6:20 - About Mark 9:29: over 99% of the Greek manuscripts support the full reading, "prayer and fasting." But one will surely respond, "What about the oldest manuscripts? In this case, Vaticanus is not the oldest manuscript. Take a close and careful look at the heavily damaged Papyrus 45. It *includes* the reference to fasting. Now, let's grant, for the moment, Dr. Mounce's claim that this might not matter where the establishment of doctrine is cocerned. Does it not matter where the reliability of the two main manuscripts used to establish the ESV's New Testament base-text is concerned??
Regarding fasting. It seems irrelevant to me[,] and the Holy Ghost, as to whether Mark's "prayer and fasting" should indeed include fasting, since fasting should be one of the least and reasonable ordinances performed by the committed disciple of Jesus of Nazareth--as the speaker clearly implied [or at least, for those so believing, what we can clearly infer from what was implied]. But it should also, by the quadrilateral reasoning aspect, seem obvious that the apostles were already disciplined in a prayer life, especially considering the timeline of Mark 9 in the overall period of Jesus ministering[, and His example]. So for Jesus to just say "prayer," seems to Capt. Obvious incomplete. The problem is with "us": "...you seek Me...because you ate of the loaves and were filled." Jn.6:26b,d. As I stated in another thread of this same speaker, our spiritual, human heart more than any aspect, deceives US (Jer.17:9, by impl.). We adjust the Word according to what selfish motives remain well hidden within us. [ed.]
2:50 -- Reckoning that John write his Gospel c. AD 90, how is it that Tertullian (late 100's/early 200's) mentioned the part (in John 5) about the angel stirring the waters, if Dr. Mounce's claim is true that it was not added until a few centuries after John wrote??
How do these inconsistencies change your faith and belief in Jesus Christ? What was the outcome in John 5? In the ministry of Jesus, we know that he struggled against the misaligned Jewish law. They had adopted the letter of the law while denying the spirit of the law. Which do you hold true? We won't know the true translation until we are in our heavenly bodies.
5:55 - Is Dr. Mounce actually claiming that the doctrine of inerrancy is not brought into question by the textual variant in Matthew 13:35, or in Matthew 27:49, in Codex Sinaiticus??
The variations between manuscripts don't affect any major doctrine? What about the doctrine of Inspiration? As Ehrman points out, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that God did the miracle of inspiring every word of the original text but didn't do the miracle of preserving the text going forward. Biblical scholars have long shown that Christians early on were not only making copying mistakes but were even editing their texts for theological reasons. This is why Revelation has the warning about adding or taking away from its contents (Rev 22:18) or why Paul warns about letters written in his name (2 Thess 2:1-2). All one has to do is compare the way that Matthew changed his source material, the gospel of Mark, for instance, to see that this was going on. (For example, compare Mark 10:17-18 with Matt 19:16-17.) Several canonical epistles are even believed by most non-evangelical scholars to be forgeries (the pastoral epistes & 2 Peter). We have a plethora of evidence from extra-canonical writings too that this kind of thing was rampant.No textual critic, evangelical or otherwise, thinks that we can get back to the original text. They might think that we can have reasonable certainty about the text in the early 3rd century or something like that, but we don't know what changes were made to the text in the first hundred years of copying. Christians were changing their texts, as I said, and it's not unreasonable to think that they did this early on during the period for which there is no manuscript evidence.So, of course, these myriad of variations in the texts do affect Christian doctrine. They affect the very doctrine upon which all the other doctrines stand. To brush this off like it's not a problem, I think, is too hasty of a dismissal.
Textual variants do no damage to the doctrine of inspiration, for God has chosen to preserve His word to us by such means that includes textual variants. During the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles, there existed two forms of the Old Testament - the Greek Septuagint (used mostly by the people), and the Hebrew Scriptures (used mostly in the Temples). While both texts existed simultaneously, Jesus and the Apostles chose to quote more from the Septuagint than they did from the Hebrew Text (340 times from the Septuagint to just 33 from the Hebrew Text. This number from G. Archer and G.C. Chirichigno, "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey," 25-32). . Here's the point - they quoted from BOTH. Both have textual variants, and both were quoted by Jesus and the Apostles, ergo both are authoritative. The task of the student then is to be informed as to which is more accurate, where it is more accurate, and why it is more accurate. Perfection in copying of God's Word was not the standard for Jesus and the Apostles, so why should we hold God's Word to a standard that even God Himself did not hold it?
6:20 - About Mark 9:29: over 99% of the Greek manuscripts support the full reading, "prayer and fasting." But one will surely respond, "What about the oldest manuscripts? In this case, Vaticanus is not the oldest manuscript. Take a close and careful look at the heavily damaged Papyrus 45. It *includes* the reference to fasting.
Now, let's grant, for the moment, Dr. Mounce's claim that this might not matter where the establishment of doctrine is cocerned. Does it not matter where the reliability of the two main manuscripts used to establish the ESV's New Testament base-text is concerned??
Mounce is not addressing the actual substance of Erhman's thesis.
Mark 16; 9-20. Important verses missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus codices. Are these later interpolations? Sure looks like it.
Regarding fasting.
It seems irrelevant to me[,] and the Holy Ghost, as to whether Mark's "prayer and fasting" should indeed include fasting, since fasting should be one of the least and reasonable ordinances performed by the committed disciple of Jesus of Nazareth--as the speaker clearly implied [or at least, for those so believing, what we can clearly infer from what was implied].
But it should also, by the quadrilateral reasoning aspect, seem obvious that the apostles were already disciplined in a prayer life, especially considering the timeline of Mark 9 in the overall period of Jesus ministering[, and His example]. So for Jesus to just say "prayer," seems to Capt. Obvious incomplete.
The problem is with "us":
"...you seek Me...because you ate of the loaves and were filled." Jn.6:26b,d.
As I stated in another thread of this same speaker, our spiritual, human heart more than any aspect, deceives US (Jer.17:9, by impl.). We adjust the Word according to what selfish motives remain well hidden within us.
[ed.]
2:50 -- Reckoning that John write his Gospel c. AD 90, how is it that Tertullian (late 100's/early 200's) mentioned the part (in John 5) about the angel stirring the waters, if Dr. Mounce's claim is true that it was not added until a few centuries after John wrote??
How do these inconsistencies change your faith and belief in Jesus Christ? What was the outcome in John 5? In the ministry of Jesus, we know that he struggled against the misaligned Jewish law. They had adopted the letter of the law while denying the spirit of the law. Which do you hold true? We won't know the true translation until we are in our heavenly bodies.
5:55 - Is Dr. Mounce actually claiming that the doctrine of inerrancy is not brought into question by the textual variant in Matthew 13:35, or in Matthew 27:49, in Codex Sinaiticus??
Does anyone know if Mounce is a Calvinist?
The variations between manuscripts don't affect any major doctrine? What about the doctrine of Inspiration? As Ehrman points out, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that God did the miracle of inspiring every word of the original text but didn't do the miracle of preserving the text going forward. Biblical scholars have long shown that Christians early on were not only making copying mistakes but were even editing their texts for theological reasons. This is why Revelation has the warning about adding or taking away from its contents (Rev 22:18) or why Paul warns about letters written in his name (2 Thess 2:1-2). All one has to do is compare the way that Matthew changed his source material, the gospel of Mark, for instance, to see that this was going on. (For example, compare Mark 10:17-18 with Matt 19:16-17.) Several canonical epistles are even believed by most non-evangelical scholars to be forgeries (the pastoral epistes & 2 Peter). We have a plethora of evidence from extra-canonical writings too that this kind of thing was rampant.No textual critic, evangelical or otherwise, thinks that we can get back to the original text. They might think that we can have reasonable certainty about the text in the early 3rd century or something like that, but we don't know what changes were made to the text in the first hundred years of copying. Christians were changing their texts, as I said, and it's not unreasonable to think that they did this early on during the period for which there is no manuscript evidence.So, of course, these myriad of variations in the texts do affect Christian doctrine. They affect the very doctrine upon which all the other doctrines stand. To brush this off like it's not a problem, I think, is too hasty of a dismissal.
Textual variants do no damage to the doctrine of inspiration, for God has chosen to preserve His word to us by such means that includes textual variants.
During the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles, there existed two forms of the Old Testament - the Greek Septuagint (used mostly by the people), and the Hebrew Scriptures (used mostly in the Temples). While both texts existed simultaneously, Jesus and the Apostles chose to quote more from the Septuagint than they did from the Hebrew Text (340 times from the Septuagint to just 33 from the Hebrew Text. This number from G. Archer and G.C. Chirichigno, "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey," 25-32). .
Here's the point - they quoted from BOTH. Both have textual variants, and both were quoted by Jesus and the Apostles, ergo both are authoritative. The task of the student then is to be informed as to which is more accurate, where it is more accurate, and why it is more accurate.
Perfection in copying of God's Word was not the standard for Jesus and the Apostles, so why should we hold God's Word to a standard that even God Himself did not hold it?
Thank you so very much for this teaching. I am very grateful.