Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb (page 7)

JosephAlward

RWC,

You believe that differences among the various gospel accounts of the resurrection are unimportant, since the most important thing is that all gospel writers agree that Jesus was resurrected. However, that's really not true. The very first gospel writer, Mark, ends his gospel with the women finding the tomb empty and the women not telling anyone anything. Mark doesn't say anything about angels at the tomb telling Mary that Jesus had risen; he says nothing about Jesus meeeting with anyone. Only after a later scribe had fraudulently added verses 9-20 are the readers told about the resurrection.

Now, I know that you will not accept that these last verses are fake, so my remarks are really intended to enlighten those whose view of the Bible is less conservative than yours. You may wish to explain why the editors of the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and others, state that the most reliable, and the earliest, transcripts of Mark do NOT include verses 9-20. I'll let you check this yourself. Just go to Bible Gateway (linked on my website), where you'll find a dozen or so different Bible versions, and go to the footnotes at the end of Chapter 16.

If the original "Mark"--the very first gospel writer--didn't know about the angels speaking to Mary, and about Mary meeting Jesus, or about Jesus being resurrected, then why should we believe that any of these things happened?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

KJV

Joe,

It seems to me that when and if Matthew and Luke copied Mark, the gospel of Mark didn't contain chapter 16. It could have been added later. If the author of Mark did write the short version of chapter 16 then it would seem that Matthew and Luke were not content with Mark's version and added to it. I prefer to believe that Mark didn't write chapter 16 at all because it would seem to me that Matthew and Luke would not want to copy Mark and add extra details which are obvious discrepancies. So the most logical conclusions is that Matthew, Mark and Luke got their resurrection accounts from oral tradition.

JosephAlward

I respond to questions about the Anthropic Principle, Pascal's Wager, and intercessory prayer in another thread.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

JosephAlward

KJV,

I agree that Matthew and Luke probably took their resurrection stories from tradition, and that they did not have the later addition to Mark in hand when they wrote their stories, for the reason you state.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

RWC

Joesph,

I do not mind and in fact actually enjoy having these dbates with you, because on most occasions, despite our differences, you present your points accurately from scripture in the sense that you quote it correctly and then place your spin on it. Here you did not.

I agree that Mark chapter 16:9-20 do not apear in the earlist manuscripts of Mark. However, Jesus' ressurection and Mary talking to the angel appears in Mark Chapter 16 verses 4-8. The angel specifically tells her that the tomb is empty because Jesus had risen from the dead.

As to the verses 9-20 the NIV says : "These verses do not appear in two od the most trustworthy MSS. of the NT, though they are part of many other MSS and versions. If they are not a part of the genuine text of Mark, the abrupt ending of verse 8 is probably because the original closing verses were lost."

The truth remains: The evidence of Jesus' ressurection appear in every Gospel.

JosephAlward

RWC,

You're right about my mistatement; I said that Mark didn't tell us about the angel prior to Verse 9, but that's not right.

Now, as for the late addition, the NIV notes that the most trustworthy manuscripts don't contain those verses. No scholar believes that the manuscripts with the later addition are more reliable, so we have good grounds for suspecting that the earliest gospel writer did not know about Mary's encounter with Jesus.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

RWC

Thanks for the reply Joseph. I think that the NIV is more correct that the abrupt ending in verse 8 indicates that the actual ending has been lost. So we may never really know if Mark didn't know of Mary meeting Jesus as you assume or if he did and his version was lost.

sadiejive

.

Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

Share this