fact with the actual evidence of that reference being a later interpolation (and thus not by the hand of Irenaeus after all), it carries force (as shown in [[#Irenaeus|section 5.3.5]]). And even if we accept that passage's authenticity, it can only establish that the LE had been appended to some copies of Mark by 185 A.D., not that it originated with Mark over a century earlier, much less was widely known as the ending of Mark. To the contrary, the most likely way no one else could know of it ''and'' the majority of mss. a century later lack it is if it did ''not'' originate with Mark.<br />
<br />
The correct theory must explain why so many diverse mss. lack the LE—which means not just the extant ones that do ([[#The_Manuscripts:_Textual_Evidence|section 5.1]]), but all the ones we know must have ([[#The_Manuscripts:_Physical_Evidence|5.2]], corroborated by Eusebius and Jerome: sections [[#Eusebius|5.3.10]] and [[#Jerome_and_Later|5.3.12]]). This includes the evidence of the large number of extant mss. that append the LE to the SE, or indicate it as an uncommon reading; the evidence of the many early translation traditions, which entail that several root mss. (the mss. on which the original translations were made) lacked the LE; the evidence of the earliest extant mss. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the Greek, Bobiensis and Vercellensis in the Latin), which all lack the LE; the evidence of the earliest extant Gospel texts (Matthew and Luke both follow Mark closely up to verse 6:8 but then deviate wildly, confirming that even they didn't know the LE); and the evidence of Eusebius and Jerome who both attest directly to the fact that most mss. lacked the LE (again, sections [[#Eusebius|5.3.10]] and [[#Jerome_and_Later|5.3.12]]). Though all of this is ''possible'' if the LE were original and lost very early, all of it would be far more ''likely'' if the LE was added later. When this conclusion is combined with the internal evidence, the case against the LE is decisive.<br />
<br />
Either way, the LE has no sound Patristic support as being original to Mark. Meanwhile the SE has no support from the Church Fathers at all (Marcus, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MNT'']], p. 1089).<br />
<br />
=='''Conclusion'''==<br />
<br />
Kelhoffer argues (in [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']]) that the LE was composed between 120-150 A.D. and possibly originated in a text other than Mark and was transferred. Other scholars have concluded the same. And I have presented considerable evidence supporting this conclusion. However, none of the evidence, even that Kelhoffer presents, establishes the conclusion that the LE had already been appended to Mark by the end of the 2nd century. As I have argued, even the testimony of Irenaeus and the ''Diatessaron'' are doubtful. However, it's certainly possible. The LE must have become appended to a copy of Mark at least by the end of the 3rd century, and there is no reason to suppose this can't have happened in the 2nd century. And whenever it occurred, all the same evidence confirms that this is indeed what happened: the LE was appended to Mark, a century or more after Mark was originally written. The style, logic, and content of the LE all demonstrate against Markan authorship, indeed decisively even by themselves, the more so together ([[#The_Internal_Evidence|section 4]]). The manuscript evidence and even the Patristic evidence strongly confirm this conclusion in every respect ([[#The_External_Evidence|section 5]]). And all the leading experts agree ([[#The_Principal_Scholarship|section 3]]). There is therefore no rational basis for believing the LE was written by Mark. Yet it is presented as such and appears as such in the canonical Bible. The authenticity of the SE is even more indefensible. We have seen ample evidence to confirm it is a forgery, and all experts are now unanimous that it is. Thus, whether the LE or SE or both, canonical Mark contains a forgery. This conclusively proves the Bible is not inerrant but contains at least one egregious interpolation, falsely represented as original text, which can be neither true nor inspired.<br />
<br />
=='''Notes & References'''==<br />
<br />
<span id="ref1"></span>[[#up1|1]] Yes, some Christians actually defend the ''forgery'' as inspired (mainly Pentecostals who desperately need the snake handling pronouncement to be true), because they confess the evidence that it ''is'' a forgery is simply beyond any reasonable challenge (a noteworthy confession indeed): e.g. "'And the Signs Are Following': Mark 16.9-20—A Journey into Pentecostal Hermeneutics," John Christopher Thomas and Kimberly Ervin Alexander, ''Journal of Pentecostal Theology'' 11.2 (2003): pp. 147-170.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref2"></span>[[#up2|2]] For other common examples of forgeries and interpolations, see the relevant sections of Bart Ehrman, ''Jesus, Interrupted'' (2009) and ''Misquoting Jesus'' (2005), and Paul Tobin, ''The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus'' (2006).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref3"></span>[[#up3|3]] Helmut Koester, "The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century," in William Petersen, ed., ''Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission'' (1989), pp. 19-27.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref4"></span>[[#up4|4]] Quoted by Daniel Wallace, "[http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/GTJ-NT/Wallace-Inspiration-GTJ.pdf Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism]," ''Grace Theological Journal'' 12.1 (1992): p. 44 [pp. 21-50], available as of August 2009 at Ted Hildebrandt's site at Gordon College.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref5"></span>[[#up5|5]] Many manuscripts omit "in their hands" in verse 18, so I have placed those words in brackets, as having a 50/50 shot at being a later addition or original to the LE. One very late manuscript even omits the entire reference to serpents, but that was later doctrinal meddling; the original LE certainly included it. Some rare manuscripts containing the SE say "Jesus himself ''appeared'' [and] sent out" the word or "Jesus himself ''appeared to them'' [and] sent out" the word, but all scholars agree these are later interpolations (the added words are missing from almost all mss., especially the oldest and the best). There are a few even rarer manuscript deviations of little importance (in both the SE and LE), but discussing them further is unnecessary for the present thesis. Note also that some scholars confusingly call the OE the SE. Here the terms will be consistently employed as I have defined them. But that doesn't mean I'm certain the OE was in fact the way the Gospel originally ended, only that among biblical experts it is most commonly (but not universally) thought to be.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref6"></span>[[#up6|6]] Only one extant ms. clearly contains the SE alone (the Latin Codex Bobiensis, see [[#The_BE|section 2.2]]). Others that may have are ambiguous as to their original condition.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref7"></span>[[#up7|7]] The ms. literally reads "truth power" (both words framing "to comprehend God's"), which is ungrammatical and thus corrupt. Some scholars suggest "and" has been dropped ("to comprehend God's truth [and] power") but the word order makes this less likely than a corruption of ''al&ecirc;thin&ecirc;n'' into ''al&ecirc;theian'' (hence "true power").<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The full Greek of the VLE reads: ''kakeinoi apelogounto legontes hoti ho ai&ocirc;n houtos t&ecirc;s anomias kai t&ecirc;s apistias hupo ton Satanan estin, ho m&ecirc; e&ocirc;n ta hupo t&ocirc;n pneumat&ocirc;n akatharta t&ecirc;n al&ecirc;theian tou theou katalabesthai dunamin, dia touto apokalupson sou t&ecirc;n dikaiosun&ecirc;n &ecirc;d&ecirc;. ekeinoi elegon t&ocirc; Christ&ocirc;, kai ho Christos ekeinois proselegen hoti pepl&ecirc;r&ocirc;tai ho horos t&ocirc;n et&ocirc;n t&ecirc;s exousias tou Satana, alla eggizei alla deina kai huper h&ocirc;n eg&ocirc; hamart&ecirc;sant&ocirc;n paredoth&ecirc;n eis thanaton hina hupostreps&ocirc;sin eis t&ecirc;n al&ecirc;theian kai m&ecirc;keti hamart&ecirc;s&ocirc;sin, hina t&ecirc;n en t&ocirc; ouran&ocirc; pneumatik&ecirc;n kai aphtharton t&ecirc;s dikaiosun&ecirc;s doxan kl&ecirc;ronom&ecirc;s&ocirc;sin. alla [poreuthentes eis ton kosmon hapanta k&ecirc;ruxate to euaggelion pas&ecirc; t&ecirc; ktisei]''. The last bracketed clause is identical to the LE text.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref8"></span>[[#up8|8]] Unless otherwise noted I rely on the critical edition of the Greek text provided by Barbara Aland, Bruce Metzger, et al., ''The Greek New Testament'', 4th Revised ed. (1983). See pp. 189-92 for the endings of Mark (and p. 191, n. 6 for the VLE, on which also see C.R. Gregory, ''Das Freer-Logion'' (1908)). This includes an apparatus distinguishing which endings appear in which manuscripts (hereafter mss.), although in other cases I have found the apparatus of this edition frequently omits variants that I have personally seen even in the mss. they attest to using, which means such omissions may also exist here (so we should not assume their apparatus is complete).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref9"></span>[[#up9|9]] A fact well summarized by Daniel Wallace in Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']] (see section 3), pp. 33-38; cf. also Darrell Bock, ibid., pp. 134-37.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref10"></span>[[#up10|10]] See the Wikipedia entry on "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bobiensis Codex Bobiensis]," with Metzger, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''TNT'']], p. 73. My translation is adapted from William Lane, ''The Gospel according to Mark'' (1974), p. 582, n. 3, and the original Latin.<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Latin text of the BE reads: ''Subito autem ad horam tertiam tenebrae diei factae sunt per totum orbem terrae, et descenderunt de caelis angeli et surgent in claritate vivi Dei simul ascenderunt cum eo, et continuo lux facta est. Tunc illae accesserunt ad monimentum''.<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Literally this says the angels "descended from heaven and rose up in the splendor of the living God ascended with him" but that is oddly stated and grammatically incorrect. Almost certainly the middle verb has been corrupted in transmission, from a singular to a plural. The original must have had something like ''surgente eo'' rather than ''sergent'', and my translation reflects this. The phrase ''surgente eo'' is the ablative absolute for "as he rose up" and such a construction and sense is entirely expected here, or possibly it was ''sergente iu'', as the ablative ''Iesu'' was often thus abbreviated among the ''nomina sacra'' even in early Latin mss., while the Greek (if this interpolation derives from a Greek source) would have used the genitive absolute (with the very same abbreviation ''iu''), in which case this verse said "as Jesus rose up."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref11"></span>[[#up11|11]] Wieland Willker, "[http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, Vol. 2b: The Various Endings of Mark]," 6th ed. (2009), part of Wilker's extensive "[http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/ Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels]."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref12"></span>[[#up12|12]] As of October 2009 the best discussion at Wikipedia is "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Mark_16:9.E2.80.9320_in_the_manuscript_tradition Mark 16:9–20 in the manuscript tradition]."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref13"></span>[[#up13|13]] For example, the most extensive attempt to argue the LE was and is the original ending of Mark (and thus not a forgery) is still that of William Farmer, ''The Last Twelve Verses of Mark'' (1974), but his arguments have been refuted many times over by the scholars just listed. Some of his more egregious errors had already been noted in J.N. Birdsall's review of Farmer's book in ''The Journal of Theological Studies'' (n.s.) 26 (1975): pp. 151-60. Similarly, a recent debate pitting scholars pro and con reads decisively in favor of the negative (Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']]; see Bock's assessment therein, pp. 124-41). And other surveys come to essentially the same conclusion, e.g. Steven Cox, ''A History and Critique of Scholarship Concerning the Markan Endings'' (1993).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref14"></span>[[#up14|14]] Bruce Terry, "[http://www.bterry.com/articles/mkendsty.htm The Style of the Long Ending of Mark]," originally published as "Another Look at the Ending of Mark," ''Firm Foundation'' 93 (14 Sept. 1976).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref15"></span>[[#up15|15]] For a general discussion of the principles of stylistic forgery detection see: Donald Foster, ''Author Unknown: Tales of a Literary Detective'' (2000) and Robert Eagleson, "Forensic Analysis of Personal Written Texts: A Case Study," in ''Language and the Law'', ed. by John Gibbons (1994): pp. 362-73. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref16"></span>[[#up16|16]] See, for example, the studies of Randel Helms, ''Gospel Fictions'' (1988) and Dennis MacDonald, ''The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark'' (2000).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref17"></span>[[#up17|17]] Ezra Gould, ''Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark'' (1896), p. 303.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref18"></span>[[#up18|18]] Ezra Gould, op. cit., pp. 301-03. Analysis of several of these stylistic incongruities has been repeated by several scholars since, generating an overall consensus: e.g. Paul Danove, "Determination of the Extent of the Text of the Gospel of Mark," ''The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological Study'' (1993): pp. 119-31; James Keith Elliott, "The Text and Language of the Endings to Mark's Gospel," ''Theologische Zeitschrift'' 27.4 (July-August 1971): pp. 255-62.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref19"></span>[[#up19|19]] The ''kakeinon'' used twice in [[Mark 12|Mark 12:4-5]] is still a demonstrative, i.e. it references preceding nouns in each case: "he sent ''another slave'', and ''that one'' they bashed in the head...he sent ''another [slave]'', and ''that one'' they killed" (contrast [[Mark 14|Mark 14:2-3]], where "he sent a ''servant''...and ''him'' they beat up," using ''auton'' instead of ''ekeinon''). The author of the LE uses ''ekeinos'' (by itself) as a synonym of ''autos''. Mark never does.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref20"></span>[[#up20|20]] Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], p. 133 (Bock), pp. 30-31 (Wallace), p. 89 (Elliott, emphasizing the fact that the peculiar features occur ''repeatedly'' in the LE, but comparable deviations do not occur 'repeatedly' in any other extended section of Mark).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref21"></span>[[#up21|21]] Marcus, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MNT'']], p. 1089.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref22"></span>[[#up22|22]] Bruce Terry, "[[#ref14|Style]]."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref23"></span>[[#up23|23]] Reported by Papias, according to Eusebius, ''History of the Church'' 3.39.9. This tale may have independently influenced the LE, but it does not reflect awareness of the LE—to the contrary, it entails ignorance of it (see [[#Papias|section 5.3.1]]).<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Against Maurice Robinson's false claim that there are other elements of the LE not found in the Gospels (besides this one) see Bock's concise refutation in Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], p. 134 (esp. n. 8), although even Bock erroneously claims the 'weeping and mourning' of [[Mark 16|16:10]] is novel (it is not: see [[#The_LE's_Use_of_the_NT|table]]), and misses the fact that (a) Jesus' rebuke (and proffering of evidence) in [[Luke 24|Luke 24:35-46]] entails the two from Emmaus ''were'' disbelieved (as even Bock seems aware in n. 8) and (b) four of the five signs ''do'' derive from the Gospels and Acts (see [[#The_LE's_Use_of_the_NT|table]]), leaving only one novel fact: the immunity to poison drink (which, as will be argued, is a logical inference from [[Luke 10|Luke 10:19]], and thus not really so very novel).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref24"></span>[[#up24|24]] On the early (mid-2nd century) assembly of the NT: David Trobisch, ''The First Edition of the New Testament'' (2000) and "Who Published the Christian Bible?" ''CSER Review'' 2.1 (2007), pp. 29-32. On there being over forty Gospels to choose from (over forty are known): Christopher Tuckett, "Forty Other Gospels," ''The Written Gospel'', Markus Bockmuehl and Donald Hagner, eds. (2005): pp. 238-53. On how ancient schools taught students to summarize, paraphrase, and rewrite passages in their own voice: David Gowler, "The Chreia," ''The Historical Jesus in Context'', Amy-Jill Levine, Dale Allison, Jr., and John Dominic Crossan, eds. (2006): pp. 132-48; Raffaella Cribiore, ''Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt'' (2001); and see Dennis MacDonald, ''The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark'' (2000), pp. 4-6, for a summary account.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref25"></span>[[#up25|25]] On this ironic ''inclusio'' in Mark see Richard Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb," in Robert M. Price & Jeffery Jay Lowder, eds., ''The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave'' (2005: pp. 105-232), pp. 163-64.<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mark's frequent use of irony is documented by Paul Danove, ''The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological Study'' (1993) and Jerry Camery-Hoggatt, ''Irony in Mark's Gospel'' (1992). For the OE as such: Adela Collins, "The Empty Tomb in the Gospel According to Mark," in Eleonore Stump & Thomas Flint, eds., ''Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology'' (1993), pp. 107-40.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref26"></span>[[#up26|26]] See the Wikipedia entries on these mss. for more infomation: "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus Codex Sinaiticus]" (designation: Aleph) and "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus Codex Vaticanus]" (designation: B). Both also have project websites devoted to them: see [http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ The Sinaiticus Project] and [http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03 The Vaticanus Project]. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref27"></span>[[#up27|27]] All demonstrated by Daniel Wallace in Black, ''PEP'', pp. 17-18. Maurice Robinson claims the Vaticanus scribe must have miscounted the number of words in the LE (in Black, ''PEP'', p. 52 n. 44), but that's just special pleading.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref28"></span>[[#up28|28]] See Wallace's discussion in Black, ''PEP'', p. 18 n. 42.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref29"></span>[[#up29|29]] Demonstrated in H.J. Milne and T.C. Skeat, ''Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus'' (1938), pp. 9-11; admitted reluctantly by Maurice Robinson in Black, ''PEP'', pp. 51-52 n. 43.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref30"></span>[[#up30|30]] See Wikipedia entries ([[#ref26|cited above]]) for evidence and bibliography. On the debate whether they derive from the same scriptorium or even the same half of the century see Dirk Jongkind, ''Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus'' (2007): pp. 18-21. Jongkind also demonstrates throughout his text that Vaticanus and Sinaticus used different exemplars. This is now generally beyond dispute. The evidence that they nevertheless derive from the same scriptorium is much weaker. They do show many second-hand corrections aligning each other, and bear other similarities, but many of these corrections were made centuries later, some as late as the 12th century (and thus do not indicate origin in the same scriptorium), and their other similarities no more indicate a common scriptorium than a common fashion among all scriptoria of the period. Even shared decorative devices at best may indicate scribes trained in the same school, but such is not entailed, as such elements were commonplace. Moreover, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus bear significant differences (e.g. they do not contain all the same books), which argues ''against'' a common origin.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref31"></span>[[#up31|31]] F. Crawford Burkitt, ''Evangelion da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the Early Syriac Patristic Evidence'' (1904), pp. 215-17; and the Wikipedia entries for "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_versions_of_the_Bible Syriac versions of the Bible]" and "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Sinaiticus Syriac Sinaiticus].<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The conclusions in this and following paragraphs of the main text are based (only in part) on the critical apparatus provided in Aland & Metzger (cited earlier).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref32"></span>[[#up32|32]] P.E. Kahle, "The End of St. Mark's Gospel: The Witness of the Coptic Versions," ''Journal of Theological Studies'' 2 (1951): pp. 49-57; Gerald Browne, "The Gospel of Mark in Fayumic Coptic," ''The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists'' 13.2 (1976): pp. 41-43; and see the Wikipedia entry for "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_versions_of_the_Bible Coptic Versions of the Bible]." On the recent discovery of Codex P. Palau Rib. 182 lacking the LE see Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism'' (2nd rev. ed., 1995), p. 202, and Hans Quecke, ''Das Markusevangelium sa&iuml;disch: Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv. Nr. 182 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569'' (1972).<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Lectionary 1602 (8th century) has the Greek on one side, Sahidic on the other, and the Greek includes the LE, while the Sahidic ends with [[Mark 16|verse 16:6]] (according to Aland & Aland, ibid., p. 203), but as I do not read Coptic I could not verify whether this was where the text ended or only where the damaged mss. ends. It appears to be the latter, so I consider its testimony inconclusive. Several Greek manuscripts likewise 'lack the LE' only because of lost pages and thus are of no use as evidence (minuscules 2386, 1420, 16; and even 304, the commentary text discussed in [[#Accidental_or_Deliberate_Transfer|section 5.2.2]], though not exhibiting actual ms. damage, nevertheless appears to be missing numerous concluding pages, exactly where a reference to the LE might appear).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref33"></span>[[#up33|33]] Bruce Metzger, "The Ending of the Gospel according to Mark in Ethiopic Manuscripts," in John Reumann, ed., ''Understanding the Sacred Text'' (1972), pp. 167-80. See also: Rochus Zuurmond, ''Novum Testamentum Aethiopice'', vol. 1.2 (1989): 44-52, and "The Ethiopic Version of the New Testament," in Bart Ehrman & Michael Holmes, eds., ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'' (1994): 142-56; and Martin Bailey, [http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Discovery-of-earliest-illuminated-manuscript%20%20/20990 "Discovery of Earliest Illuminated Manuscript: Revised Dating Places Garima Gospels before 650"] ''The Art Newspaper'' 214 (June 2010), which transmits the findings of J. Mercier, "La peinture éthiopienne à lépoque axoumite et au XVIII siècle," ''Comptes-rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres'' (2000): 35-71. Notably Mercier only tested two of the illuminated pages, not the leafs with the Gospel text, and the Gospels were rebound centuries after being compiled (with pages out of order) so it is still uncertain if the Garima texts of Mark are actually as old as the pictures inserted among them.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref34"></span>[[#up34|34]] Confirming this conclusion: C.H. Turner, "Did Codex Vercellensis (''a'') Contain the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark?" ''Journal of Theological Studies'' 29 (1927-28): pp. 16-18; with more supporting evidence in Kurt Aland, "Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums," ''Neotestamentica et Semitica'' (1969: pp. 157-80): pp. 169-78. See the remarks of Daniel Wallace in Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], pp. 24-25 n. 6, and Bruce Metzger, ''The Early Versions of the New Testament'' (1977), pp. 312-13. See also the Wikipedia entry for "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vercellensis Codex Vercellensis]."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref35"></span>[[#up35|35]] See Wikipedia entries on "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae Codex Bezae]," "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Corbeiensis_II Codex Corbeiensis II]," "[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin_Bible Vetus Latina]," and "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_Latin_manuscripts List of New Testament Latin Manuscripts]." On Sangallensis see John Wordsworth, ''Portions of the Gospels according to St. Mark and St. Matthew'' (1886), pp. xxix-xxx.<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Codex Bezae actually lost the page that would have contained the Latin text of LE, and pages were added to the Codex centuries later replacing that loss with a borrowed translation from the standard Vulgate. My examination of the evidence in Frederick Scrivener, ''Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis'' (1864) leads me to conclude that the Latin of Codex Bezae probably did contain the LE, but that this was derived largely from the Greek opposite, with knowledge of the Latin Vulgate, and thus is not an early Latin translation, but a late translation made from a late 4th century (or even later) Greek ms. containing the LE (such as we already know existed). See also Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism'' (2nd rev. ed., 1995), p. 189, and Bruce Metzger, ''The Early Versions of the New Testament'' (1977), pp. 317-18.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref36"></span>[[#up36|36]] Metzger, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''TCG'']], pp. 122-26; J. Neville Birdsall, "The Georgian Version of the New Testament," in Bart Ehrman & Michael Holmes, eds., ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'' (1994: pp. 173-87), pp. 178 and 180; Joseph Alexanian, "The Armenian Version of the New Testament," ibid. (pp. 157-72), p. 157.<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;See also [http://www.armenianbible.org "www.armenianbible.org"] and Ernest Cadman Colwell, "Mark 16:9-20 in the Armenian Version," ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' 56.4 (December 1937): pp. 369-86. Colwell provides eight converging lines of evidence establishing that the LE did not exist in Mesrop's original Armenian translation, producing a fairly decisive case. This is further supported by the evidence in Albert Edmunds, "The Six Endings of Mark in Later Manuscripts and Catholic and Protestant Imprints of the Old Armenian Version," ''The Monist'' 29 (1919): pp. 520-25.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref37"></span>[[#up37|37]] On Eznik's knowledge of the LE (from a source ''other'' than the Armenian Bible), see Colwell, "Mark," p. 384. The reference appears in Eznik, ''On God or Sects'' 112, quoting Jesus (first from [[Luke 10|Luke 10:19]] and then from [[Mark 16|Mark 16:17-18]]), implying the Gospels were his source (though he doesn't specifically say so).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref38"></span>[[#up38|38]] On the Gothic translation see summary and bibliography in the entries at Wikipedia for "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfilas Ulfilas]" and "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Argenteus ''Codex Argenteus'']."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref39"></span>[[#up39|39]] See Bart Ehrman, ''The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament'' (1993).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref40"></span>[[#up40|40]] Metzger & Ehrman, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''TNT'']], pp. 40-41; Collins, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAC'']], pp. 804-06.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref41"></span>[[#up41|41]] That all the same phenomena are observed in the Armenian manuscripts: Colwell, "Mark," pp. 375-78.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref42"></span>[[#up42|42]] See Willker, op. cit., pp. 6-7 (note 8 above) and Kelhoffer, "The Witness," pp. 104-09 (cited below) and Edmunds, "Six Endings," p. 524.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref43"></span>[[#up43|43]] Marcus, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MNT'']], p. 1089; Collins, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAC'']], p. 805; cf. Kurt Aland, "Der wiedergefundene Markusschluss? Eine methodologische Bemerkung zur Textkritischen Arbeit," ''Zeitschrift f&uuml;r Theologie und Kirche'' 67 (1970): pp. 3-13.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref44"></span>[[#up44|44]] Metzger & Ehrman, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''TNT'']], p. 324. For the evidence of L see the facsimile in John Burgon, ''The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark'' (1871), [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26134/26134-h/26134-h.html#Pg126 p. 126] (with the scribal notes translated on [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26134/26134-h/26134-h.html#Pg126 p. 123]). For the SE in the marginalia of several Syriac and Coptic (Bohairic) mss. see: Clarence Russell Williams, ''The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark: A Study in Textual Transmission'' (1915), pp. 367, 372-73, 392-95, 441 (and for ms. 274, cf. p. 418)."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref45"></span>[[#up45|45]] See Colwell, "Mark," pp. 378-81.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref46"></span>[[#up46|46]] On this Armenian marginal note see Colwell, "Mark," pp. 383-84.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref47"></span>[[#up47|47]] Eusebius, ''History of the Church'' 3.39.14 says Papias "in his own book passes on other commentaries on the stories of the Lord from the aforementioned Aristion, as well as traditions from John the Elder," where the key phrase (''t&ocirc;n tou kuriou log&ocirc;n di&ecirc;g&ecirc;seis'') could actually be the title of a book (''Commentaries on the Sayings [or Stories] of the Lord''), or referring to such a book. Although Eusebius earlier quotes a passage (3.39.7-8) in which Papias implies he did not read the works of Aristion but asked other people about the things Aristion was saying (Aristion was evidently a contemporary), Papias only says he ''preferred'' the living word, not that he consulted it exclusively (i.e. that he preferred asking Aristion's disciples about Aristion's teachings does not mean he did not already know Aristion's teachings in writing, like the proposed ''Commentaries'', just as Papias knew of some of the Gospels).<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It has been suggested that this Armenian scribal note refers to Aristion attesting the Barsabbas story of surviving poison (see sections [[#The_LE's_Use_of_the_NT|4.3.1]] and [[#Papias|5.3.1]]) but the note neither contains such a remark nor is placed anywhere near verse [[Mark 16|16:18]] (where such a remark would belong). The note precedes the whole LE, was added by a later scholar (not the copyist who produced the ms.), and is so brief, there is no plausible case to be made that some prior note about Barsabbas had become corrupted into this state.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref48"></span>[[#up48|48]] Maurice Robinson as quoted in ''The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism'', entry for "[http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Manuscripts1-500.html#m304 Manuscript 304]" available online.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref49"></span>[[#up49|49]] Noted by Elliott in Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], p. 92.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref50"></span>[[#up50|50]] Bart Ehrman, ''Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels'' (1986), p. 6 (cf. pp. 6-7 for discussion and references).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref51"></span>[[#up51|51]] Metzger & Ehrman, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''TNT'']], p. 12 (cf. pp. 126-34 for discussion and references).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref52"></span>[[#up52|52]] For a general survey of why Patristic evidence "involves the greatest difficulties and the most problems" see Bruce Metzger, "Patristic Evidence and the Textual Criticism of the New Testament" in [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''NTS'']], pp. 167-88 (quoting p. 167), supported by Gordon Fee, "The Use of the Greek Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism," ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'', Bart D. Ehrman and Michael Holmes, eds. (1994): pp. 191-207.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref53"></span>[[#up53|53]] Metzger & Ehrman, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''TNT'']], pp. 308-09. For background see the Wikipedia entries on the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_text-type Western text-type]" and the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type Alexandrian text-type]."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref54"></span>[[#up54|54]] Eusebius, ''History of the Church'' 3.39 contains both Papias' story about Barsabbas and Papias' declaring familiarity with the Gospel of Mark, as well as all the other details mentioned.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref55"></span>[[#up55|55]] James Kelhoffer makes the best case for this passage being evidence Justin knew the LE ([[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']], pp. 170-75), but even his argument doesn't overcome the reasons just noted. Nevertheless, his argument is equally compatible with the conclusion that Justin knew this material from ''another'' source, not Mark's Gospel.<br><br>Some have also suggested ''pantachou'' ("everywhere") is so rare Justin can only have adapted it from the LE, but it appears so casually in [[Mark 1|Mark 1:28]] and [[Luke 9|Luke 9:6]] that it was clearly both a common and scripturally established idiom, and a search of the ''Thesaurus Linguae Graecae'' confirms it was a very common word in Greek literature of the early Empire. Justin himself uses it ten times in his own writings (this instance making eleven).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref56"></span>[[#up56|56]] Kelhoffer is more confident than the evidence warrants ([[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']], pp. 170-75). Note that earlier dates are often given for the ''Diatessaron'', but it was most likely composed in the East, and by all accounts Tatian did not go east after his conversion until the 170's. At any rate, an earlier date of composition cannot be proved.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref57"></span>[[#up57|57]] See the Wikipedia entry on "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron Diatessaron]."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref58"></span>[[#up58|58]] The error originates from mistaking Rousseau's modern 'back translation' of the Latin into Greek for an actual Greek text—and then mistaking ''that'' as deriving from Theodoret. Kelhoffer, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']], p. 170, even presents the Greek text of 'Theodoret' as if it came from him and not Rousseau, and posits theories from the text type! Probably one of the most embarrassing errors of his career. Alas, the Greek Kelhoffer quotes is Rousseau's. I verified this myself, consulting first-hand a copy of Adelin Rousseau & Louis Doutreleau, ''Iréné de Lyon: Contre les hérésies livre III'' (1974), vol. 1 (see: pp. 64-67, 79-82, pp. 144-48) and 2 (see: pp. 128, 137-39).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref59"></span>[[#up59|59]] In Minuscule 1582, according to, e.g., Maurice Robinson (in Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], p. 47 n. 26).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref60"></span>[[#up60|60]] Burnett Streeter, ''The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins'' (1953), p. 124. On the origin of this marginal note in the early 5th century or after (anytime from the late 5th to 9th century is possible) see K. W. Kim, "Codices 1582, 1739, and Origen," ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' 69.2 (June 1950): 167-75. The evidence is simply that of all the sources named by the annotator (in ms. 1582 where this citation of Irenaeus appears), the latest of them date to the early 5th century (which establishes the original author added these notes to the textual tradition behind 1582 either in the late 5th century ''or later''), which could simply reflect the annotator's limited library or preference for venerable sources (so he could still be writing even as late as the 9th century). Moreover, the annotator who compiled the bulk of these notes is not necessarily the same one who added the note referencing Irenaeus. That could have been added by anyone at any time in the intervening centuries. An identical note appears in a different location in the 11th century manuscript 72, but we cannot deduce anything useful from this (72 might be lifting that note from any manuscript related to 1582 of any possible date).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref61"></span>[[#up61|61]] F. W. Hall, ''A Companion to Classical Texts'' (1913), p. 194 (pp. 193-97); Robert Renehan, ''Greek Textual Criticism: A Reader'' (1969), p. 36 (&sect; 32); Miroslav Marcovich, ''Patristic Textual Criticism'' (1994), s.v. "Interpolations," Index. See also: Martin West, ''Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek and Latin Texts'' (1973), p. 28; and Paul Maas (tr. by Barbara Flower), ''Textual Criticism'' (1958), pp. 34-35 (&sect; 33) and p. 14 (&sect; 16). I have personally verified numerous egregious examples, amounting to entire paragraphs, accidentally interpolated into the ''Weights and Measures'' of Epiphanius (which I presented at a conference at UC Berkeley in 2005).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref62"></span>[[#up62|62]] Irenaeus, ''Against Heresies'' 2.32.4.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref63"></span>[[#up63|63]] Heb. 6:2; 1 Cor. 12:8-11, 12:28-30 (cf. Mark 5:23, Luke 4:40); and Justin Martyr, ''Dialogue with Trypho'' 39. Notably, Irenaeus says Christians exhibit "in the name" of Christ the powers of God "in proportion to the gift each has received" and then lists four gifts; Justin says Christians prove the power of Jesus by "receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of Christ" and then lists seven gifts; Tertullian says something similar (''Against Marcion'' 5.8, conspicuously quoting only Paul as evidence); evidently this was a common mode of Christian preaching (most likely based on [[1 Corinthians 12|1 Corinthians 12]], cf. [[Romans 12|Romans 12:4-9]], [[1 Corinthians 7|1Corinthians 7:8]], [[1 Corinthians 14|1Corinthians 14]], and [[Hebrews 2|Hebrews 2:4]] and [[Hebrews 6|6:4-6]], etc.).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref64"></span>[[#up64|64]] Hippolytus, ''Apostolic Tradition'' 36.1 ("The faithful shall be careful to partake of the eucharist before eating anything else. For if they eat with faith, even though some deadly poison is given to them, after this it will not be able to harm them.").<br />
<br />
<span id="ref65"></span>[[#up65|65]] Kelhoffer, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']], p. 171, n. 48 also refutes the specious suggestion that Celsus knew the LE.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref66"></span>[[#up66|66]] Cyprian, ''The Opinions of 87 Clerics at the Seventh Council of Carthage Concerning the Baptism of Heretics'' 37: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Vincentius of Thibaris said: We know that heretics are worse than Gentiles. If, therefore, being converted, they should wish to come to the Lord, we have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept commanded to His apostles, saying, "Go ye, lay on hands in my name, expel demons." And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Therefore first of all by imposition of hands in exorcism, secondly by the regeneration of baptism, they may then come to the promise of Christ. Otherwise I think it ought not to be done." Several other clerics at the same council likewise said heretics can only be accepted back into their church if they are exorcized by laying on hands and baptized.</blockquote><br />
<br />
The notion that heretics must be exorcised by laying on hands and baptized before being accepted back into the fold is echoed by several other clerics at the same council, but conspicuously, none cite the Lord in support of their opinion.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref67"></span>[[#up67|67]] ''Didascalia'' 23.(6.8), or p. 101 of the Connolly translation. See the Wikipedia entry for "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didascalia_Apostolorum Didascalia Apostolorum]."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref68"></span>[[#up68|68]] See Kelhoffer, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']], p. 171, n. 49.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref69"></span>[[#up69|69]] See Kelhoffer, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAM'']], pp. 176-77; also "[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/reportpilate.html The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius]" at [EarlyChristianWritings.com EarlyChristianWritings.com], as well as the entire "[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html Acts of Pilate]" resource page there, and the Wikipedia entry for "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Pilate Acts of Pilate]."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref70"></span>[[#up70|70]] James Kelhoffer, "The Witness of Eusebius' ''Ad Marinum'' and Other Christian Writings to Text-Critical Debates concerning the Original Conclusion to Mark's Gospel," ''Zeitschrift f&uuml;r die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der &auml;lteren Kirche'' 92 (2001): pp. 78-112 [exclusion from Canons: p. 108]. This article also shows how what Eusebius reports was a rare reading in the 4th century became the most common reading in later medieval manuscripts; and it provides an English translation of the entire ''Letter to Marinus'' with accompanying Greek text. That Eusebius was well aware of Western readings (and thus Western manuscripts) and used them on occasion (while only tending to prefer the Alexandrian text) is shown by, among others, D.S. Wallace-Hadrill, "Eusebius and the Gospel Text of Caesarea," ''The Harvard Theological Review'' 49.2 (April 1956): 105-14, so it cannot be claimed his remarks apply only to manuscripts in the Alexandrian tradition.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref71"></span>[[#up71|71]] Kelhoffer, "The Witness," pp. 99-109.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref72"></span>[[#up72|72]] Kelhoffer, "The Witness," pp. 104-05 (cf. also Collins, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''MAC'']], p. 805).<br />
<br />
<span id="ref73"></span>[[#up73|73]] See introductions on Aphraates and Ephrem in the ''Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers'' vol. 13. Aphraates quotes part of the LE (only a truncated version of vv. 16-17, the verses later found in the ''Diatessaron'') in ''Demonstrations'' 1.17 (although a quotation of 16:15 is curiously absent from ''Demonstrations'' 1.8, where we would also expect it). For Ephrem see Carmel McCarthy, ''Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709'' (Oxford University Press, 1993): p. 289 (section 19.15), where a compression of Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19 is quoted in a fashion resembling what we know was in some copies of the ''Diatessaron'' of that period (although again nowhere else is any material from the LE quoted or mentioned in the whole of Ephrem's commentary, and even here the only words that would derive from the LE consist of the brief and ambiguous expression "into the whole world" which is already implied by the "all nations" of Matt. 28:19). Unfortunately we know Ephrem's text has been compromised by later editors (McCarthy, pp. 31-34) and that Ephrem would have been well aware of other versions of the New Testament besides the ''Diatessaron'' (McCarthy, p. 15), so this attestation may be much less secure than is commonly supposed.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref74"></span>[[#up74|74]] Ambrose of Milan, ''On the Holy Spirit'' 2.13.(151), ''On Repentance'' 1.8.(35), and other works.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref75"></span>[[#up75|75]] Jerome, ''Against Pelagius'' 2.15.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref76"></span>[[#up76|76]] Section 5.3.(14) of the ''Apostolic Constitutions'' clearly just summarizes Matthew, Luke and John, and in a manner conspicuously ''not'' conforming to the LE; but section 6.3.(15) directly quotes [[Mark 16|Mark 16:16]] and section 8.1.(1) directly quotes [[Mark 16|Mark 16:17-18]]. None of these elements appears in the ''Didascalia''. See also the Wikipedia entry for "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions Apostolic Constitutions]."<br />
<br />
<span id="ref77"></span>[[#up77|77]] Hesychius of Jerusalem, ''Collection of Difficulties and Solutions'' PG 93.1440 (5th century A.D.) simply assumes Mark ends at [[Mark 16|16:8]]. Severus of Antioch, ''Homily'' 77 (5th/6th century A.D.) repeats Eusebius. See Kelhoffer, "The Witness," pp. 101-102.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref78"></span>[[#up78|78]] Quoting Daniel Wallace, in Black, [[#The_Principal_Scholarship|''PEM'']], pp. 24.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=73361
Main Page
2012-06-22T23:05:33Z
<p>Peter Kirby: cleaned up some outdated stuff</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Anachronisms|Anachronisms]] -<br />
[[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]] - [[:Category:Transmission|Transmission]]. Discussions are generally divided into [[:Category:Pro|Pro]], [[:Category:Con|Con]], or [[:Category:Neutral|Neutral]] arguments.<br />
<br />
Skeptic Fathers: [[:Category:Skeptic Fathers|Skeptic Fathers]]<br />
<br />
http://www.richardcarrier.info/about.jpg<br />
<br />
<br />
Church Fathers: [[:Category:Church Fathers|Church Fathers]]<br />
<br />
Books: [[:Category:Jesus Interrupted|Jesus Interrupted]]<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=red size=4><br />
'''Newest Addition'''<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<font size=3><br />
'''From The Home Temple In Jerusalem, King Dave's Top 10 Examples of Errancy in The Christian Bible. This will be a listing of the Top 10 Errors in the Christian Bible as selected by the Administrators of ErrancyWiki based on feedback from Members. Please leave your suggestions for Errancy on my User Page, http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/User:JoeWallack . We start our list off with the Grand-Daddy of all Genealogical errors, Richard Carrier's ''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006)'' right here at ErrancyWiki. Enjoy!:<br />
<br />
10. [http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&rcid=41896 Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006)]'''<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''We have a [http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&rcid=41896 Legends Page] featuring ''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth'' By Richard Carrier (2006)'''<br />
<br />
and<br />
<br />
'''[http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends2 The Ending of "Mark"] By Richard Carrier (2011)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=red size=3><br />
'''We also have a new [http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Book_Reviews Book Reviews Page] featuring ''Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin'' By Walter McCrone (1999)'''<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Christian Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Source]]<br />
*[[Authorship]]<br />
*[[Title]]<br />
*[[Division]]<br />
*[[Paul]]<br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
<font size=3>*[[Mark]]</font><br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
'''Guidance for Rules'''<br />
<br />
http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Rules<br />
<br />
'''Language Tools''':<br />
<br />
[http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml The Westminster Leningrad Codex]<br />
<br />
http://www.scripture4all.org/ = Interlinear Hebrew & Greek<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
# '''No spam'''. Any outbound link will be deleted, with a rare exception made for specific online supporting documentation. The first violation will result in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=47095
Main Page
2008-05-05T12:07:14Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''The wiki successfully migrated to another server in May 2008.'''<br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Chronological|Chronological]] - [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]] - [[:Category:Transmission|Transmission]]. Discussions are generally divided into [[:Category:Pro|Pro]], [[:Category:Con|Con]], or [[:Category:Neutral|Neutral]] arguments.<br />
<br />
Church Fathers: [[:Category:Church Fathers|Church Fathers]]<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=red size=4><br />
'''Newest Addition'''<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<font size=3><br />
'''From The Home Temple In Jerusalem, King Dave's Top 10 Examples of Errancy in The Christian Bible. This will be a listing of the Top 10 Errors in the Christian Bible as selected by the Administrators of ErrancyWiki based on feedback from Members. Please leave your suggestions for Errancy on my User Page, http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/User:JoeWallack . We start our list off with the Grand-Daddy of all Genealogical errors, Richard Carrier's ''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006)'' right here at ErrancyWiki. Enjoy!:<br />
<br />
10. [http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&rcid=41896 Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006)]'''<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''We have a new [http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&rcid=41896 Legends Page] featuring ''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth'' By Richard Carrier (2006)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=red size=3><br />
'''We also have a new [http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Book_Reviews Book Reviews Page] featuring ''Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin'' By Walter McCrone (1999)'''<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Christian Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Source]]<br />
*[[Authorship]]<br />
*[[Title]]<br />
*[[Division]]<br />
*[[Paul]]<br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
'''Guidance for Rules'''<br />
<br />
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Rules <br />
<br />
'''Language Tools''':<br />
<br />
[http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml The Westminster Leningrad Codex]<br />
<br />
http://www.scripture4all.org/ = Interlinear Hebrew & Greek<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] as an admin. For now, therefore, we are operating on a "three wise men" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the fourth admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
# '''No spam'''. Any outbound link will be deleted, with a rare exception made for specific online supporting documentation. The first violation will result in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
The roadmap has been adjusted.<br />
<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited. '''58 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 124 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited. '''24 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 32 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* November 1, 2006. At least 50 users will sign up. '''44 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 50 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* April 1, 2007. At least 250 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2007. At least 250 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2007. At least 250 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2008. At least <strike>100,000</strike> <strike>250,000</strike> 1,000,000 page views will be reached. '''Already over 200k. Let's aim higher!'''<br />
* January 1, 2009. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=12792
Main Page
2008-04-14T18:00:34Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>'''"The Simontic Problem"''' [[Matthew 16:18]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:7]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Job 1:7]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Changes made to the wiki at this time will be lost. It is being moved to another server.'''<br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Chronological|Chronological]] - [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]] - [[:Category:Transmission|Transmission]]. Discussions are generally divided into [[:Category:Pro|Pro]], [[:Category:Con|Con]], or [[:Category:Neutral|Neutral]] arguments.<br />
<br />
Church Fathers: [[:Category:Church Fathers|Church Fathers]]<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=red size=4><br />
'''Newest Addition'''<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<font size=3><br />
'''From The Home Temple In Jerusalem, King Dave's Top 10 Examples of Errancy in The Christian Bible. This will be a listing of the Top 10 Errors in the Christian Bible as selected by the Administrators of ErrancyWiki based on feedback from Members. Please leave your suggestions for Errancy on my User Page, http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/User:JoeWallack . We start our list off with the Grand-Daddy of all Genealogical errors, Richard Carrier's ''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006)'' right here at ErrancyWiki. Enjoy!:<br />
<br />
10. [http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&rcid=41896 Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006)]'''<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''We have a new [http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&rcid=41896 Legends Page] featuring ''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth'' By Richard Carrier (2006)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=red size=3><br />
'''We also have a new [http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Book_Reviews Book Reviews Page] featuring ''Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin'' By Walter McCrone (1999)'''<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Christian Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Source]]<br />
*[[Authorship]]<br />
*[[Title]]<br />
*[[Division]]<br />
*[[Paul]]<br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
'''Guidance for Rules'''<br />
<br />
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Rules <br />
<br />
'''Language Tools''':<br />
<br />
[http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml The Westminster Leningrad Codex]<br />
<br />
http://www.scripture4all.org/ = Interlinear Hebrew & Greek<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] as an admin. For now, therefore, we are operating on a "three wise men" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the fourth admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
# '''No spam'''. Any outbound link will be deleted, with a rare exception made for specific online supporting documentation. The first violation will result in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
The roadmap has been adjusted.<br />
<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited. '''58 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 124 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited. '''24 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 32 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* November 1, 2006. At least 50 users will sign up. '''44 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 50 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* April 1, 2007. At least 250 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2007. At least 250 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2007. At least 250 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2008. At least <strike>100,000</strike> <strike>250,000</strike> 1,000,000 page views will be reached. '''Already over 200k. Let's aim higher!'''<br />
* January 1, 2009. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Kirby&diff=9740
User talk:Peter Kirby
2006-11-22T07:25:36Z
<p>Peter Kirby: Rock the Vote!</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
== Rock the Vote! ==<br />
<br />
Weigh in on the name of the new site:<br />
<br />
* ErrancyWeb.com<br />
* iBibleStudies.com<br />
* ResearchTheBible.com<br />
* or TheBibleWars.com<br />
<br />
And you may suggest another name to me privately, if there is any such available!! --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 01:25, 22 Nov 2006 (CST)</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Kirby&diff=9318
User talk:Peter Kirby
2006-11-22T07:24:17Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=9469
Main Page
2006-11-22T07:23:41Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:7]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Job 1:7]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]] - [[:Category:Transmission|Transmission]]. Discussions are generally divided into [[:Category:Pro|Pro]], [[:Category:Con|Con]], or [[:Category:Neutral|Neutral]] arguments.<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
'''We have a new [http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&rcid=41896 Legends Page] featuring ''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth'' By Richard Carrier (2006)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=green><br />
Peter Kirby, the founder of this site, has a special message:<br />
<br />
Go to the IIDB [http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=187358 here] to get a sense of the changes to come, and then go to the IIDB [http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=187479 here] to see the options for naming the new site, and vote on what we should call it:<br />
<br />
*ErrancyWeb.com<br />
*iBibleStudies.com<br />
*ResearchTheBible.com<br />
*TheBibleWars.com<br />
<br />
Or you can leave a comment on my userpage [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|here]]. --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 06:49, 21 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Source]]<br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
Language Tools<br />
http://www.scripture4all.org/ = Interlinear Hebrew & Greek<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] as an admin. For now, therefore, we are operating on a "three wise men" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the fourth admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
# '''No spam'''. Any outbound link will be deleted, with a rare exception made for specific online supporting documentation. The first violation will result in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
The roadmap has been adjusted.<br />
<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited. '''58 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 124 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited. '''24 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 32 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* November 1, 2006. At least 50 users will sign up. '''44 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 50 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* April 1, 2007. At least 250 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2007. At least 250 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2007. At least 250 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2008. At least <strike>100,000</strike> <strike>250,000</strike> 1,000,000 page views will be reached. '''Already over 200k. Let's aim higher!'''<br />
* January 1, 2009. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=9316
Main Page
2006-11-21T12:49:44Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:7]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Job 1:7]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]] - [[:Category:Transmission|Transmission]]. Discussions are generally divided into [[:Category:Pro|Pro]], [[:Category:Con|Con]], or [[:Category:Neutral|Neutral]] arguments.<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
'''We have a new [http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&rcid=41896 Legends Page] featuring ''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth'' By Richard Carrier (2006)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=green><br />
Peter Kirby, the founder of this site, has a special message:<br />
<br />
Go to [http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=187358 IIDB] and vote on whether we should improve Errancy Wiki into a new Errancy Web with the same content but more features and ways to access the content. Or you can leave a comment on my userpage. --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 06:49, 21 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Source]]<br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
Language Tools<br />
http://www.scripture4all.org/ = Interlinear Hebrew & Greek<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] as an admin. For now, therefore, we are operating on a "three wise men" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the fourth admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
# '''No spam'''. Any outbound link will be deleted, with a rare exception made for specific online supporting documentation. The first violation will result in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
The roadmap has been adjusted.<br />
<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited. '''58 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 124 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited. '''24 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 32 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* November 1, 2006. At least 50 users will sign up. '''44 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 50 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* April 1, 2007. At least 250 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2007. At least 250 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2007. At least 250 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2008. At least <strike>100,000</strike> <strike>250,000</strike> 1,000,000 page views will be reached. '''Already over 200k. Let's aim higher!'''<br />
* January 1, 2009. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeWallack&diff=9711
User talk:JoeWallack
2006-11-21T12:10:57Z
<p>Peter Kirby: Possible Site Redesign</p>
<hr />
<div>==Warning: Insulting Content==<br />
<br />
Joe,<br />
<br />
Some of the text of your argument in [[Matthew 1:8]]--specifically, the sections regarding JP Holding--insult Holding as a ''person,'' rather than critiquing the ideas he presents in an academic context. While I understand that you and Holding have had problems in the past, we're trying to avoid personalities here and discuss the actual issues.<br />
<br />
Please rephrase your argument so as to comply with Rule 1: "Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic."<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 15:03, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
"Hi Justin. I see absolutely nothing in my 1:8 article that insults Holding. Please identify to me exactly what you see as insulting. Thanks."<br />
<br />
Followup:<br />
<br />
:While we're on the subject of Holding here I asked the Admins here to invite Holding to argue against Genealogy error. He declined. Regarding my attempts to engage Holding in Argument:<br />
<br />
:1) His site doesn't allow any type of open posting.<br />
<br />
:2) My site has never had any Censorship what so ever. He has never posted there.<br />
<br />
:3) At Tweb where he selectively debates under Fundamentalist Moderation and primary Membership the Owner has currently banned me for titling a post:<br />
<br />
:"Gonna Roll Away The Stones And Win Father A New Pair Of Jews"<br />
<br />
:Which then became the title for my Review of "The Empty Tomb" at Amazon.com:<br />
<br />
:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/159102286X/ref=cm_rv_thx_view/102-1435806-2580904?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance<br />
<br />
:which they immediately posted.<br />
<br />
:Holding's current description of me is:<br />
<br />
:http://www.tektonics.org/parody/trophyroom.html<br />
<br />
:"1.21 Joe "Wally" Wallack<br />
<br />
:1.21.1 Wally Begs for Mercy<br />
<br />
:--Follow the link to see Wally's debates with me why he asked for help. It didn't help. More on Wally here. He's scared of me he hasn't updated his page in over a year. Wally is also a crass maker of anti-Semitic remarks, which tells you what sort of people Brooks thinks are role models.<br />
<br />
:[hosted by the Anti-Defamation League]"<br />
<br />
<br />
:JW: I conclude from this that Holding does not want to debate Genealogy error here because he knows his argument is weak. Thus, more evidence for Error. The top Internet Apologist is afraid to argue against in a fairly moderated and polite Forum. <br />
<br />
Do you actually use insults or call Holding names? No, you do not: but your argument is against the ''person'', not against their arguments. Holding's behavior is utterly irrelevant to the GMatthew text arguments.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 17:25, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
(As a side note: if you will please, respond here. I evidently don't have my Talk link set up correctly. Hey, just like everyone else here, I'm still learning the software and the interface.)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi Justin. The way to hurt JP Holding is not to insult him but to publicize Errors In The Christian Bible. So I've done far more than insult Holding. I've hurt him and I wish to go on hurting him. Just kidding. Souly because you ask and not because I think you have demonstrated any insult on my part, I will prune the article until it meets with your satisfaction (as opposed to your approval). The Price I'll take considering that everything above is true is that I'll do it within 24 hours.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
:"I've hurt him and I wish to go on hurting him."<br />
<br />
That's funny ... you don't look a thing like Ricardo Montalbon. :D<br />
<br />
:Souly because you ask and not because I think you have demonstrated any insult on my part, I will prune the article until it meets with your satisfaction (as opposed to your approval).<br />
<br />
Thank you, Joe. And please realize that I'm not fussing at you. You've got a great argument--from where I sit, the comments on Holding actually detract from the strength of the argument itself. I don't want to see your work derided or ignored because of other issues--let it stand on its own merits.<br />
<br />
Again, thanks.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 19:03, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Regarding Matthew 1:13 (Humor)==<br />
<br />
Joe said: "How Did This Tradition Get Started You Ask?"<br />
<br />
Somehow, Joe, I don't think you look a thing like Tevye. <br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 18:50, 28 Sep 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==What ErrancyWiki is all about==<br />
<br />
(Moved from [[Matthew 1:6]].)<br />
<br />
"Joseph, not only are you bringing up a ridiculous objection as an "error," with such comments as "possible reasons for differences in the Genealogies are not explanations of defenses against error, they are explanations of the cause of the error," you're poisoning the well.<br />
The Genealogies in Luke and Matthew are two separate genealogies, traced through two different lines. Now, like you, I don't happen to feel that either one is terribly accurate, but if we were to assume that they were accurate (less the omissions in the Matthian genealogy, which I still feel results from a stylistic choice rather than an actual error), tracing two lines of ancestry to a common ancestor is not at all uncommon. Indeed, I have (rather distant) ancestors who I am related to from both my father's line and my mother's.<br />
Most of your genealogy objections have been tempests in teapots: this particular one could be called "making a mountain out of a molehill," save for the fact that you didn't even have a molehill to start with.<br />
--JustinEiler 11:40, 25 Nov 2005 (CST)"<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Listen up Justin, ErrancyWiki is intended to be a '''Serious''' discussion Forum consisting primarily of '''Complete Arguments''' and not Incomplete Assertions. If you are mainly interested in low level discussions consisting largely of Incomplete Assertions stick with Tweeb. You need to move the above to the Neutral Section as a post primarily consisting of the following does not meet the ErrancyWiki Standards justifying placement in the Con Section:<br />
<br />
"ridiculous objection"<br />
<br />
"you're poisoning the well"<br />
<br />
"Most of your genealogy objections have been tempests in teapots"<br />
<br />
"this particular one could be called "making a mountain out of a molehill,"<br />
<br />
"save for the fact that you didn't even have a molehill to start with."<br />
<br />
== Admin Resignation ==<br />
<br />
Hi, Peter and Joe,<br />
<br />
Due to reasons of health, I'm going to have to step down as an ErrancyWiki admin, effective immediately. I apologize for the short notice, but this kind of caught me without warning.<br />
<br />
Thanks, <br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 21:30, 7 Dec 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
== High Crimes and Drug Misdemeanors ==<br />
<br />
Hi, Joe,<br />
<br />
Looking at the IP addresses, it looks like this is coming from a variety of known "spam" sites in Asia, including: bbtec.net in Japan; tm.net.my in Myanmar; bora.net, Seoul; and kornet.net, also in Seoul. However, they all redirect to a website hosted by cogentco.com, a known "spam-haus". You can try to contact abuse@cogentco.com, but it's probably going to be better to simply block the offending domains permanently.<br />
<br />
And unfortunately, you're going to have to edit the spam from the pages as well as block the domains that its coming from. I'll help with that what I can.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 22:58, 12 Dec 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Hi, Joe, the sequel. <grin><br />
<br />
:I ''think'' I got all the spam that's there currently--you'll want to doublecheck, of course, but hopefully it's all gone. <br />
<br />
:Joe, you and Peter might want to discuss the posibility of restricting editing to registered users only--that's a change he has to make in the software. It won't take care of all the spam and vandalism (as you've noticed), but it will be a big help towards getting rid of the lion's share of it. <br />
<br />
:--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 00:02, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)<br />
::How does Wikipedia solve the spam problem? Regards, [http://www.bigissueground.com Thomas Ash]<br />
<br />
:::Well, they do several things, but they also have a lot more resources than we do--more editors, more readers, just generally more people to stomp on the problem.<br />
<br />
::However, there are some technical means that can be brought into play, but those means are up to Peter (the Top Dog here) to implement: [http://chongqed.org/prevent_spam.html Chongqed.org] has some ideas, but many of them require super-admin access to implement.<br />
<br />
:::--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 14:05, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
:I've just cleared out whole bucketloads of spam (fortunately, the mass spam attacks on different days seem to have mostly hit the same set of pages). Though, Joe, I think you might have "shot an innocent" on 1st Jan: user 80.212.55.37 posted on Ezekiel 46:6 just before a mass spam attack, and seems to have gotten banned with the others.<br />
: --[[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] 07:19, 4 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Possible Site Redesign ==<br />
<br />
I sent you an email outlining the possibility for a site redesign that incorporated new features to make a more useful website. This would involve ditching the MediaWiki and going with another software such as Drupal, along with customized programming to make it do just what we want it to do. If you are interested, email me back. --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 06:10, 21 Nov 2006 (CST)</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Kirby&diff=9317
User talk:Peter Kirby
2006-11-21T12:07:15Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Strength rating for contradictions/errors? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Strength rating for contradictions/errors? ==<br />
<br />
Hi Peter-<br />
<br />
This is a great wiki, I'm glad we are working to do this as a group effort, since individual efforts tend to be lost. Anyway, I was thinking about the problem of list size - a list of many contradictions must include ones that are on the borderline for being real contradictions, yet giving only a small list of the best contradictions makes it look like the small list is all there is. To resolve this, what about adding a subjective "strength" rating (maybe a 1-10 scale) to each page - then we can edit it up or down as we all see fit (maybe by vote), and someone could do a search for, say, "all contradictions that are an 8 or stronger"?<br />
<br />
Just an idea. I just joined and hope to help out here and there. Also, can I add likely "con" arguements to pages, even if I am "pro" on that page? Thanks for bearing with me. I'm very inexperienced with wiki stuff.<br />
<br />
Thanks- Equinox<br />
<br />
Hi again - it's been a while, and I haven't seen a response to this. Should I email you directly? - Equinox 8.23.06<br />
<br />
Hi Equinox. Peter Kirby hasn't done much here in the last six months except apologize for not doing much here in the last six months. The best way to reach Peter is to email him directly. If more people bothered him to respond it would probably increase our chances of getting a response. Anyway, I'm the Owner of ErrancyWiki. Regarding your questions:<br />
<br />
Eventually I would like to have a strength rating for Errors that would be searchable. In the meantime we need more Pro arguments in General and a few really detailed ones.<br />
<br />
Theoretically the Con (think about that word) area is reserved for those who really believe in it. Ideally, a Con argument by a Pro person should be dealt with in the Neutral section. But, until we get more arguments I'll probably just leave such arguments in the Con section for the time being.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:34, 24 Aug 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Hi Joe! Thanks for the response. Sounds like a good plan. I'll do my part in adding more pro sections so we can get the rating going eventually. I'll put cons in the neutrals, and pro responses to cons in the pro section. Should we have a single page that lists a bunch of standard, boilerplate con arguments, such as "the hebrew word means something different", and "we cannot question god", and "in ancient hebrew culture there is no contradiction"? Would you like me to start a page like that? where? <br />
--<br />
<br />
Let's hold off on the special page you described for now.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:54, 25 Aug 2006 (CDT)<br />
OK- Eq.<br />
<br />
This is PK. I am interested in perhaps migrating the data over to another software such as Drupal so that we can have more power for features like the one suggested. It would also be cleaner interface, I hope. MediaWiki was designed to do just one thing, and something customized to the needs of ErrancyWiki might do better. --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 06:07, 21 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Creating New Pages ==<br />
<br />
Peter, how do you create a new page?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 10:19, 16 May 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Article For Legends Page ==<br />
<br />
Peter, I have Richard Carrier's article ready for the Legends Page. Please give me your email so I send it to you as an attachment.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 12:13, 18 Mar 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Orphaned Page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, Peter,<br />
<br />
There's an [[Special:Lonelypages|orphaned page]] that needs to be deleted at [[1st_Chronicles_3|1st Chronicles 3]]--it was evidently the first draft of the [[1_Chronicles_3|1 Chronicles 3]] page.<br />
<br />
== Admin Discussion ==<br />
<br />
You (and the other admins, when they are appointed) may also want to consider a Vote for Deletion procedure.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 18:10, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I'd rather leave deletion at the discretion of the admins, with experience with the frivolity and acrimony engendered by VfD. Most comments will be on existing verse pages anyway.--[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 19:44, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Regarding the Admin offer--I still have my doubts about my qualifications, but if you'll have me, I'll accept it with thanks.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 21:19, 22 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Blocked IP ==<br />
<br />
Several cases of vandalism from an IP within Visteon Corp. Tomorrow, I'll contact the company and see if they'll do something with the vandal.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 21:57, 7 Oct 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Admin Resignation ==<br />
<br />
Hi, Peter and Joe,<br />
<br />
Due to reasons of health, I'm going to have to step down as an ErrancyWiki admin, effective immediately. I apologize for the short notice, but this kind of caught me without warning.<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 21:29, 7 Dec 2005 (CST)</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1:7&diff=8111
Matthew 1:7
2006-01-17T00:49:44Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* TR v. Other Manuscripts: Steven Avery */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Featured Smackdown}}<br />
<br />
'''[[Matthew 1:6|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 1]] > [[Matthew 1:8|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa; (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
<br />
<br />
To my honored Teacher Rabbi Maimonides as I lay (what's left of) your Tormentor at your feet.<br />
<br />
<br />
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Asaph” instead of “Asa” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Asaph”. "Asaph" was a famous Psalmist so "Matthew" appears to have either confused him with King Asa or again simply copied an existing error in the Greek. <br />
<br />
Now let's test drive a special option Peter Kirby has installed here, the HTML Bible by verse:<br />
<br />
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Byzantine Majority -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Alexandrian -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945;&#966; <br />
<br />
Hort and Westcott -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945;&#966; <br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
"Asa"/"Asaph" is the last word of the sentence. Note that TR has "Asa" and WH has "Asaph". Raymond Brown, The International Critical Commentary and UBS confirm "Asaph" as '''likely''' original. From A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Bruce M. Metzger:<br />
<br />
"1.7–8 ????, ???? {B}<br />
It is clear that the name “Asaph” is the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts, for the agreement of Alexandrian (? B) and other witnesses (f 1 f 13 700 1071) with Eastern versions (cop arm eth geo) and representatives of the Western text (Old Latin mss and D in Luke [D is lacking for this part of Matthew]) makes a strong combination. Furthermore, the tendency of scribes, observing that the name of the psalmist Asaph (cf. the titles of Pss 50 and 73 to 83) was confused with that of Asa the king of Judah (1 Kgs 15.9 ff.), would have been to correct the error, thus accounting for the prevalence of ??? in the later Ecclesiastical text and its inclusion in the Textus Receptus.1<br />
Although most scholars are impressed by the overwhelming weight of textual evidence supporting ????, Lagrange demurs and in his commentary prints ??? as the text of Matthew. He declares (p. 5) that “literary criticism is not able to admit that the author, who could not have drawn up this list without consulting the Old Testament, would have taken the name of a psalmist in place of a king of Judah. It is necessary, therefore, to suppose that ???? is a very ancient [scribal] error.” Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew."<br />
<br />
On a related note Origen's Hexapla from the early third century may have been an important source of correction for this type of name error for later Greek manuscripts as you wouldn't need to know Hebrew here to observe that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian all used "Asa" instead of "Asaph" for the genealogy in the Jewish Bible. Pity that the Hebrew column of the Hexapla found a final resting spot on the same shelf as the original KJV. Would have Saved us all a lot of time. <br />
<br />
Now let's look at the Hebrew Genealogy for "Asa":<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 3:10 <br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a03.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ?????-????????, ?????????; ???????? ????? ????? ?????, ??????????? ??????. 10 And Solomon's son was Rehoboam; Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son; " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asa) is the 4th Hebrew word from the left.<br />
<br />
Now the Hebrew Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Kings 15:8<br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a15.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ???????????? ???????? ???-????????, ????????????? ????? ??????? ??????; ??????????? ????? ?????, ??????????. {?} 8 And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David; and Asa his son reigned in his stead. " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asa) is the 3rd Hebrew word from the left.<br />
<br />
We can see in the Masoretic text here that "Asa" is spelled consistently. Reading the related Narrative shows that "Asa" was a relatively important King.<br />
<br />
Now let's search the Hebrew for "Asaph" by Genealogy:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 6 <br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a06.htm<br />
<br />
" ?? ???????? ?????, ??????? ???-????????--????? ????-????????????, ????-????????. 24 And his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand; even Asaph the son of Berechiah, the son of Shimea; "<br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asaph) is the fifth Hebrew word from the left and differs from "Asa" with the last letter being " ? " instead of " ? ".<br />
<br />
Now by Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 16<br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a16.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ????? ???????, ???????????? ?????????; ???????? ?????????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ????? ?????????, ???????? ???????? ?????????????, ???????, ??????????????? ??????????. 5 Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, Jeiel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah, and Obed-edom, and Jeiel, with psalteries and with harps; and Asaph with cymbals, sounding aloud; " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asaph) is the first Hebrew word on the right. <br />
<br />
We can see in the Masoretic text here that "Asaph" is spelled consistently. Reading the related Narrative shows that "Asaph" was also a relatively important person.<br />
<br />
Now let's look at the Greek Genealogy for "Asa":<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 3:10 <br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=3&verse=10<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles <br />
"3:10 ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?????"<br />
<br />
"???" (Asa) is in the middle. Note that the LXX has the correct name here per the Hebrew Bible. <br />
<br />
Now the Greek Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Kings 15:8<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible<br />
<br />
"15:8 ??? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????"<br />
<br />
Again, the correct word "???" (Asa) 5th word from the end. <br />
<br />
Now let's search the Greek for "Asaph" by Genealogy:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 9<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=9&verse=15<br />
<br />
"1 Chronicles <br />
9:15 ??? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????"<br />
<br />
"????" (Asaph) is where it's supposed to be as the last word. <br />
<br />
Now let's search the Greek for "Asaph" by Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 16<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=16&verse=5<br />
<br />
"5 ???? ? ????????? ??? ?????????? ???? ???????? ???? ????????? ???? ????????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ????????? ????????"<br />
<br />
Again, "????" (Asaph) is where it's supposed to be as the first word.<br />
<br />
And now, the meaning of the names:<br />
<br />
http://www.ccel.org/bible_names/bible_names.html#A<br />
<br />
"Asa, physician; cure"<br />
<br />
"Asaph, who gathers together"<br />
<br />
Quite the difference.<br />
<br />
One more thing. The usual Christian Apology is that ancient documents show variation in the Greek spelling of "Asa's" name so "Matthew's" use of "Asaph" is just a variation and not a mistake. As near as I can tell most of these "ancient documents" are still hiding in a cave somewhere with the WMDs waiting to be discovered. Josephus though, does use a variation himself:<br />
<br />
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0145:book=8:section=290<br />
<br />
"[290] Ho de tôn Hierosolumôn basileus Asanos"<br />
<br />
"Asanos" instead of "Asa". However, "Asanos" is still not "Asaph" and the LXX "Matthew's" readers would have been referring to still had "Asa". Maybe the Christians changed Joshepus here to support "Matthew". Just kidding! <br />
<br />
<br />
So in '''Summary''', the evidence that "Matthew's" apparent use of "Asaph" at 1:7 is an '''Error''', ranked by weight of evidence is: <br />
<br />
1) According to the Masoretic text "Asa" was the '''correct''' name for the genealogy "Matthew" was trying to present and the textual evidence above indicates that "Matthew's" "Asaph" was likely original. <br />
<br />
2) The detailed '''narrative''' from the Jewish Bible also confirms "Asa" as correct. <br />
<br />
3) The '''LXX''' also has "Asa" for the genealogy and narrative which is further evidence that the Greek "???" was the correct name here. <br />
<br />
4) "Asa" and "Asaph" are two '''different''' names in the original Hebrew used to refer to different people in the Jewish Bible. This time both refer to relatively important people. Asa, the good king and Asaph, chief Psalmist of David.<br />
<br />
5) There is '''no''' evidence in the Jewish Bible that "Asa" and "Asaph" were anything other than two distinct names. <br />
<br />
6) Subsequent Christian copyists gradually '''changed''' the name from "Asaph" to "Asa" implying they recognized that "Asaph" was an error.<br />
<br />
7) A one letter difference is a '''big''' difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew. <br />
<br />
8) There are many '''more''' examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy. <br />
<br />
9) '''Origen''' confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names. This would have been well before any extant manuscripts. <br />
<br />
10) The meaning of "Asa" and "Asaph" in Hebrew is '''different'''. <br />
<br />
11) Messianic '''Apologist''' Schmuel confesses to us that if "Asaph" is original then 1:7 is in error.<br />
<br />
<br />
The evidence that "Matthew's" use of "Asaph" at 1:7 is '''not an Error''', ranked by weight of evidence is: <br />
<br />
1) It's possible that "Matthew" '''originally''' wrote "Asa".<br />
<br />
2) "Asa" and "Asaph" differ by '''one''' letter in the Hebrew and Greek so it's possible they could refer to the same person. <br />
<br />
3) Josephus has a variant spelling of "Asa" so it's possible that '''variant''' spellings at the time were an acceptable convention.<br />
<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the weight of the Evidence above is that '''"Asa" is the correct''' name at this point in the genealogy and "Matthew's" use of a different name ("Asaph") is an '''Error'''. Let me also point out something for the benefit of Fundamentalists here. If you want to believe that "Asa" and "Asaph" referred to the same person then "Matthew's" use of "Asa" would still have been a better choice and therefore, the existing genealogy by "Matthew" is not "perfect". <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
===Issues of errancy: Textus Receptus vs. other manuscripts===<br />
There is a huge irony trying to claim this as a smackdown error against the New Testament, since it is only based upon a corruption that is not in the historic New Testaments (Greek Received Text, Tyndale, Geneva, Luther, King James Bible, etc) but only in the modern eclectic alexandrian texts, which only became an issue by the dubious Westcott & Hort work, and are defended by nobody anywhere as inerrant. <br />
<br />
This, btw, is a very frequent modus operandi of errantists, to attack the corruptions in the alexandrian text that are in the 'modern versions'. For them it is like an easy duckshoot. This is not the place to go into the whole history of the alexandrian text, suffice to say they are rife with geographical, historical, grammatical, logical and internal consistency blunders. One simple example is that a demoniac/swine incident is placed at Gerash (Jerash), 30 miles deep into Jordan, with no relationship whatsoever to the Sea of Galilee, <br />
<br />
Even worse, Peter Kirby is well aware of this distinction, from my own discussions with him on other issues, especially Mark 1:2 !<br />
<br />
Here are two excerpts from articles from those who defend the historic Bible, simply agreeing that this is a modern version blunder, and to demonstrate that this is a well-known modern version corruption. <br />
<br />
These men actually defend God's Word as inspired and preserved. And Thomas Strouse goes into some of the contradictory idiosyncrasies of one modern version errant translation.<br />
<br />
http://www.christianmissionconnection.org/A_BIBLICAL_CREDIBILITY_CRISIS_word.pdf<br />
http://floydjones.org/which.pdf - Which Version is the Bible<br />
<br />
A BIBLICAL CREDIBILITY CRISIS - Wilbur Pickering<br />
Moreover, the “minority text” has introduced some unequivocal errors which make the doctrine of inerrancy indefensible. For example, Matthew 1:7 and 1:10 list Asaph and Amos, two non-existent kings, in Christ’s genealogy whereas the Traditional Text correctly reads “Asa” and “Amon”.<br />
<br />
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/shouldfundamentalists-nasv.html Dr. Thomas Strouse<br />
Matthew 1:7-8; 10 However, Aleph and B, the two major manuscripts behind the Critical Text, read Asaph for Asa and Amos for Amon, respectively.<br />
Although Asaph the psalmist and Amos the prophet were godly men, they have no place in the royal genealogy of Christ.<br />
(more on url site, truncated to be sure to be in 'fair use')<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 04:18, 13 Nov 2005 (CST) Steven Avery Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
====Avery: Response 1====<br />
<br />
"11) Messianic Apologist Schmuel confesses to us that if "Asaph" is original than 1:7 is in error."<br />
<br />
LOL.. 'confesses to us' ????? :-) <br />
Au contraire.<br />
<br />
a) J'Accuse the alexandrian modern versions of being corrupt, full of errors, omissions, corruptions, from geographical impossibilities to grammatical abominations to logical contradictions to various other types of blunders, ironically the errors themselves generally based on minimal textual evidence.<br />
<br />
b) J'Accuse the methodologies of 'modern scientific textual criticism" of guaranteeing the creation of a corrupt text full of these blunders and errors, by gerry-rigging ascriptural theories of anti-inspiration for their false agenda, and then falsely pretending that their fabricated and clearly bankrupt text created is somehow closer to the 'original autographs'.<br />
<br />
c) J'Accuse modern liberal textual theories of desparately trying to bypass the true Bible New Testament, most especially the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, because of the Authority, the full and final authority, inherent in the Word of God.<br />
<br />
d) J'Accuse the enemies of the Gospel, who themselves have the strangest and most humorous theories of the creation and propagation of the NT text, of utilizing simply for convenience the false theories of a-b-c, for their agenda, their purposes of fighting the Word of God. They are aware that by putting forth a phoney facade of textual criticism, they can fight against what they can affectionately call the Duckshoot Text rather than against the inspired and preserved Word of God.<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 09:26, 17 Nov 2005 (CST) Steven Avery Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
===Response to Con===<br />
It is possible that there is more than one person with the name Asa, or Asaph.<br />
<br />
--------------------<br />
<br />
Tis not clear whose response this is above. <br />
To be clear that might be the response of a textual liberal trying to salvage his modern version duckshoot text. <br />
<br />
However I will use this space to note one entry from Joe that appears to be deliberately confusing, since it is amazingly an attack on the accurate, unerrant New Testament text !<br />
<br />
JW<br />
"Pity that the Hebrew column of the Hexapla found a final resting spot on the same shelf as the original KJV. Would have Saved us all a lot of time."<br />
<br />
The King James Bible does in fact match the Hebrew Bible here perfectly, so this is a very strange comment. <br />
<br />
In line with this, perhaps the time would be saved if supposed 'errors' were not brought forth ('smackdown' status, no less) that simply are not errors in the historic Bibles, the only Bibles that are defended as truly inerrant (in their tangible, 'hold-in-your-hands' state). <br />
<br />
Or at least they should have a clear disclaimer at top -<br />
"This argument does not apply to the historic Bibles based on the Received Text, such as the King James Bible, Geneva, Tyndale, Luther (German), etc"<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 06:00, 8 Dec 2005 (CST)Shalom, Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
===TR v. Other Manuscripts: Joseph Wallack===<br />
JW:<br />
Shalom Schmuel, you've been ...expected. I'm perfectly willing to consider the Textual Analysis issue. No one should stop their evidence at Appeal To Authority. Can you transform the above into an Argument? In other words, list your Key Points, consider opposing Points and analyze how both make your conclusion the more likely one. Right now, the main Assertions I see above are:<br />
<br />
1)"which only became an issue by the dubious Westcott & Hort work" <br />
<br />
2)"the alexandrian text, suffice to say they are rife with geographical, historical, grammatical, logical and internal consistency blunders."<br />
<br />
3)"Thomas Strouse goes into some of the contradictory idiosyncrasies of one modern version errant translation."<br />
<br />
Right now you don't have a complete Argument, you just have a few Assertions which you claim support your Conclusion. I know you don't play the Apologist Game of intentionally refusing to do anything other than refer to Apologist arguments and then primarily claiming that your opponent doesn't understand the Apologist Argument you refer to (in order to distract). <br />
<br />
Please try and present a more complete Argument even if that means cutting and pasting someone else's. Thanks.<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
===TR v. Other Manuscripts: Steven Avery===<br />
Sure<br />
<br />
1) The only New Testament defended as inerrant is the historic Bible,<br />
the Received Text, and most especially the majestic English translation, the King James Bible, always the point of comparision for the lessers.<br />
<br />
2) This is the true scriptures. <br />
<br />
3) In the historic Bible, there is no error with Asa. All TR Bibles (Tyndale, Geneva, KJB, Luther, others and modern TR vresions) have no error here.<br />
<br />
4) The same point answers a few dozen of your most significant attempts to find an error in the New Testament. And you are welcome to cut-and-paste this 1-2-3-4 (or link to this page) to answer those dozens of claims of error. <br />
<br />
That should do :-)<br />
<br />
Additional note to (2). There is little point or sense in debating what is the true scriptures with one like yourself that believes the New Testament is simply a bunch of junque and confusions and deceptions and errors. You of course will embrace any argument that creates an errant text, (since an errant text is your goal and hope and dream) such as the W&H textual position (e.g through overuse of lectio difficilior). <br />
<br />
And basically every modern version user will agree with you that they have an errant text, full of errors, anyway (they like to call them 'scribal errors', although their problems are far deeper than that). The whole inerrancy discussion then becomes a waste of time, since they agree with you out of the box. <br />
<br />
Your idea that my defending the true Bible is an "Appeal to Authority" is, in an ironic sense, 100% right. The King James Bible remains today the 'Final Authority' (see William Grady book).<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 17:29, 14 Nov 2005 (CST) Shalom, Steven Avery<br />
<br />
====Avery: Response 2====<br />
Joe<br />
"I'm perfectly willing to consider the Textual Analysis issue"<br />
<br />
What you, Joe W, will 'consider' is essentially irrelevant. <br />
The issue is integrity on the wiki. <br />
<br />
We know your desire is always to fabricate an error in the NT text, so you will argue, ironically, that, the true (original) text is the false (errant) text. Those who accept the Authority of the Bible and defend its inerrancy in the historic text, really do not care a whit what an unbeliever with an agenda will 'consider'.<br />
<br />
Now this wiki entry should, for honesty, have a large disclaimer -<br />
<br />
<b> This claimed 'smackdown' error in Matthew 1:7 does not relate at all to the historic English Bible (the King James Bible or any Reformation Bibles, English, German, Spanish, or other languages). </b><br />
<br />
In addition, in smaller letters, but also clear and on top- <br />
<br />
Please note that this claimed error has not been shown at all to be in any of the following- <b> <br />
a) Vast majority of Greek manuscripts, (which have Asa), or the<br />
b) Latin Vulgate and its English translation, the Douay-Rheims, or the<br />
c) Old Latin manuscripts, or the<br />
d) Aramaic Peshitta. <br />
e) Early church writers, Greek, Latin or Aramaic </b><br />
<br />
With two such disclaimers, bold and clear in the introduction, the wiki would then gain some errancy integrity.<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 11:07, 17 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Wiki Integrity Notice===<br />
Integrity of this Wiki is monitored and maintained by the Administration, and as such the rule regarding integrity is stated as "Dual point of view is maintained." While Mr. Avery is to be commended for his concern for the integrity of this wiki, it might be best to note that your interpretation of "integrity" may or may not agree with the Wiki Administrators.<br />
<br />
Thank you,<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 14:05, 17 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=7&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201:7;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=7 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+1.7 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_1,_Verse_7 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]<br />
[[Category:Matthew]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]<br />
[[Category:Con]]<br />
[[Category:Neutral]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=7867
Main Page
2006-01-16T18:11:17Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:7]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Job 1:7]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]]. Discussions are generally divided into [[:Category:Pro|Pro]], [[:Category:Con|Con]], or [[:Category:Neutral|Neutral]] arguments.<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] as an admin. For now, therefore, we are operating on a "three wise men" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the fourth admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
# '''No spam'''. Any outbound link will be deleted, with a rare exception made for specific online supporting documentation. The first violation will result in a hard ban, which can be lifed only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
The roadmap has been adjusted.<br />
<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited. '''58 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 124 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited. '''24 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 32 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* November 1, 2006. At least 50 users will sign up. '''44 as of November 2, 2005 ~ 50 as of January 16, 2006'''<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* April 1, 2007. At least 250 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2007. At least 250 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2007. At least 250 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2008. At least <strike>100,000</strike> <strike>250,000</strike> 1,000,000 page views will be reached. '''Already over 200k. Let's aim higher!'''<br />
* January 1, 2009. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=7403
Main Page
2006-01-16T18:01:17Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:7]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Job 1:7]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]]. Discussions are generally divided into [[:Category:Pro|Pro]], [[:Category:Con|Con]], or [[:Category:Neutral|Neutral]] arguments.<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] as an admin. For now, therefore, we are operating on a "three wise men" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the fourth admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
* September 1, 2005. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited. '''58 as of November 2, 2005'''<br />
* October 1, 2005. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited. '''24 as of November 2, 2005'''<br />
* November 1, 2005. At least 50 users will sign up. '''44 as of November 2, 2005'''<br />
* December 1, 2005. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 500 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* April 1, 2006. At least 500 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 500 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* October 1, 2006. At least <strike>100,000</strike> 250,000 page views will be reached. '''Already over 110k. Let's aim higher!'''<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1:7&diff=7404
Matthew 1:7
2006-01-16T17:54:44Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Con */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Featured Smackdown}}<br />
<br />
'''[[Matthew 1:6|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 1]] > [[Matthew 1:8|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa; (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
<br />
<br />
To my honored Teacher Rabbi Maimonides as I lay (what's left of) your Tormentor at your feet.<br />
<br />
<br />
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Asaph” instead of “Asa” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Asaph”. "Asaph" was a famous Psalmist so "Matthew" appears to have either confused him with King Asa or again simply copied an existing error in the Greek. <br />
<br />
Now let's test drive a special option Peter Kirby has installed here, the HTML Bible by verse:<br />
<br />
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Byzantine Majority -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Alexandrian -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945;&#966; <br />
<br />
Hort and Westcott -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945;&#966; <br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
"Asa"/"Asaph" is the last word of the sentence. Note that TR has "Asa" and WH has "Asaph". Raymond Brown, The International Critical Commentary and UBS confirm "Asaph" as '''likely''' original. From A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Bruce M. Metzger:<br />
<br />
"1.7–8 ????, ???? {B}<br />
It is clear that the name “Asaph” is the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts, for the agreement of Alexandrian (? B) and other witnesses (f 1 f 13 700 1071) with Eastern versions (cop arm eth geo) and representatives of the Western text (Old Latin mss and D in Luke [D is lacking for this part of Matthew]) makes a strong combination. Furthermore, the tendency of scribes, observing that the name of the psalmist Asaph (cf. the titles of Pss 50 and 73 to 83) was confused with that of Asa the king of Judah (1 Kgs 15.9 ff.), would have been to correct the error, thus accounting for the prevalence of ??? in the later Ecclesiastical text and its inclusion in the Textus Receptus.1<br />
Although most scholars are impressed by the overwhelming weight of textual evidence supporting ????, Lagrange demurs and in his commentary prints ??? as the text of Matthew. He declares (p. 5) that “literary criticism is not able to admit that the author, who could not have drawn up this list without consulting the Old Testament, would have taken the name of a psalmist in place of a king of Judah. It is necessary, therefore, to suppose that ???? is a very ancient [scribal] error.” Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew."<br />
<br />
On a related note Origen's Hexapla from the early third century may have been an important source of correction for this type of name error for later Greek manuscripts as you wouldn't need to know Hebrew here to observe that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian all used "Asa" instead of "Asaph" for the genealogy in the Jewish Bible. Pity that the Hebrew column of the Hexapla found a final resting spot on the same shelf as the original KJV. Would have Saved us all a lot of time. <br />
<br />
Now let's look at the Hebrew Genealogy for "Asa":<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 3:10 <br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a03.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ?????-????????, ?????????; ???????? ????? ????? ?????, ??????????? ??????. 10 And Solomon's son was Rehoboam; Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son; " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asa) is the 4th Hebrew word from the left.<br />
<br />
Now the Hebrew Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Kings 15:8<br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a15.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ???????????? ???????? ???-????????, ????????????? ????? ??????? ??????; ??????????? ????? ?????, ??????????. {?} 8 And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David; and Asa his son reigned in his stead. " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asa) is the 3rd Hebrew word from the left.<br />
<br />
We can see in the Masoretic text here that "Asa" is spelled consistently. Reading the related Narrative shows that "Asa" was a relatively important King.<br />
<br />
Now let's search the Hebrew for "Asaph" by Genealogy:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 6 <br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a06.htm<br />
<br />
" ?? ???????? ?????, ??????? ???-????????--????? ????-????????????, ????-????????. 24 And his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand; even Asaph the son of Berechiah, the son of Shimea; "<br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asaph) is the fifth Hebrew word from the left and differs from "Asa" with the last letter being " ? " instead of " ? ".<br />
<br />
Now by Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 16<br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a16.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ????? ???????, ???????????? ?????????; ???????? ?????????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ????? ?????????, ???????? ???????? ?????????????, ???????, ??????????????? ??????????. 5 Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, Jeiel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah, and Obed-edom, and Jeiel, with psalteries and with harps; and Asaph with cymbals, sounding aloud; " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asaph) is the first Hebrew word on the right. <br />
<br />
We can see in the Masoretic text here that "Asaph" is spelled consistently. Reading the related Narrative shows that "Asaph" was also a relatively important person.<br />
<br />
Now let's look at the Greek Genealogy for "Asa":<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 3:10 <br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=3&verse=10<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles <br />
"3:10 ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?????"<br />
<br />
"???" (Asa) is in the middle. Note that the LXX has the correct name here per the Hebrew Bible. <br />
<br />
Now the Greek Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Kings 15:8<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible<br />
<br />
"15:8 ??? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????"<br />
<br />
Again, the correct word "???" (Asa) 5th word from the end. <br />
<br />
Now let's search the Greek for "Asaph" by Genealogy:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 9<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=9&verse=15<br />
<br />
"1 Chronicles <br />
9:15 ??? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????"<br />
<br />
"????" (Asaph) is where it's supposed to be as the last word. <br />
<br />
Now let's search the Greek for "Asaph" by Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 16<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=16&verse=5<br />
<br />
"5 ???? ? ????????? ??? ?????????? ???? ???????? ???? ????????? ???? ????????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ????????? ????????"<br />
<br />
Again, "????" (Asaph) is where it's supposed to be as the first word.<br />
<br />
And now, the meaning of the names:<br />
<br />
http://www.ccel.org/bible_names/bible_names.html#A<br />
<br />
"Asa, physician; cure"<br />
<br />
"Asaph, who gathers together"<br />
<br />
Quite the difference.<br />
<br />
One more thing. The usual Christian Apology is that ancient documents show variation in the Greek spelling of "Asa's" name so "Matthew's" use of "Asaph" is just a variation and not a mistake. As near as I can tell most of these "ancient documents" are still hiding in a cave somewhere with the WMDs waiting to be discovered. Josephus though, does use a variation himself:<br />
<br />
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0145:book=8:section=290<br />
<br />
"[290] Ho de tôn Hierosolumôn basileus Asanos"<br />
<br />
"Asanos" instead of "Asa". However, "Asanos" is still not "Asaph" and the LXX "Matthew's" readers would have been referring to still had "Asa". Maybe the Christians changed Joshepus here to support "Matthew". Just kidding! <br />
<br />
<br />
So in '''Summary''', the evidence that "Matthew's" apparent use of "Asaph" at 1:7 is an '''Error''', ranked by weight of evidence is: <br />
<br />
1) According to the Masoretic text "Asa" was the '''correct''' name for the genealogy "Matthew" was trying to present and the textual evidence above indicates that "Matthew's" "Asaph" was likely original. <br />
<br />
2) The detailed '''narrative''' from the Jewish Bible also confirms "Asa" as correct. <br />
<br />
3) The '''LXX''' also has "Asa" for the genealogy and narrative which is further evidence that the Greek "???" was the correct name here. <br />
<br />
4) "Asa" and "Asaph" are two '''different''' names in the original Hebrew used to refer to different people in the Jewish Bible. This time both refer to relatively important people. Asa, the good king and Asaph, chief Psalmist of David.<br />
<br />
5) There is '''no''' evidence in the Jewish Bible that "Asa" and "Asaph" were anything other than two distinct names. <br />
<br />
6) Subsequent Christian copyists gradually '''changed''' the name from "Asaph" to "Asa" implying they recognized that "Asaph" was an error.<br />
<br />
7) A one letter difference is a '''big''' difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew. <br />
<br />
8) There are many '''more''' examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy. <br />
<br />
9) '''Origen''' confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names. This would have been well before any extant manuscripts. <br />
<br />
10) The meaning of "Asa" and "Asaph" in Hebrew is '''different'''. <br />
<br />
11) Messianic '''Apologist''' Schmuel confesses to us that if "Asaph" is original then 1:7 is in error.<br />
<br />
<br />
The evidence that "Matthew's" use of "Asaph" at 1:7 is '''not an Error''', ranked by weight of evidence is: <br />
<br />
1) It's possible that "Matthew" '''originally''' wrote "Asa".<br />
<br />
2) "Asa" and "Asaph" differ by '''one''' letter in the Hebrew and Greek so it's possible they could refer to the same person. <br />
<br />
3) Josephus has a variant spelling of "Asa" so it's possible that '''variant''' spellings at the time were an acceptable convention.<br />
<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the weight of the Evidence above is that '''"Asa" is the correct''' name at this point in the genealogy and "Matthew's" use of a different name ("Asaph") is an '''Error'''. Let me also point out something for the benefit of Fundamentalists here. If you want to believe that "Asa" and "Asaph" referred to the same person then "Matthew's" use of "Asa" would still have been a better choice and therefore, the existing genealogy by "Matthew" is not "perfect". <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
===Issues of errancy: Textus Receptus vs. other manuscripts===<br />
There is a huge irony trying to claim this as a smackdown error against the New Testament, since it is only based upon a corruption that is not in the historic New Testaments (Greek Received Text, Tyndale, Geneva, Luther, King James Bible, etc) but only in the modern eclectic alexandrian texts, which only became an issue by the dubious Westcott & Hort work, and are defended by nobody anywhere as inerrant. <br />
<br />
This, btw, is a very frequent modus operandi of errantists, to attack the corruptions in the alexandrian text that are in the 'modern versions'. For them it is like an easy duckshoot. This is not the place to go into the whole history of the alexandrian text, suffice to say they are rife with geographical, historical, grammatical, logical and internal consistency blunders. One simple example is that a demoniac/swine incident is placed at Gerash (Jerash), 30 miles deep into Jordan, with no relationship whatsoever to the Sea of Galilee, <br />
<br />
Even worse, Peter Kirby is well aware of this distinction, from my own discussions with him on other issues, especially Mark 1:2 !<br />
<br />
Here are two excerpts from articles from those who defend the historic Bible, simply agreeing that this is a modern version blunder, and to demonstrate that this is a well-known modern version corruption. <br />
<br />
These men actually defend God's Word as inspired and preserved. And Thomas Strouse goes into some of the contradictory idiosyncrasies of one modern version errant translation.<br />
<br />
http://www.christianmissionconnection.org/A_BIBLICAL_CREDIBILITY_CRISIS_word.pdf<br />
http://floydjones.org/which.pdf - Which Version is the Bible<br />
<br />
A BIBLICAL CREDIBILITY CRISIS - Wilbur Pickering<br />
Moreover, the “minority text” has introduced some unequivocal errors which make the doctrine of inerrancy indefensible. For example, Matthew 1:7 and 1:10 list Asaph and Amos, two non-existent kings, in Christ’s genealogy whereas the Traditional Text correctly reads “Asa” and “Amon”.<br />
<br />
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/shouldfundamentalists-nasv.html Dr. Thomas Strouse<br />
Matthew 1:7-8; 10 However, Aleph and B, the two major manuscripts behind the Critical Text, read Asaph for Asa and Amos for Amon, respectively.<br />
Although Asaph the psalmist and Amos the prophet were godly men, they have no place in the royal genealogy of Christ.<br />
(more on url site, truncated to be sure to be in 'fair use')<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 04:18, 13 Nov 2005 (CST) Steven Avery Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
====Avery: Response 1====<br />
<br />
"11) Messianic Apologist Schmuel confesses to us that if "Asaph" is original than 1:7 is in error."<br />
<br />
LOL.. 'confesses to us' ????? :-) <br />
Au contraire.<br />
<br />
a) J'Accuse the alexandrian modern versions of being corrupt, full of errors, omissions, corruptions, from geographical impossibilities to grammatical abominations to logical contradictions to various other types of blunders, ironically the errors themselves generally based on minimal textual evidence.<br />
<br />
b) J'Accuse the methodologies of 'modern scientific textual criticism" of guaranteeing the creation of a corrupt text full of these blunders and errors, by gerry-rigging ascriptural theories of anti-inspiration for their false agenda, and then falsely pretending that their fabricated and clearly bankrupt text created is somehow closer to the 'original autographs'.<br />
<br />
c) J'Accuse modern liberal textual theories of desparately trying to bypass the true Bible New Testament, most especially the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, because of the Authority, the full and final authority, inherent in the Word of God.<br />
<br />
d) J'Accuse the enemies of the Gospel, who themselves have the strangest and most humorous theories of the creation and propagation of the NT text, of utilizing simply for convenience the false theories of a-b-c, for their agenda, their purposes of fighting the Word of God. They are aware that by putting forth a phoney facade of textual criticism, they can fight against what they can affectionately call the Duckshoot Text rather than against the inspired and preserved Word of God.<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 09:26, 17 Nov 2005 (CST) Steven Avery Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
===Response to Con===<br />
It is possible that there is more than one person with the name Asa, or Asaph.<br />
<br />
--------------------<br />
<br />
Tis not clear whose response this is above. <br />
To be clear that might be the response of a textual liberal trying to salvage his modern version duckshoot text. <br />
<br />
However I will use this space to note one entry from Joe that appears to be deliberately confusing, since it is amazingly an attack on the accurate, unerrant New Testament text !<br />
<br />
JW<br />
"Pity that the Hebrew column of the Hexapla found a final resting spot on the same shelf as the original KJV. Would have Saved us all a lot of time."<br />
<br />
The King James Bible does in fact match the Hebrew Bible here perfectly, so this is a very strange comment. <br />
<br />
In line with this, perhaps the time would be saved if supposed 'errors' were not brought forth ('smackdown' status, no less) that simply are not errors in the historic Bibles, the only Bibles that are defended as truly inerrant (in their tangible, 'hold-in-your-hands' state). <br />
<br />
Or at least they should have a clear disclaimer at top -<br />
"This argument does not apply to the historic Bibles based on the Received Text, such as the King James Bible, Geneva, Tyndale, Luther (German), etc"<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 06:00, 8 Dec 2005 (CST)Shalom, Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
===TR v. Other Manuscripts: Joseph Wallack===<br />
JW:<br />
Shalom Schmuel, you've been ...expected. I'm perfectly willing to consider the Textual Analysis issue. No one should stop their evidence at Appeal To Authority. Can you transform the above into an Argument? In other words, list your Key Points, consider opposing Points and analyze how both make your conclusion the more likely one. Right now, the main Assertions I see above are:<br />
<br />
1)"which only became an issue by the dubious Westcott & Hort work" <br />
<br />
2)"the alexandrian text, suffice to say they are rife with geographical, historical, grammatical, logical and internal consistency blunders."<br />
<br />
3)"Thomas Strouse goes into some of the contradictory idiosyncrasies of one modern version errant translation."<br />
<br />
Right now you don't have a complete Argument, you just have a few Assertions which you claim support your Conclusion. I know you don't play the Apologist Game of intentionally refusing to do anything other than refer to Apologist arguments and then primarily claiming that your opponent doesn't understand the Apologist Argument you refer to (in order to distract). <br />
<br />
Please try and present a more complete Argument even if that means cutting and pasting someone else's. Thanks.<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
===TR v. Other Manuscripts: Steven Avery===<br />
Sure<br />
<br />
1) The only New Testament defended as inerrant is the historic Bible,<br />
the Received Text, and most especially the majestic English translation, the King James Bible, always the point of comparision for the lessers.<br />
<br />
2) This is the true scriptures. <br />
<br />
3) In the historic Bible, there is no error with Asa. All TR Bibles (Tyndale, Geneva, KJB, Luther, others and modern TR vresions) have no error here.<br />
<br />
4) The same point answers a few dozen of your most significant attempts to find an error in the New Testament. And you are welcome to cut-and-paste this 1-2-3-4 (or link to this page) to answer those dozens of claims of error. <br />
<br />
That should do :-)<br />
<br />
Additional note to (2). There is little point or sense in debating what is the true scriptures with one like yourself that believes the New Testament is simply a bunch of junque and confusions and deceptions and errors. You of course will embrace any argument that creates an errant text, (since an errant text is your goal and hope and dream) such as the W&H textual position (e.g through overuse of lectio difficilior). <br />
<br />
And basically every modern version user will agree with you that they have an errant text, full of errors, anyway (they like to call them 'scribal errors', although their problems are far deeper than that). The whole inerrancy discussion then becomes a waste of time, since they agree with you out of the box. <br />
<br />
Your idea that my defending the true Bible is an "Appeal to Authority" is, in an ironic sense, 100% right. The King James Bible remains today the 'Final Authority' (see William Grady book).<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 17:29, 14 Nov 2005 (CST) Shalom, Steven Avery http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic<br />
<br />
====Avery: Response 2====<br />
Joe<br />
"I'm perfectly willing to consider the Textual Analysis issue"<br />
<br />
What you, Joe W, will 'consider' is essentially irrelevant. <br />
The issue is integrity on the wiki. <br />
<br />
We know your desire is always to fabricate an error in the NT text, so you will argue, ironically, that, the true (original) text is the false (errant) text. Those who accept the Authority of the Bible and defend its inerrancy in the historic text, really do not care a whit what an unbeliever with an agenda will 'consider'.<br />
<br />
Now this wiki entry should, for honesty, have a large disclaimer -<br />
<br />
<b> This claimed 'smackdown' error in Matthew 1:7 does not relate at all to the historic English Bible (the King James Bible or any Reformation Bibles, English, German, Spanish, or other languages). </b><br />
<br />
In addition, in smaller letters, but also clear and on top- <br />
<br />
Please note that this claimed error has not been shown at all to be in any of the following- <b> <br />
a) Vast majority of Greek manuscripts, (which have Asa), or the<br />
b) Latin Vulgate and its English translation, the Douay-Rheims, or the<br />
c) Old Latin manuscripts, or the<br />
d) Aramaic Peshitta. <br />
e) Early church writers, Greek, Latin or Aramaic </b><br />
<br />
With two such disclaimers, bold and clear in the introduction, the wiki would then gain some errancy integrity.<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 11:07, 17 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Wiki Integrity Notice===<br />
Integrity of this Wiki is monitored and maintained by the Administration, and as such the rule regarding integrity is stated as "Dual point of view is maintained." While Mr. Avery is to be commended for his concern for the integrity of this wiki, it might be best to note that your interpretation of "integrity" may or may not agree with the Wiki Administrators.<br />
<br />
Thank you,<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 14:05, 17 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=7&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201:7;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=7 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+1.7 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_1,_Verse_7 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]<br />
[[Category:Matthew]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]<br />
[[Category:Con]]<br />
[[Category:Neutral]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Help:Contents&diff=46082
Help:Contents
2006-01-16T17:46:28Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>==ErrancyWiki Help==<br />
<br />
ErrancyWiki runs on the [http://www.mediawiki.org MediaWiki] software, so the help contents for ErrancyWiki are [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents available here]. However, there are issues that are specific to ErrancyWiki which will be addressed from here.<br />
<br />
:1: [[Help:Greek_text|Editing Greek text]]<br />
:2: [[Editing Hebrew text]] (Pending)<br />
:3: [[Why chapters and verses?]]<br />
<br />
Additional issues will be added if necessary.<br />
<br />
==Requesting Help==<br />
<br />
If you need help on a topic not covered under the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents MediaWiki help Contents], and not covered here, please ask questions on the [[Help_talk:Contents|Help Talk Page]].<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 16:23, 2 Sep 2005 (CDT)</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Help:Contents&diff=7400
Help:Contents
2006-01-16T17:45:07Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=5609
Main Page
2005-10-22T00:00:51Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:7]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Job 1:7]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]]<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:JustinEiler|Justin Eiler]] as an admin. For a while we will, therefore, be operating on a "two kings" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the third admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
* September 1, 2005. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* October 1, 2005. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2005. At least 50 users will sign up.<br />
* December 1, 2005. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 500 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* April 1, 2006. At least 500 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 500 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* October 1, 2006. At least <strike>100,000</strike> 250,000 page views will be reached. '''Already over 110k. Let's aim higher!'''<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Paul_vs_Peter&diff=5236
Paul vs Peter
2005-08-29T09:58:09Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Con */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Pro==<br />
<br />
[[Acts 15]] is the Lucan account of the Council of Jerusalem. [[Galatians 2]] is Paul's account. In the Lucan account, it is Peter who comes out in defense of not forcing the Gentiles to abide by Jewish purity laws ... yet in Galatians, Paul takes the lead in this role. Indeed, the Galatians account even has Paul chivying Peter into accepting this point of view.<br />
<br />
Now, this fits into a larger chronology: according to [[Acts 10]], Peter had the vision of the sheet coming down from heaven, filled with all kinds of animals--the vision that taught him that Jewish Christians were not supposed to separate themselves from Gentile Christians. According to [[Acts 11]], Peter then defended his actions to the Jerusalem elders. Then acording to [[Acts 15]], Peter cites that the Gentiles should not be placed under the Law. So then after all this, here we have [[Galatians 2]] stating that Peter withdrew himself from the Gentile Christians?<br />
<br />
Somebody's doing some "spinning." Of the possible suspects that we have, there is either the Lucan author--who did not witness the events in Jerusalem, and who has a vested interest in presenting the Church as a unified and coherent body; or Paul--who was a witness (indeed, he was one of the participants), and who is not afraid to show the Church divided, because he's dealing with a divided church in Galatia.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 20:08, 28 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
According to one school of thought, the letter of Galatians was written before the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, and the events of Galatians 2:1-10 correspond to Acts 11:30.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1:5&diff=5229
Matthew 1:5
2005-08-27T23:27:39Z
<p>Peter Kirby: formatting</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Matthew 1:4|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 1]] > [[Matthew 1:6|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
JW:<br />
The only Rachab mentioned in the Tanakh was the Rachab of the Conquest who lived close to two centuries before Boaz. Trying to estimate the time lapse is an inexact exercise because the "Conquest" was probably not a historical event and the Jewish Bible generally doesn't give ages for the fathers when the sons were born here. The older you assume the Fathers were at the birth of the sons, the closer you get. Raymond Brown, probably the top Catholic Bible scholar of our time wrote: "the famous Rahab lived at the time of the conquest, nearly two centuries before Boaz' time." The International Critical<br />
Commentary is probably the top Protestant commentary of our time and<br />
wrote: "OT chronology separates Rahab and Salman by almost two-<br />
hundred years." Close to two hundred years would also be in line with<br />
the estimate of top Jewish Bible scholars. Interestingly, the Talmud says that Rachab married Joshua (ahem). <br />
<br />
Every significant Church Father who commented on Matthew 1:5 (including Jerome and Luther) assumed that Matthew was referring to the Rachab of the Conquest. In Raymond Brown's classic, "The Birth Of The Messiah", he writes on Page 60, "it is virtually certain that Matthew means the Rahab of the conquest."<br />
<br />
The women of "Matthew's" genealogy all seem to have notorius backgrounds. Was this the author's way of dealing with Mary's reputation before the Catholics had their way with her?<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that as we demonstrate Errors or even just "difficulties" in "Matthew's" supposed genealogy statistically it becomes somewhat more likely that an individual potential error is an actual error. <br />
<br />
For those who want to hang with this Homily Boy on gnarly Generation waves, I recommend purchasing "The Birth Of The Messiah" which I'll give the link to in the Neutral section.<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Rather than simply rely on Appeal to Authority for the time lapse let's look at '''Judges''' for an estimate of the time period after the Conquest of Jericho and before Samuel was born (ASV):<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Judges_3|Judges 3]]:<br />
:[[Judges_3:8|8]] "Therefore the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia: and the children of Israel served Cushan-rishathaim eight years. <br />
:[[Judges_3:9|9]] And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother. <br />
:[[Judges_3:10|10]] And the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him, and he judged Israel; and he went out to war, and Jehovah delivered Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand: and his hand prevailed against Cushan-rishathaim. <br />
:[[Judges_3:11|11]] And the land had rest forty years. And Othniel the son of Kenaz died. <br />
:[[Judges_3:12|12]] And the children of Israel again did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah: and Jehovah strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah. <br />
:[[Judges_3:13|13]] And he gathered unto him the children of Ammon and Amalek; and he went and smote Israel, and they possessed the city of palm-trees. <br />
:[[Judges_3:14|14]] And the children of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years. <br />
<br />
[[Judges_5|Judges 5]]:<br />
:[[Judges_5:31|31]] So let all thine enemies perish, O Jehovah: But let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land had rest forty years. <br />
<br />
[[Judges_6|Judges 6]]:<br />
:[[Judges_6:1|1]] And the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah: and Jehovah delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years. <br />
<br />
[[Judges_8|Judges 8]]:<br />
:[[Judges_8:28|28]] So Midian was subdued before the children of Israel, and they lifted up their heads no more. And the land had rest forty years in the days of Gideon. <br />
<br />
[[Judges_10|Judges 10]]:<br />
:[[Judges_10:1|1]] And after Abimelech there arose to save Israel Tola the son of Puah, the son of Dodo, a man of Issachar; and he dwelt in Shamir in the hill-country of Ephraim. <br />
:[[Judges_10:2|2]] And he judged Israel twenty and three years, and died, and was buried in Shamir. <br />
:[[Judges_10:3|3]] And after him arose Jair, the Gileadite; and he judged Israel twenty and two years. <br />
<br />
[[Judges_12|Judges 12]]:<br />
:[[Judges_12:7|7]] And Jephthah judged Israel six years. Then died Jephthah the Gileadite, and was buried in one of the cities of Gilead. <br />
:[[Judges_12:8|8]] And after him Ibzan of Beth-lehem judged Israel. <br />
:[[Judges_12:9|9]] And he had thirty sons; and thirty daughters he sent abroad, and thirty daughters he brought in from abroad for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years. <br />
:[[Judges_12:10|10]] And Ibzan died, and was buried at Beth-lehem. <br />
:[[Judges_12:11|11]] And after him Elon the Zebulunite judged Israel; and he judged Israel ten years. <br />
:[[Judges_12:12|12]] And Elon the Zebulunite died, and was buried in Aijalon in the land of Zebulun. <br />
:[[Judges_12:13|13]] And after him Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite judged Israel. <br />
:[[Judges_12:14|14]] And he had forty sons and thirty sons' sons, that rode on threescore and ten ass colts: and he judged Israel eight years. <br />
<br />
[[Judges_13|Judges 13]]:<br />
:[[Judges_12:1|1]] And the children of Israel again did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah; and Jehovah delivered them into the hand of the Philistines forty years. <br />
<br />
[[Judges_15|Judges 15]]:<br />
:[[Judges_15:16|16]] And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, With the jawbone of an ass have I smitten a thousand men. <br />
:[[Judges_15:17|17]] And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking, that he cast away the jawbone out of his hand; and that place was called Ramath-lehi. <br />
:[[Judges_15:18|18]] And he was sore athirst, and called on Jehovah, and said, Thou hast given this great deliverance by the hand of thy servant; and now shall I die for thirst, and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised. <br />
:[[Judges_15:19|19]] But God clave the hollow place that is in Lehi, and there came water thereout; and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived: wherefore the name thereof was called En-hakkore, which is in Lehi, unto this day. <br />
:[[Judges_15:20|20]] And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years." <br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
I left out other verses that imply an even longer time period. Adding up the years above I get '''289''' years.<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Now let's show the relevant genealogy:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles (ASV)<br />
<br />
10 And Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah; <br />
<br />
11 and Nahshon begat Salma, and Salma begat Boaz, <br />
<br />
12 and Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse; <br />
<br />
13 and Jesse begat his first-born Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimea the third, <br />
<br />
14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, <br />
<br />
15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh; <br />
<br />
JW:<br />
By Generation:<br />
<br />
Nashon, Salma, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David.<br />
<br />
According to Narrative Nashon was contemporary to Joshua:<br />
<br />
Numbers 10: (ASV)<br />
<br />
14: "And in the first place the standard of the camp of the children of Judah set forward according to their hosts: and over his host was Nahshon the son of Amminadab."<br />
<br />
Thus Nashon was also either contemporary to Rachab of Jericho or probably at most, one generation from being contemporary.<br />
<br />
Samuel of course was contemporary to David:<br />
<br />
1 Samuel 16: (ASV)<br />
<br />
13: "So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power."<br />
<br />
Now according to "Matthew", Rahab was Boaz' mother. Samuel anointed David and presumably was approximately of the same generation as Jesse and therefore was born approximately the generation of Obed. So in a minimum of 289 years for "Matthew's" genealogy to work, Rahab married Salma, had Boaz, Boaz married Ruth and had Obed, and Obed lived a generation. <br />
<br />
Let's try to work out the Numbers to maximize the possible time period:<br />
<br />
1) Rahab marries Salma when she was twenty.<br />
<br />
2) Rahab has Boaz when she was forty. '''20''' year lapse.<br />
<br />
3) Boaz marries Ruth when he was sixty and she was twenty. '''80''' year lapse.<br />
<br />
4) Ruth has Obed when she was forty. '''100''' year lapse.<br />
<br />
5) Obed is forty. '''140''' year lapse.<br />
<br />
This leaves us a minimum of '''149''' years short of the supposed time period of 289 years based on Judges which not surprisingly is close to what our experts estimated above. <br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Now let's look at the five women that "Matthew" mentions in the genealogy: (ASV)<br />
<br />
"and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram <br />
<br />
"and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse" <br />
<br />
"and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah" <br />
<br />
"and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."<br />
<br />
1) Tamar<br />
<br />
2) Rahab<br />
<br />
3) Ruth<br />
<br />
4) Bathsheba<br />
<br />
5) Mary<br />
<br />
What did these five women have in '''common'''? They were all drunk, they didn't know what they were doing. Besides that they all made contributions to the genealogy via strange/bizarre/macabre circumstances. From the pages of "True Detective":<br />
<br />
1) Tamar's story - "I had sex with my father-in-law by pretending to be a prostitute in exchange for inheritance."<br />
<br />
Genesis 38 (ASV)<br />
<br />
13 "And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold, thy father-in-law goeth up to Timnah to shear his sheep. <br />
14 And she put off from her the garments of her widowhood, and covered herself with her veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in the gate of Enaim, which is by the way to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she was not given unto him to wife. <br />
15 When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot; for she had covered her face. <br />
16 And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Come, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee: for he knew not that she was his daughter-in-law. And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? <br />
17 And he said, I will send thee a kid of the goats from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it? <br />
18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet and thy cord, and thy staff that is in thy hand. And he gave them to her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him. <br />
19 And she arose, and went away, and put off her veil from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood. <br />
20 And Judah sent the kid of the goats by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman's hand: but he found her not. <br />
21 Then he asked the men of her place, saying, Where is the prostitute, that was at Enaim by the wayside? And they said, There hath been no prostitute here. <br />
22 And he returned to Judah, and said, I have not found her; and also the men of the place said, There hath been no prostitute here. <br />
23 And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be put to shame: behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her. <br />
24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter-in-law hath played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. <br />
25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff. <br />
26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She is more righteous than I; forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more. <br />
27 And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb. <br />
28 And it came to pass, when she travailed, that one put out a hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first. <br />
29 And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, Wherefore hast thou made a breach for thyself? Therefore his name was called Perez." <br />
<br />
<br />
2) Rahab's story - "I pretended that I was just doing my job as a prostitute so that furreigners could kill everyone I know except for my family."<br />
<br />
Joshua 2: (ASV)<br />
<br />
1 "And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men as spies secretly, saying, Go, view the land, and Jericho. And they went and came into the house of a harlot whose name was Rahab, and lay there. <br />
2 And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither to-night of the children of Israel to search out the land. <br />
3 And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, that are entered into thy house; for they are come to search out all the land. <br />
4 And the woman took the two men, and hid them; and she said, Yea, the men came unto me, but I knew not whence they were"<br />
<br />
<br />
3) Ruth's story - "Just because I exchanged sex for food doesn't make me a prostitute."<br />
<br />
Ruth 3: (ASV)<br />
<br />
7 "When Boaz had finished eating and drinking and was in good spirits, he went over to lie down at the far end of the grain pile. Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his feet and lay down. 8 In the middle of the night something startled the man, and he turned and discovered a woman lying at his feet. <br />
9 "Who are you?" he asked. <br />
"I am your servant Ruth," she said. "Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer." <br />
10 "The LORD bless you, my daughter," he replied. "This kindness is greater than that which you showed earlier: You have not run after the younger men, whether rich or poor. 11 And now, my daughter, don't be afraid. I will do for you all you ask. All my fellow townsmen know that you are a woman of noble character. 12 Although it is true that I am near of kin, there is a kinsman-redeemer nearer than I. 13 Stay here for the night, and in the morning if he wants to redeem, good; let him redeem. But if he is not willing, as surely as the LORD lives I will do it. Lie here until morning." <br />
14 So she lay at his feet until morning, but got up before anyone could be recognized; and he said, "Don't let it be known that a woman came to the threshing floor." <br />
<br />
<br />
4) Bathsheba's story - "The King and role model for the Messiah murdered my husband and made me his sex slave and I liked it. Does that make me a prostitute?" <br />
<br />
2 Samuel 11: (ASV)<br />
<br />
14 "In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. 15 In it he wrote, "Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die." <br />
16 So while Joab had the city under siege, he put Uriah at a place where he knew the strongest defenders were. 17 When the men of the city came out and fought against Joab, some of the men in David's army fell; moreover, Uriah the Hittite died. <br />
18 Joab sent David a full account of the battle. 19 He instructed the messenger: "When you have finished giving the king this account of the battle, 20 the king's anger may flare up, and he may ask you, 'Why did you get so close to the city to fight? Didn't you know they would shoot arrows from the wall? 21 Who killed Abimelech son of Jerub-Besheth [b] ? Didn't a woman throw an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died in Thebez? Why did you get so close to the wall?' If he asks you this, then say to him, 'Also, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.' " <br />
22 The messenger set out, and when he arrived he told David everything Joab had sent him to say. 23 The messenger said to David, "The men overpowered us and came out against us in the open, but we drove them back to the entrance to the city gate. 24 Then the archers shot arrows at your servants from the wall, and some of the king's men died. Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead." <br />
25 David told the messenger, "Say this to Joab: 'Don't let this upset you; the sword devours one as well as another. Press the attack against the city and destroy it.' Say this to encourage Joab." <br />
26 When Uriah's wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the LORD."<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
(In Church Lady voice). Isn't that special. Think it couldn't get any more strange/bizarre/macabreer? Wrong!<br />
<br />
5) Mary's story - "I had relations with a deity I was not married to."<br />
<br />
So it seems likely that "Matthew" did intend to have the Rachab of the Conquest in his genealogy because all five women contributed under '''mysterious''' circumstances. <br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Now let's add the commentary of the Church Fathers:<br />
<br />
'''Jerome''' (the "Judaizer"):<br />
<br />
Jerome's Commentary on "Matthew" doesn't seem to be available online. Too Ambrose and too Latin I guess (A good project for Mr. Pearse?). On to a Secondary Source (SC Carlson, look out!):<br />
<br />
Brown's "The Birth Of The Messiah", Page 71:<br />
<br />
"The first proposal, already espoused by Jerome (In Matt. 9; PL 26:22), is that the four OT women were regarded as sinners,"<br />
<br />
Interesting here that Jerome who, unlike most Fathers, actually had contact with "The Jews", gives an explanation for the significance of the women that's in line with Jewish explanations.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''JOHN CHRYSOSTOM''' <br />
<br />
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200101.htm<br />
<br />
"And along with these things, this is also worth inquiry, wherefore it can be, that, when tracing the genealogy through the men, he hath mentioned women also; and why since he determined upon doing this, he yet did not mention them all, but passing over the more eminent, such as Sarah, Rebecca, and as many as are like them, he hath brought forward only them that are famed for some bad thing; as, for instance, if any was a harlot, or an adulteress, or a mother by an unlawful marriage, if any was a stranger or barbarian. For he hath made mention of the wife of Uriah, and of Thamar, and of Rahab, and of Ruth, of whom one was of a strange race, another an harlot, another was defiled by her near kinsman, and with him not in the form of marriage, but by a stolen intercourse, when she had put on herself the mask of an harlot; and touching the wife of Uriah no one is ignorant, by reason of the notoriety of the crime. And yet the evangelist hath passed by all the rest, and inserted in the genealogy these alone. Whereas, if women were to be mentioned, all ought to be so; if not all but some, then those famed in the way of virtue, not for evil deeds." <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Epraim'''<br />
<br />
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3703.htm<br />
<br />
"HYMN VII.<br />
<br />
The Son of the Maker is like unto His Father as Maker! He made Himself a pure body, He clothed Himself with it, and came forth and clothed our weakness with glory, which in His mercy He brought from the Father. <br />
<br />
From Melchizedek, the High Priest, a hyssop came to Thee, a throne and crown from the house of David, a race and family from Abraham. <br />
<br />
Be thou unto me a Haven, for Thine own sake, O great Sea. Lo! the Psalms of David Thy Father, and the words also of the Prophets, came forth unto me, as it were ships. <br />
<br />
David Thy father, in the hundred and tenth Psalm, twined together two numbers as it were crowns to Thee, and came[to Thee], O Conqueror! With these shalt Thou be crowned, and unto the throne shalt Thou ascend and sit. <br />
<br />
A great crown is the number that is twined in the hundred, wherein is crowned Thy Godhead! A little crown is that of the number ten, which crowns the Head of Thy Manhood, O Victorious One! <br />
<br />
For Thy sake women sought after men. Tamar desired him that was widowed, and Ruth loved a man that was old, yea, that Rahab, that led men captive, was captivated by Thee. <br />
<br />
Tamar went forth, and in the darkness(5) stole the Light, and in uncleanness stole the Holy One, and by uncovering her nakedness she went in and stole Thee, O glorious One, that bringest the pure out of the impure. <br />
<br />
Satan saw her and trembled, and hasted to trouble her. He brought the judgment to her mind, and she feared not; stoning and the sword, and she trembled not. He that teacheth adultery hindered adultery, because he was a hinderer of Thee. <br />
<br />
For holy was the adultery of Tamar, for Thy sake. Thee it was she thirsted after, O pure Fountain. Judah defrauded her of drinking Thee. The thirsty womb stole a dew-draught of Thee from the spring thereof. <br />
<br />
She was a widow for Thy sake. Thee did she long for, she hasted and was also an harlot for Thy sake. Thee did she vehemently desire, and was sanctified in that it was Thee she loved. <br />
<br />
May Tamar rejoice that her Lord hath come and hath made her name known for the son of her adultery! Surely the name she gave him(6) was calling unto Thee to come to her. <br />
<br />
For Thee honorable women shamed themselves, Thou that givest chastity to all! Thee she stole away in the midst of the ways, who pavest the way into the kingdom! Because it was life that she stole, the sword was not able to put her to death. <br />
<br />
Ruth lay down by a man in the threshingfloor for Thy sake; her love made her bold for Thy sake, O Thou that teachest all penitents boldness. Her ears refused[to listen to] any voices for the sake of Thy voice. <br />
<br />
The live coal that glowed went up into the bed, of Boaz, lay down there, saw the High Priest, in whose loins was hidden a fire for his incense!(7) She hasted and was a heifer to Boaz, that should bring forth Thee, the fatted Calf. <br />
<br />
She went gleaning for her love of Thee; she gathered straw. Thou didst quickly pay her the reward of her lowliness; and instead of ears of corn, the Root of Kings, and instead of straws, the Sheaf of Life, didst Thou make to spring from her." <br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Here we see the later Christian interpretation of the women with emphasis moved from their sinful nature to supposed '''purpose''' of accomplishing Jesus.<br />
<br />
"Matthew" may have also had incentive to use Rahab in the supposed geneaology of Jesus because according to the Talmud Rahab was the mother of a line of Jewish '''Prophets''':<br />
<br />
[http://judaism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fwebshas%2Fpages.htm Secondary source]<br />
<br />
"Rachav<br />
Her conversion, and marriage to Yehoshua: Megillah 14b<br />
Her descendants, who were Kohanim: Megillah 14b<br />
Her descendants, who were Prophets: Megillah 14b<br />
Rachav was one of the 4 most beautiful women in the world: Megillah 15a<br />
Chuldah the Prophetess, Yirmiyah, Baruch and Neryah, Sharya, Chilkiyah, and Chanamel as descendants of hers: Megillah 14b<br />
How the mention of Rachav's name was enough to gain the attention of men who knew of her: Megillah 15a"<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=5&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201:5;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=5 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+1.5 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_1,_Verse_5 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matthew]]<br />
[[Category:Other]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1:1&diff=5231
Genesis 1:1
2005-08-27T23:22:15Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Neutral */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Genesis 1:1|Previous Verse]] < [[Genesis 1]] > [[Genesis 1:2|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Big Bang Theory, which is the only credible position on the development of the structures of matter we observe today, demonstrates a number of facts that gravely contradict the belief in divine creation :<br />
<br />
* Space and time are part of a unified whole, something which people living thousands of years ago wouldn't have known. If God created spacetime, then it would have no time in which to act. Theologian William Craig argues that God existed timelessly before Creation, and within time after Creation, but this only brings up a host of new problems.<br />
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html The Big Bang singularity is fundamentally unpredictable], contradicting the belief in a planned universe.<br />
* [http://www.qsmithwmu.com/quantum_cosmology's_implication_of_atheism_(1997).htm The Hartle-Hawking model] proves that the ''ante facto'' unconditional probability of the universe existing as it is is less than 1, contradicting the belief in a designed universe.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the belief in divine creation breaks basic logic, in demanding us to believe that everything came out of nothing.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
===Argument from philosophy===<br />
<br />
CONTRA ERROR:<br />
<br />
<br />
There are only two major options:<br />
<br />
1. God has always existed, and the universe has NOT always existed.<br />
<br />
2. The universe has always existed, and God has NOT always existed. <br />
<br />
<br />
Theists generally hold to the first option, atheists to the second. Atheists usually affirm that not only has God NOT always existed.... He simply has never existed AT ALL.<br />
<br />
However, the Big Bang theory supports the idea that the universe had a beginning, and thus backs up the Theist claim.<br />
<br />
If someone says, "The Big Bang was the origin of the universe," I simply ask, "What caused the Big Bang." The obvious answer is that God caused the Big Bang.<br />
<br />
If an atheist says, "God didn't cause the Big Bang. Rather, material warping in from other parallel universes are what caused the Big Bang...." They may feel they have sidestepped the problem. But then I simply ask, "What caused the origin of all these various other parallel universes" and we are back to square one.<br />
<br />
Einstein informed us that time and space are inter-related. Thus, for time to exist, space must also exist. Also, for space to exist, time must exist as well. Space and Time go hand in hand.... you cannot have one without the other.<br />
<br />
There is a BIG problem with the idea that the universe that has always existed. Here is the problem, in the form of a logical IF/THEN clause:<br />
<br />
IF the universe had always been in existence,<br />
THEN an infinite stretch of time would extend backwards into the eternal past. Since it is impossible to traverse an infinite length of time, this means that we could NEVER have arrived yet at the present moment.<br />
<br />
Thus, since we actually HAVE arrived at the present moment, THIS MEANS the universe did NOT have to traverse an infinite length of time to get here. Therefore, the universe has NOT always existed, ergo, the universe had a beginning, ergo, God exists.<br />
<br />
This problem with traversing an infinite stretch of time applies to the universe. However, since God is neither spatial NOR temporal, this same problem does NOT apply to God. God resides NEITHER in space NOR in time, and therefore He could quite easily have always existed, outside of time. Therefore, the Atheist position is false.<br />
<br />
===Argument from Literature===<br />
<br />
While the Pro argument definitely gives reason to doubt a literalist interpretation, it must be realized that--just as the map is not the terrain--the interpretation is not the text. True, there are those who state that the Genesis account should be taken as a word-for-word account of the Creation, these are the minority--the majority even of Judeo-Christian believers take this passage as figurative or mythic.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 10:06, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
One error in the Con argument is that not all atheists hold the universe to be eternal. Another error is that some theists hold the universe to be eternal (such as Aristotle and some Indian philosophers). --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 18:22, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
The problem with the Con argument is that the existence of the Universe cannot be stated to be a "necessary" result of the existence of God without relying on ''a priori'' assumptions. Con takes the existence of the Universe as proof of the existence of God, but does not establish ''why'' this should be so.<br />
<br />
I'm truly of the opinion that the Con proponent has an insufficient understanding of atheism and functional naturalism, and is conflating the two unnecessarily. This argument may have merit (once it is fully developed), but as it stands only works within the views of one who has already ascribed to the existence of God.<br />
<br />
If the person who made the Con argument would care to expand on their reasoning for why the only two options both involve the existence of God, this may clarify the seeming confusion.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 18:04, 26 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
1. Scientifically speaking, the question "what caused the Big Bang is meaningless" - just like a Christian would find the question "what caused God" meaningless. The difference is that God does not exist, and the universe does. There is only matter and energy in motion. <br />
<br />
*Actually, that's not correct: there is an incredible amount of work and speculation into what caused the Big Bang, and what conditions were like before that time. See the Wikipedia article on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Big Bang] for more information.<br />
<br />
:--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 10:12, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
2. The fact that space and time are aspects of the same thing is, as I pointed out in the Pro, a major problem with divine creation. I don't think whoever wrote the Con position understands the principle here : an action requires time, and Creation is supposed to have created both space and time, therefore the whole construct is circular. How can any Christian argue with that, except to reject modern physics wholesale ? [[User:Franc28|Franc28]] 23:25, 26 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
*Again, you make the unwarranted (and quite incorrect) assumption that all Christians adhere to a literalist interpretation.<br />
:--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 10:12, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=1&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=genesis%201:1;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Genesis&chapter=1&verse=1 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Genesis+1.1 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Genesis_Chapter_1,_Verse_1 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Genesis]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_19:19&diff=5648
John 19:19
2005-08-27T23:18:30Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Pro */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[John 19:18|Previous Verse]] < [[John 19]] > [[John 19:20|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross. And there was written, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Some think there is a contradiction; see [[Crucifixion: Four Different Accounts]].<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=19&verse=19&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=john%2019:19;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john19.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=John&chapter=19&verse=19 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=John+19.19 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C019.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/John_Chapter_19,_Verse_19 BibleWiki]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_23:38&diff=5647
Luke 23:38
2005-08-27T23:18:09Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Pro */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Luke 23:37|Previous Verse]] < [[Luke 23]] > [[Luke 23:39|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And there was also a superscription over him, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Some think there is a contradiction; see [[Crucifixion: Four Different Accounts]].<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Luk&chapter=23&verse=38&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=luke%2023:38;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke23.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Luke&chapter=23&verse=38 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Luke+23.38 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C023.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Luke_Chapter_23,_Verse_38 BibleWiki]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_15:26&diff=5646
Mark 15:26
2005-08-27T23:17:45Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Pro */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Mark 15:25|Previous Verse]] < [[Mark 15]] > [[Mark 15:27|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Some think there is a contradiction; see [[Crucifixion: Four Different Accounts]].<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mar&chapter=15&verse=26&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=mark%2015:26;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark15.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Mark&chapter=15&verse=26 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Mark+15.26 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B41C015.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Mark_Chapter_15,_Verse_26 BibleWiki]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_27:37&diff=5645
Matthew 27:37
2005-08-27T23:17:24Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Pro */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Matthew 27:36|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 27]] > [[Matthew 27:38|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And they set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Some think there is a contradiction; see [[Crucifixion: Four Different Accounts]].<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=27&verse=37&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%2027:37;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew27.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=27&verse=37 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+27.37 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C027.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_27,_Verse_37 BibleWiki]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=5433
Main Page
2005-08-24T01:57:11Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:7]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Job 1:7]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]]<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:JustinEiler|Justin Eiler]] as an admin. For a while we will, therefore, be operating on a "two kings" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the third admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
* September 1, 2005. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited. '''29 as of 22 Aug 2005'''<br />
* October 1, 2005. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2005. At least 50 users will sign up.<br />
* December 1, 2005. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 500 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* April 1, 2006. At least 500 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 500 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* October 1, 2006. At least <strike>100,000</strike> 250,000 page views will be reached. '''Already nearly 40k. Let's aim higher!'''<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=5196
Main Page
2005-08-24T01:56:49Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:7]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Job 1:7]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]]<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recent changes|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:JustinEiler|Justin Eiler]] as an admin. For a while we will, therefore, be operating on a "two kings" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the third admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
* September 1, 2005. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited. '''29 as of 22 Aug 2005'''<br />
* October 1, 2005. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2005. At least 50 users will sign up.<br />
* December 1, 2005. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 500 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* April 1, 2006. At least 500 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 500 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* October 1, 2006. At least <strike>100,000</strike> 250,000 page views will be reached. '''Already nearly 40k. Let's aim higher!'''<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Matthew_1:4&diff=5191
Talk:Matthew 1:4
2005-08-23T14:45:32Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hrm... Should I leave this as it is? "Here (http://neonostalgia.com/bible/Genealogy%20Comparison.pdf) is an interesting genealogy chart from Christ Weimer." Note my first name... Oh, and hi Joe. :) [[User:Chris Weimer|Chris Weimer]] 13:39, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
=== One little mistake (fluff) ===<br />
<br />
Yes, Antioch is in Syria, not Asia Minor.<br />
<br />
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/jeiler/doh.gif<br />
<br />
My only defense is to plead insufficient caffeination.<br />
<br />
=== Online Hexapla? ===<br />
No, I'm not aware of an online Hexapla. I thought Origen's work was mostly lost.<br />
<br />
Now, why suppose that the Septuagint was modified to "Aram" rather than that Matthew is under the influence of the Septuagint? --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 09:45, 23 Aug 2005 (CDT)</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=5195
Main Page
2005-08-23T09:47:39Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:7]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Job 1:7]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]]<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recent Changes|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:JustinEiler|Justin Eiler]] as an admin. For a while we will, therefore, be operating on a "two kings" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the third admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
* September 1, 2005. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited. '''29 as of 22 Aug 2005'''<br />
* October 1, 2005. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2005. At least 50 users will sign up.<br />
* December 1, 2005. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 500 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* April 1, 2006. At least 500 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 500 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* October 1, 2006. At least <strike>100,000</strike> 250,000 page views will be reached. '''Already nearly 40k. Let's aim higher!'''<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=5188
Main Page
2005-08-23T09:43:46Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:7]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Job 1:7]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]]<br />
<br />
It's easier to find items with comments by looking in the categories than by browsing the books of the Bible. Please see [[Special:Recent Changes|Recent Changes]] to check on what we've been talking about lately.<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:JustinEiler|Justin Eiler]] as an admin. For a while we will, therefore, be operating on a "two kings" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the third admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
* September 1, 2005. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* October 1, 2005. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2005. At least 50 users will sign up.<br />
* December 1, 2005. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 500 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* April 1, 2006. At least 500 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 500 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* October 1, 2006. At least 100,000 page views will be reached.<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JustinEiler&diff=5278
User talk:JustinEiler
2005-08-23T09:36:32Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>Please leave messages or comments for Justin here. While I promise to keep both positive and negative comments, obscenities will be edited.<br />
<br />
Justin, would you like to be an admin for the ErrancyWiki? --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 19:45, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Peter ... that's a big step, and a big commitment. While I'm honored with the trust, I've got my worries about having the depth of scholarship necessary for that kind of responsibility.<br />
<br />
:Let me think about it, and I'll ge back to you tomorrow (Aug 22).<br />
<br />
:--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 20:55, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Justin, congrats! You've been made an admin. The job description is:<br />
<br />
1. Be an active member. Categorize things and create cross-links.<br />
2. If you notice insults, edit appropriately.<br />
3. If someone breaks the DPOV rule, block (ban) the user for the appropriate period of time.<br />
4. Vote on issues that come before the administrative staff.<br />
<br />
Voting among admins, such as whether to repeal a block, is generally by consensus (agreement of all). --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 04:36, 23 Aug 2005 (CDT)</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User:JustinEiler&diff=5289
User:JustinEiler
2005-08-23T09:29:40Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>::::::::Justin Eiler is an admin.<br />
<br />
I am a Wiccan, an "armchair" Bible scholar, and a firm supporter of teaching the Bible as a collection of literary texts that have found importance in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but also teching the errancy thereof. So it might seem a bit odd that most of my user contributions are going to be in the "Con" side of the arguments. <br />
<br />
I think Jesus may very well have been a historical person, but I have grave doubts that if he existed, the Jesus of history would even recognize the Christ of the Bible. At the same time, I am also aware that a body of doctrine has built around Christianity--much of which is quite socially beneficial, and through which many people have become "more than they were before." So I'm willing to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt in many respects that other skeptics may not be comfortable with.<br />
<br />
If you want to contact me, [[User_talk:JustinEiler&action=edit&section=new|please leave a message on my talk page]].</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Job_1:7&diff=5366
Job 1:7
2005-08-23T03:23:23Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Featured Con Piece}}<br />
<br />
'''[[Job 1:6|Previous Verse]] < [[Job 1]] > [[Job 1:8|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And Jehovah said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered Jehovah, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
How is it that an omniscient God would not know the origin of Satan? <br />
The question makes no sense. God would certainly know the whereabouts of Satan. <br />
Moreover, Satan is presumed to be present everywhere at all times. How is it that ANY being that is always everywhere can explain where he has been or where he is going? <br />
<br />
The logic escapes me.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
The concept of an "omnimax God" isn't really Biblical: while there are passages that can be interpreted as claims of omnipotence (such as [[Jeremiah_32:27|Jeremiah 32:27]], at no point does the Bible say that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and/or omnibenevolent. If God's not omniscent, the verse becomes clearly sensible.<br />
<br />
But even at that, it must be remembered that this particular passage is not necessarily proof that God is not omniscient: <br />
<br />
:1: Hebrew grammar also employs rhetorical questions, where the purpose of a question is not to gain information, but to make a statement. <br />
:2: Literarily, this is not God attempting to gain information, but a means to introduce haSatan to the reader.<br />
<br />
Rhetorical question or plot device? It makes an interesting discussion for the literary minded, but also makes the claim of errancy rather moot.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Job&chapter=1&verse=7&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=job%201:7;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Job&chapter=1&verse=7 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Job+1.7 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Job_Chapter_1,_Verse_7 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Job]]<br />
[[Category:Other]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1:7&diff=5233
Matthew 1:7
2005-08-23T03:22:58Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Featured Smackdown}}<br />
<br />
'''[[Matthew 1:6|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 1]] > [[Matthew 1:8|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa; (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
JW:<br />
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Asaph” instead of “Asa” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Asaph”. "Asaph" was a famous Psalmist so "Matthew" appears to have either confused him with King Asa or again simply copied an existing error in the Greek. <br />
<br />
Now let's test drive a special option Peter Kirby has installed here, the HTML Bible by verse:<br />
<br />
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Byzantine Majority -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Alexandrian -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945;&#966; <br />
<br />
Hort and Westcott -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945;&#966; <br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
"Asa"/"Asaph" is the last word of the sentence. Note that TR has "Asa" and WH has "Asaph". Raymond Brown, The International Critical Commentary and UBS confirm "Asaph" as '''likely''' original. On a related note Origen's Hexapla from the early third century may have been an important source of correction for this type of name error for later Greek manuscripts as you wouldn't need to know Hebrew here to observe that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian all used "Asa" instead of "Asaph" for the genealogy in the Jewish Bible. Pity that the Hebrew column of the Hexapla found a final resting spot on the same shelf as the original KJV. Would have Saved us all a lot of time. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=7&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201:7;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=7 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+1.7 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_1,_Verse_7 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matthew]]<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=5187
Main Page
2005-08-23T03:22:14Z
<p>Peter Kirby: swapping out "Smackdown" and "Con"</p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:7]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Job 1:7]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]]<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:JustinEiler|Justin Eiler]] as an admin. For a while we will, therefore, be operating on a "two kings" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the third admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
* September 1, 2005. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* October 1, 2005. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2005. At least 50 users will sign up.<br />
* December 1, 2005. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 500 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* April 1, 2006. At least 500 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 500 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* October 1, 2006. At least 100,000 page views will be reached.<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=2_Samuel_6:23&diff=5641
2 Samuel 6:23
2005-08-23T03:19:41Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Neutral */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[2 Samuel 6:22|Previous Verse]] < [[2 Samuel 6]] > [[2 Samuel 7:1|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
According to [[2 Samuel 21:8]], Michal, the daughter of Saul had at least five sons.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
See [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/michalkids.html Tekton].<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=2Sm&chapter=6&verse=23&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=2%20samuel%206:23;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2samuel/2samuel6.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=2%20Samuel&chapter=6&verse=23 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=2%20Samuel+6.23 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/2%20Samuel_Chapter_6,_Verse_23 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:2 Samuel]]<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=2_Samuel_6:23&diff=5180
2 Samuel 6:23
2005-08-23T03:19:20Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Pro */ deleting misrepresentation of Con side and Tekton</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[2 Samuel 6:22|Previous Verse]] < [[2 Samuel 6]] > [[2 Samuel 7:1|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
According to [[2 Samuel 21:8]], Michal, the daughter of Saul had at least five sons.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
See [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/michalkids.html Tekton].<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
<br />
According to 2 Samuel 21:8, Michal, the daughter of Saul had at least five sons. <br />
<br />
[addendum] I find it interesting that the Tekton site agrees that this is an error in the bible, yet it was cited is a "con" piece. <br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
This addendum is nonsense. Anyone who is familiar with JP Holding would know that to date he never simply concedes that there "is an error in the bible". Specifically the article referred to at Tekton has a clear conclusion that it is '''not''' an error. Who wrote this addendum?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=2Sm&chapter=6&verse=23&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=2%20samuel%206:23;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2samuel/2samuel6.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=2%20Samuel&chapter=6&verse=23 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=2%20Samuel+6.23 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/2%20Samuel_Chapter_6,_Verse_23 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:2 Samuel]]<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1:4&diff=5189
Matthew 1:4
2005-08-23T03:14:59Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Neutral */ Antioch is in Syria, not Asia Minor</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Featured Smackdown}}<br />
<br />
'''[[Matthew 1:3|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 1]] > [[Matthew 1:5|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon; (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
JW:<br />
According to [[1 Chronicles 2:10]]:<br />
<br />
"And Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah;"<br />
<br />
it was Ram that begat Aminadab. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts though have the Greek equivalent of the English '''"Aram"''' for Matthew 1:4.<br />
In the big picture UBS has "Aram" as likely original. Raymond Brown confirms in "The Birth Of The Messiah" that "Aram" was likely original. The International Critical Commentary also confirms "Aram". This apparent error by "Matthew" can be relatively easily explained by the observation that the early Christian Greek translations of the Jewish Bible (often referred to as "LXX") have "Aram" in the genealogy instead of "Ram" so "Matthew" likely '''copied''' an error that already existed in the Greek. <br />
<br />
[http://neonostalgia.com/bible/Genealogy%20Comparison.pdf Here] is an interesting genealogy chart from Chris Weimer.<br />
<br />
"Aram"/"Ram" is the seventh name on the list (coincidence?). An observation which ranks relatively low on the evidence scale is that Peshitta Old has "Ram" and Peshitta New has "Aram" (Judge, look out!).<br />
<br />
I think most Apologists would agree here that "Aram" is likely original so the question becomes is using "Aram" instead of "Ram" an error? First let me say that if this is an error it certainly isn't a serious error. Even if they are different names they only differ by one letter and it's possible that they were variants of the same name so either could be used to refer to the same person. On the other hand minor errors like this aren't commonly discussed so most people don't even realize that there is an issue here or consider that this is evidence that "Matthew" was not fluent in Semitics and therefore not the best person to be explaining Semitics to non-Semitics. <br />
<br />
I think though that "Ram" and "Aram" were two '''different''' names in Biblical Hebrew for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
1) '''Both''' names are used in the Jewish Bible.<br />
<br />
2) There is '''nothing''' explicit or implied outside of "Matthew" that "Ram" and "Aram" were anything other than two distinct names. <br />
<br />
3) A one letter difference is a '''big''' difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew. <br />
<br />
4) The LXX of Chronicles lists "Ram" '''and''' "Aram" as sons of Hezron.<br />
<br />
5) There are many '''more''' examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy. <br />
<br />
6) '''Origen''' testifies that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names:<br />
<br />
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john6.html<br />
<br />
Quote:<br />
24. "THE NAME OF THE PLACE WHERE JOHN BAPTIZED IS NOT BETHANY, AS IN MOST COPIES, BUT BETHABARA. PROOF OF THIS. SIMILARLY "GERGESA" SHOULD BE READ FOR"GERASA," IN THE STORY OF THE SWINE. ATTENTION IS TO BE PAID TO THE PROPER NAMES IN SCRIPTURE, WHICH ARE OFTEN WRITTEN INACCURATELY, AND ARE OF IMPORTANCE FOR INTERPRETATION." <br />
<br />
"In the matter of proper names the Greek copies are often incorrect, and in the Gospels one might be misled by their authority. The transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed themselves carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few copies we have found, "into the country of the Gadarenes; "and, on this reading, it is to be stated that Gadara is a town of Judaea, in the neighbourhood of which are the well-known hot springs, and that there is no lake there with overhanging banks, nor any sea. But Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is taken, is an old town in the neighbourhood of the lake now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it there is a steep place abutting on the lake, from which it is pointed out that the swine were cast down by the demons. Now, the meaning of Gergesa is "dwelling of the casters-out," and it contains a prophetic reference to the conduct towards the Saviour of the citizens of those places, who "besought Him to depart out of their coasts." The same inaccuracy with regard to proper names is also to be observed in many passages of the law and the prophets, as we have been at pains to learn from the Hebrews, comparing our own copies with theirs which have the confirmation of the versions, never subjected to corruption, of Aquila and Theodotion and Symmachus."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
<br />
'''Genealogy in Matthew'''<br />
<br />
The Matthean genealogies are definitely a difficulty for inerrancy arguments. However, it should be noted that GoMatthew structured his genealogies in three groups of fourteen--this provides an almost poetic balance to the chapter, and while the poetry isn't necessarily pleasing to the modern reader, it's possible that the "balanced structure" fulfilled some literary convention of the time.<br />
<br />
However, that's modern speculation on my part: I'd like to see some input on whether or not there are similar "balanced structures" in other Greek texts of this period--especially texts from Antioch in Syria.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 21:04, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=4&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201:4;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=4 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+1.4 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_1,_Verse_4 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matthew]]<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1:4&diff=5178
Matthew 1:4
2005-08-23T03:14:14Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* Genealogy in Matthew */ spelling</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Featured Smackdown}}<br />
<br />
'''[[Matthew 1:3|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 1]] > [[Matthew 1:5|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon; (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
JW:<br />
According to [[1 Chronicles 2:10]]:<br />
<br />
"And Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah;"<br />
<br />
it was Ram that begat Aminadab. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts though have the Greek equivalent of the English '''"Aram"''' for Matthew 1:4.<br />
In the big picture UBS has "Aram" as likely original. Raymond Brown confirms in "The Birth Of The Messiah" that "Aram" was likely original. The International Critical Commentary also confirms "Aram". This apparent error by "Matthew" can be relatively easily explained by the observation that the early Christian Greek translations of the Jewish Bible (often referred to as "LXX") have "Aram" in the genealogy instead of "Ram" so "Matthew" likely '''copied''' an error that already existed in the Greek. <br />
<br />
[http://neonostalgia.com/bible/Genealogy%20Comparison.pdf Here] is an interesting genealogy chart from Chris Weimer.<br />
<br />
"Aram"/"Ram" is the seventh name on the list (coincidence?). An observation which ranks relatively low on the evidence scale is that Peshitta Old has "Ram" and Peshitta New has "Aram" (Judge, look out!).<br />
<br />
I think most Apologists would agree here that "Aram" is likely original so the question becomes is using "Aram" instead of "Ram" an error? First let me say that if this is an error it certainly isn't a serious error. Even if they are different names they only differ by one letter and it's possible that they were variants of the same name so either could be used to refer to the same person. On the other hand minor errors like this aren't commonly discussed so most people don't even realize that there is an issue here or consider that this is evidence that "Matthew" was not fluent in Semitics and therefore not the best person to be explaining Semitics to non-Semitics. <br />
<br />
I think though that "Ram" and "Aram" were two '''different''' names in Biblical Hebrew for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
1) '''Both''' names are used in the Jewish Bible.<br />
<br />
2) There is '''nothing''' explicit or implied outside of "Matthew" that "Ram" and "Aram" were anything other than two distinct names. <br />
<br />
3) A one letter difference is a '''big''' difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew. <br />
<br />
4) The LXX of Chronicles lists "Ram" '''and''' "Aram" as sons of Hezron.<br />
<br />
5) There are many '''more''' examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy. <br />
<br />
6) '''Origen''' testifies that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names:<br />
<br />
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john6.html<br />
<br />
Quote:<br />
24. "THE NAME OF THE PLACE WHERE JOHN BAPTIZED IS NOT BETHANY, AS IN MOST COPIES, BUT BETHABARA. PROOF OF THIS. SIMILARLY "GERGESA" SHOULD BE READ FOR"GERASA," IN THE STORY OF THE SWINE. ATTENTION IS TO BE PAID TO THE PROPER NAMES IN SCRIPTURE, WHICH ARE OFTEN WRITTEN INACCURATELY, AND ARE OF IMPORTANCE FOR INTERPRETATION." <br />
<br />
"In the matter of proper names the Greek copies are often incorrect, and in the Gospels one might be misled by their authority. The transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed themselves carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few copies we have found, "into the country of the Gadarenes; "and, on this reading, it is to be stated that Gadara is a town of Judaea, in the neighbourhood of which are the well-known hot springs, and that there is no lake there with overhanging banks, nor any sea. But Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is taken, is an old town in the neighbourhood of the lake now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it there is a steep place abutting on the lake, from which it is pointed out that the swine were cast down by the demons. Now, the meaning of Gergesa is "dwelling of the casters-out," and it contains a prophetic reference to the conduct towards the Saviour of the citizens of those places, who "besought Him to depart out of their coasts." The same inaccuracy with regard to proper names is also to be observed in many passages of the law and the prophets, as we have been at pains to learn from the Hebrews, comparing our own copies with theirs which have the confirmation of the versions, never subjected to corruption, of Aquila and Theodotion and Symmachus."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
<br />
'''Genealogy in Matthew'''<br />
<br />
The Matthean genealogies are definitely a difficulty for inerrancy arguments. However, it should be noted that GoMatthew structured his genealogies in three groups of fourteen--this provides an almost poetic balance to the chapter, and while the poetry isn't necessarily pleasing to the modern reader, it's possible that the "balanced structure" fulfilled some literary convention of the time.<br />
<br />
However, that's modern speculation on my part: I'd like to see some input on whether or not there are similar "balanced structures" in other Greek texts of this period--especially texts from Antioch in Asia Minor.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 21:04, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=4&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201:4;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=4 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+1.4 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_1,_Verse_4 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matthew]]<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=5181
Main Page
2005-08-23T03:13:27Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:4]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Mark 1:16]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]]<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''News'''<br />
<br />
Please welcome [[User:JustinEiler|Justin Eiler]] as an admin. For a while we will, therefore, be operating on a "two kings" system. I welcome the application of any Christian as the third admin. If you're interested, leave a comment on my [[User_talk:Peter Kirby|Talk]] page with a statement of intent.<br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
* September 1, 2005. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* October 1, 2005. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2005. At least 50 users will sign up.<br />
* December 1, 2005. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 500 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* April 1, 2006. At least 500 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 500 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* October 1, 2006. At least 100,000 page views will be reached.<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Job_1:7&diff=5173
Job 1:7
2005-08-22T19:10:55Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Job 1:6|Previous Verse]] < [[Job 1]] > [[Job 1:8|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And Jehovah said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered Jehovah, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
How is it that an omniscient God would not know the origin of Satan? <br />
The question makes no sense. God would certainly know the whereabouts of Satan. <br />
Moreover, Satan is presumed to be present everywhere at all times. How is it that ANY being that is always everywhere can explain where he has been or where he is going? <br />
<br />
The logic escapes me.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Job&chapter=1&verse=7&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=job%201:7;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Job&chapter=1&verse=7 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Job+1.7 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Job_Chapter_1,_Verse_7 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Job]]<br />
[[Category:Other]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Job_1:7&diff=5172
Job 1:7
2005-08-22T19:10:31Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Job 1:6|Previous Verse]] < [[Job 1]] > [[Job 1:8|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And Jehovah said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered Jehovah, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
How is it that an omnicient God would not know the origin of Satan? <br />
The question makes no sense. God would certainly know the whereabouts of Satan. <br />
Moreover, Satan is presumed to be present everywhere at all times. How is it that ANY being that is always everywhere can explain where he has been or where he is going? <br />
<br />
The logic escapes me.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Job&chapter=1&verse=7&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=job%201:7;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Job&chapter=1&verse=7 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Job+1.7 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Job_Chapter_1,_Verse_7 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Job]]<br />
[[Category:Other]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew&diff=5901
Matthew
2005-08-22T08:12:52Z
<p>Peter Kirby: /* See also */</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Matthew 1]]<br />
*[[Matthew 2]]<br />
*[[Matthew 3]]<br />
*[[Matthew 4]]<br />
*[[Matthew 5]]<br />
*[[Matthew 6]]<br />
*[[Matthew 7]]<br />
*[[Matthew 8]]<br />
*[[Matthew 9]]<br />
*[[Matthew 10]]<br />
*[[Matthew 11]]<br />
*[[Matthew 12]]<br />
*[[Matthew 13]]<br />
*[[Matthew 14]]<br />
*[[Matthew 15]]<br />
*[[Matthew 16]]<br />
*[[Matthew 17]]<br />
*[[Matthew 18]]<br />
*[[Matthew 19]]<br />
*[[Matthew 20]]<br />
*[[Matthew 21]]<br />
*[[Matthew 22]]<br />
*[[Matthew 23]]<br />
*[[Matthew 24]]<br />
*[[Matthew 25]]<br />
*[[Matthew 26]]<br />
*[[Matthew 27]]<br />
*[[Matthew 28]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[:Category:Matthew]]<br />
*[[Matthew placed first]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew&diff=5165
Matthew
2005-08-22T08:12:40Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Matthew 1]]<br />
*[[Matthew 2]]<br />
*[[Matthew 3]]<br />
*[[Matthew 4]]<br />
*[[Matthew 5]]<br />
*[[Matthew 6]]<br />
*[[Matthew 7]]<br />
*[[Matthew 8]]<br />
*[[Matthew 9]]<br />
*[[Matthew 10]]<br />
*[[Matthew 11]]<br />
*[[Matthew 12]]<br />
*[[Matthew 13]]<br />
*[[Matthew 14]]<br />
*[[Matthew 15]]<br />
*[[Matthew 16]]<br />
*[[Matthew 17]]<br />
*[[Matthew 18]]<br />
*[[Matthew 19]]<br />
*[[Matthew 20]]<br />
*[[Matthew 21]]<br />
*[[Matthew 22]]<br />
*[[Matthew 23]]<br />
*[[Matthew 24]]<br />
*[[Matthew 25]]<br />
*[[Matthew 26]]<br />
*[[Matthew 27]]<br />
*[[Matthew 28]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[:Category:Matthew|Matthew]]<br />
*[[Matthew placed first]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Judges_1:19&diff=5271
Judges 1:19
2005-08-22T08:11:30Z
<p>Peter Kirby: moving categories to bottom of page</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Featured Con Piece}}<br />
<br />
'''[[Judges 1:18|Previous Verse]] < [[Judges 1]] > [[Judges 1:20|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And Jehovah was with Judah; and drove out [the inhabitants of] the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
This is the famous "iron chariots defeat the Lord" verse.<br />
<br />
Errantists say that this shows that the Lord is not omnipotent. (In contrast to [[Jeremiah 32:27]]: "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?")<br />
<br />
The response of inerrantists is weak. The verse states clearly "And Jehovah '''was with''' Judah" and "he '''could not''' drive out the inhabitants of the valley". This clearly tells us that Jehovah supported the Israelites but could not win.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Inerrantists claim that the verse does not say that the Lord could not have defeated the iron chariots; God might have had some reason not to allow the Israelites to win at that time. <br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Jdg&chapter=1&verse=19&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=judges%201:19;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/judges/judges1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Judges&chapter=1&verse=19 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Judges+1.19 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Judges_Chapter_1,_Verse_19 BibleWiki]<br />
*[http://www.carm.org/diff/Jer32_27.htm CARM]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Judges]]<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JustinEiler&diff=5157
User talk:JustinEiler
2005-08-22T00:45:24Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>Please leave messages or comments for Justin here. While I promise to keep both positive and negative comments, obscenities will be edited.<br />
<br />
Justin, would you like to be an admin for the ErrancyWiki? --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 19:45, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Kirby&diff=5175
User talk:Peter Kirby
2005-08-22T00:44:22Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Orphaned Page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, Peter,<br />
<br />
There's an [[Special:Lonelypages|orphaned page]] that needs to be deleted at [[1st_Chronicles_3|1st Chronicles 3]]--it was evidently the first draft of the [[1_Chronicles_3|1 Chronicles 3]] page.<br />
<br />
You (and the other admins, when they are appointed) may also want to consider a Vote for Deletion procedure.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 18:10, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I'd rather leave deletion at the discretion of the admins, with experience with the frivolity and acrimony engendered by VfD. Most comments will be on existing verse pages anyway.--[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 19:44, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_21:4&diff=5194
Matthew 21:4
2005-08-22T00:40:05Z
<p>Peter Kirby: Joe, please stop deleting the text "==Pro=="</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Matthew 21:3|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 21]] > [[Matthew 21:5|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
Now this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
JW:<br />
Whew, boy that's hard work trying to keep straight all those genealogy names of Kings from the Jewish Bible who, God knows why, all have to have "Z's", "J's" and multiple "A's" in their names. Time for some fun. I went to JP Holding's site:<br />
<br />
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wally01.html<br />
<br />
to see what kind of "solutions" he had for the claimed genealogy errors and Jew-Lo & Behold, "solutions" 1-100 look like they are taking a cyber dump making them completely unintelligible (note that rules of this Site prevent me from commenting further). I take this as a Sign from Heaven that I should next discuss the following (101) as a claimed error:<br />
<br />
First note 21:4 in context:<br />
<br />
(ASV)<br />
"And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and came unto Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, <br />
21:2 saying unto them, Go into the village that is over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose [them], and bring [them] unto me. <br />
21:3 And if any one say aught unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. <br />
21:4 Now this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, <br />
21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, Meek, and riding upon an ass, And upon a colt the foal of an ass." <br />
<br />
The supposed quote from the “prophet” is actually a conflation from two prophets ("Tell ye the daughter of Zion" is from Isaiah 62:11). The part about the animals is from Zechariah 9:9 <br />
<br />
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16213&showrashi=true<br />
<br />
"Be exceedingly happy, O daughter of Zion; <br />
<br />
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. <br />
<br />
Behold! Your king shall come to you. <br />
<br />
He is just and victorious; <br />
<br />
humble, and riding a donkey <br />
<br />
and a foal, the offspring of [one of] she-donkeys.<br />
<br />
And I will cut off the chariots from Ephraim, <br />
<br />
and the horses from Jerusalem; <br />
<br />
and the bow of war shall be cut off. <br />
<br />
And he shall speak peace to the nations, <br />
<br />
and his rule shall be from the sea to the west <br />
<br />
and from the river to the ends of the earth."<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Almost all Bible scholars today, including the Christians, recognize that the above has a style of '''parallel poetry''' whereby an idea is repeated. Therefore, the “foal, the offspring of [one of] she-donkeys” refers to the '''same''' ass in the previous line and Zechariah is only referring to '''one''' ass. The style of parallel poetry is harder to recognize when translated into a different language and the author of “Matthew” who seems to rely primarily on Greek translations for references to the Tanakh apparently didn’t realize that Zechariah was just referring to the same ass twice and mistakenly made a whole ass out himself. <br />
<br />
Apologist "defenses" can be very entertaining here often depending on trying out different combinations of ass/asses, clothes/clothes, sat/sitting and they/they. One defense is that the followers literally put the clothes on the donkey who by an act of Providence was exactly the same size as Jesus, a 53 Medium. Another claimed defense is from the Gospel of Jimmy, which regrettably did not make the final cut, but has Jesus say after he is set on the clothes/clothes, donkey/donkeys (adjusted for the inevitable textual variation), "Hey, do these clothes make my ass/asses look big?" I suspect that if we could somehow track down the author of "Matthew" and ask him to explain to us exactly what Jesus did here, he would say, "Whatever Zechariah prophesied, that's what Jesus did." <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
<br />
It's quite obvious that the unknown author of the Gospel of Matthew used the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint Septuagint] (aka the LXX) for his Biblical citations--the grammar of his quotes is directly from the LXX, rather than from the Hebrew. And it's also obvious that he doctored his narrative to more closely match the translated passage. At the same time, the tenor of the Pro argument is childish enough as to make the argument worthless without a complete rephrasing.<br />
<br />
Hebrew makes use of an "emphatic repeat" (not sure if that's the actual technical name for it), where the same thing stated twice was an emphatic form. In some passages, this takes the form of a repetition of the same concept in different words. The passage in Zechariah 9:9 is an example:<br />
<br />
:Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.<br />
<br />
(Zech 9:9, KJV)<br />
<br />
:Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!<br />
:Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!<br />
:See, your king [b] comes to you,<br />
:righteous and having salvation,<br />
:gentle and riding on a donkey,<br />
:on a colt, the foal of a donkey.<br />
<br />
(Zech 9:9, NIV)<br />
<br />
Here we can see the emphatic repeat in the KJV--the two descriptions of the ass linked by the word "and." In the Hebrew, this is a poetic exercise, and of course does not mean that the promised Messiah would ride on two animals.<br />
<br />
The grammar in GoMatthew, however, is quite different:<br />
<br />
:And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,<br />
:Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.<br />
:And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.<br />
:All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,<br />
:Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.<br />
:And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,<br />
:And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. <br />
<br />
(Matt 21:1-7. KJV)<br />
<br />
Obviously Jesus riding through the city on two animals is more than a bit ridiculous, but we can learn a few things:<br />
:1: The unknown author of Matthew was not an eyewitness to the event--or if he was (which is doubtful for other reasons), he changed his account to more closely match the text in Zechariah.<br />
:2: In all probablility the author did not speak Hebrew or Aramaic, as both of these languages use the emphatic repeat, whereas Greek does not: he was seemingly a native Greek speaker who was probably familiar with Jewish religious and social customs, but did not know the language.<br />
<br />
However, to point at this passage and say "Aha! It's an error! Christians are so stupid!" is one of the pitfalls of the hobby of skeptical debate. Far more profitable than casting scorn on those who hold to an inerrant view is the ability to gain insight on the author.<br />
<br />
Yes, ''technically'' this is an error, and a good argument against perfect inerrancy. But the exultation in the Pro argument debases the one who makes the argument far more than the ones who hold to inerrancy.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 17:42, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=21&verse=4&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%2021:4;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew21.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=21&verse=4 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+21.4 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C021.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_21,_Verse_4 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matthew]]<br />
[[Category:Other]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=5176
Main Page
2005-08-21T07:24:40Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div><table border="0" width="99%"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
<tr><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Pro Piece'''<br>[[1 Chronicles 3:19]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Smackdown'''<br>[[Matthew 1:4]]</div></td><br />
<td><div align="center">'''Featured Con Piece'''<br>[[Mark 1:16]]</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
'''Errancy Wiki''' is the one and only wiki-style site for arguments about errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Categories of claimed error: [[:Category:Contradictions|Contradictions]] - [[:Category:Science|Science]] - [[:Category:History|History]] - [[:Category:Immorality|Immorality]] - [[:Category:Other|Other]]<br />
<br />
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Hebrew Bible'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Genesis]]<br />
*[[Exodus]]<br />
*[[Leviticus]]<br />
*[[Numbers]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy]]<br />
*[[Joshua]]<br />
*[[Judges]]<br />
*[[1 Samuel]]<br />
*[[2 Samuel]]<br />
*[[1 Kings]]<br />
*[[2 Kings]]<br />
*[[Isaiah]]<br />
*[[Jeremiah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ezekiel]]<br />
*[[Hosea]]<br />
*[[Joel]]<br />
*[[Amos]]<br />
*[[Obadiah]]<br />
*[[Jonah]]<br />
*[[Micah]]<br />
*[[Nahum]]<br />
*[[Habakkuk]]<br />
*[[Zephaniah]]<br />
*[[Haggai]]<br />
*[[Zechariah]]<br />
*[[Malachi]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Psalms]]<br />
*[[Proverbs]]<br />
*[[Job]]<br />
*[[Song of Solomon]]<br />
*[[Ruth]]<br />
*[[Lamentations]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiastes]]<br />
*[[Esther]]<br />
*[[Daniel]]<br />
*[[Ezra]]<br />
*[[Nehemiah]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles]]<br />
*[[2 Chronicles]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''New Testament'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Matthew]]<br />
*[[Mark]]<br />
*[[Luke]]<br />
*[[John]]<br />
*[[Acts]]<br />
*[[Romans]]<br />
*[[1 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[2 Corinthians]]<br />
*[[Galatians]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Ephesians]]<br />
*[[Philippians]]<br />
*[[Colossians]]<br />
*[[1 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[2 Thessalonians]]<br />
*[[1 Timothy]]<br />
*[[2 Timothy]]<br />
*[[Titus]]<br />
*[[Philemon]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Hebrews]]<br />
*[[James]]<br />
*[[1 Peter]]<br />
*[[2 Peter]]<br />
*[[1 John]]<br />
*[[2 John]]<br />
*[[3 John]]<br />
*[[Jude]]<br />
*[[Revelation]]<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
'''Deuterocanon'''<br />
</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Tobit]]<br />
*[[Judith]]<br />
*[[Additions to Esther]] <br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Sirach]]<br />
*[[Baruch]]<br />
*[[Letter of Jeremiah]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Azariah]]<br />
</td><td valign="top"><br />
*[[Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
'''Rules'''<br />
<br />
# Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic.<br />
# Dual point of view is maintained. If you support a particular item as error, edit only in "Pro" or "Neutral." If you oppose a particular item as error, edit only in "Con" or "Neutral." Admins, however, are trusted enough to make changes in either section without undermining actual arguments made.<br />
# If there is any voting, you must register a name first and declare whether you are primarily "Pro" or "Con" as an editor on your user page.<br />
# First violation of these rules results in a warning. Second incident results in a 24-hour ban. The third results in a 7-day ban. The fourth results in a hard ban, which can be lifted only on the agreement of all admins.<br />
<br />
'''Roadmap'''<br />
<br />
* September 1, 2005. At least 100 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* October 1, 2005. At least 100 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* November 1, 2005. At least 50 users will sign up.<br />
* December 1, 2005. At least 100 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* January 1, 2006. At least 500 "Pro" sections will be edited.<br />
* April 1, 2006. At least 500 "Con" sections will be edited.<br />
* July 1, 2006. At least 500 verse pages will be greater than 5000 bytes.<br />
* October 1, 2006. At least 100,000 page views will be reached.<br />
* January 1, 2007. At least 10,000 verse pages will be edited.</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1:4&diff=5147
Matthew 1:4
2005-08-21T07:24:20Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Featured Smackdown}}<br />
<br />
'''[[Matthew 1:3|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 1]] > [[Matthew 1:5|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon; (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
JW:<br />
According to [[1 Chronicles 2:10]]:<br />
<br />
"And Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah;"<br />
<br />
it was Ram that begat Aminadab. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts though have the Greek equivalent of the English '''"Aram"''' for Matthew 1:4.<br />
In the big picture UBS has "Aram" as likely original. Raymond Brown confirms in "The Birth Of The Messiah" that "Aram" was likely original. The International Critical Commentary also confirms "Aram". This apparent error by "Matthew" can be relatively easily explained by the observation that the early Christian Greek translations of the Jewish Bible (often referred to as "LXX") have "Aram" in the genealogy instead of "Ram" so "Matthew" likely '''copied''' an error that already existed in the Greek. <br />
<br />
[http://neonostalgia.com/bible/Genealogy%20Comparison.pdf Here] is an interesting genealogy chart from Christ Weimer.<br />
<br />
"Aram"/"Ram" is the seventh name on the list (coincidence?). An observation which ranks relatively low on the evidence scale is that Peshitta Old has "Ram" and Peshitta New has "Aram" (Judge, look out!).<br />
<br />
I think most Apologists would agree here that "Aram" is likely original so the question becomes is using "Aram" instead of "Ram" an error? First let me say that if this is an error it certainly isn't a serious error. Even if they are different names they only differ by one letter and it's possible that they were variants of the same name so either could be used to refer to the same person. On the other hand minor errors like this aren't commonly discussed so most people don't even realize that there is an issue here or consider that this is evidence that "Matthew" was not fluent in Semitics and therefore not the best person to be explaining Semitics to non-Semitics. <br />
<br />
I think though that "Ram" and "Aram" were two '''different''' names in Biblical Hebrew for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
1) '''Both''' names are used in the Jewish Bible.<br />
<br />
2) There is '''nothing''' explicit or implied outside of "Matthew" that "Ram" and "Aram" were anything other than two distinct names. <br />
<br />
3) A one letter difference is a '''big''' difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew. <br />
<br />
4) The LXX of Chronicles lists "Ram" '''and''' "Aram" as sons of Hezron.<br />
<br />
5) There are many '''more''' examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy. <br />
<br />
6) '''Origen''' testifies that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names:<br />
<br />
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john6.html<br />
<br />
Quote:<br />
24. "THE NAME OF THE PLACE WHERE JOHN BAPTIZED IS NOT BETHANY, AS IN MOST COPIES, BUT BETHABARA. PROOF OF THIS. SIMILARLY "GERGESA" SHOULD BE READ FOR"GERASA," IN THE STORY OF THE SWINE. ATTENTION IS TO BE PAID TO THE PROPER NAMES IN SCRIPTURE, WHICH ARE OFTEN WRITTEN INACCURATELY, AND ARE OF IMPORTANCE FOR INTERPRETATION." <br />
<br />
"In the matter of proper names the Greek copies are often incorrect, and in the Gospels one might be misled by their authority. The transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed themselves carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few copies we have found, "into the country of the Gadarenes; "and, on this reading, it is to be stated that Gadara is a town of Judaea, in the neighbourhood of which are the well-known hot springs, and that there is no lake there with overhanging banks, nor any sea. But Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is taken, is an old town in the neighbourhood of the lake now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it there is a steep place abutting on the lake, from which it is pointed out that the swine were cast down by the demons. Now, the meaning of Gergesa is "dwelling of the casters-out," and it contains a prophetic reference to the conduct towards the Saviour of the citizens of those places, who "besought Him to depart out of their coasts." The same inaccuracy with regard to proper names is also to be observed in many passages of the law and the prophets, as we have been at pains to learn from the Hebrews, comparing our own copies with theirs which have the confirmation of the versions, never subjected to corruption, of Aquila and Theodotion and Symmachus."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=4&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201:4;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=4 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+1.4 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_1,_Verse_4 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matthew]]<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]</div>
Peter Kirby
https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Matthew_1:7&diff=5334
Talk:Matthew 1:7
2005-08-21T07:22:14Z
<p>Peter Kirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>Where are the references to Asaph/Asa in the Hebrew Bible? --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 02:22, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)</div>
Peter Kirby