Was the Gospel of Mark adjusted by Christians?

[Ella S.]

That's the difference between our opinions, then.

I discredit what I believe to be insertions, edits and manipulations....how did you put it , thus:-
'I think, if you weren't seeking to discredit the gospel, you would take the text as-is.'

Whereas you discredit the whole book. Correct?

I do indeed discount the entirety of Mark. However, I don't really think my personal view is too relevant. I'm more interesting in helping you bolster the inner consistency of your argument, even if I disagree with it.

For the sake of discussion, I am willing to entertain the idea that some parts of Mark may hold accurate information. I'm merely interested in how you determine which parts are accurate and which parts are not.

In this instance, you suspect that some parts are insertions or edits and you use other passages within the same work to bolster this claim. I'm wondering how true this contradiction between verses really is and, if it is a necessary contradiction, I have two and a half follow-up questions:

1. How do we know that the verse in question is the edit and not the other verses you use to discredit it?
2. How would the insertion come about and, if it had to be intentional, why would someone intentionally add this part to the text?

 

[badger]

Yes. You have not shown the text to be tampered with, just your incredulity. Two different things.

I have shown how I come to doubt the inclusion of that verse, you can see how the previous verse ends, complete. I can show how the next begins in a whole new communication.

So according to the OP: 'Was the Gospel of Mark adjusted by Christians?'
I'd have to say, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary ... no, the text you cite is most probably authentic.

.....probably authentic.....
I think it's probably manipulated.

This is what I think:

Mark is making a point that although facing opposition in Galilee through five 'conflict' narratives (Ch2 3:1-3:6) He is drawing a larger gathering from the broader population.]

When he took it to Jerusalem to the Temple, yes. All those provinces did attend there .

This theme runs throughout the Gospel, which breaks into two sections, the first part (Ch 1-8) in Galilee,

YES!

the second (8-16) to and in Jerusalem.

YES!
...in that order.
Try walking to Galilee from those provinces.....

I tend to look at the bigger picture, the theological narrative, and what that is saying; at the scholarship and the available evidence.

The scholarship can't help you, only the evidence that research has produced.

How many were involved, I don't know. Was it many, yes, it would appear it was. And did they come from afar, yes, they most probably did.

We know that voice carries over calm water
We know that Genneseret could be calm as well as stormy.
We know that voice stops carrying when it is absorbed by a shoreline .
A good voice might reach a thousand ears in a calm...imo

To me, it is you who seeks to 'adjust' the reading of the text.

Of course I do, I seek to strip it of additions. You do know there are additions so this isn't anything new, I'm guessing.

Thomas....I'll give you the attendance number for average great feast tomorrow. A count was taken a couple of decades later.

 

[badger]

@Thomas .... As promised I trawled through my ancient files and found a photo of an account about a Temple Kidney census taken a couple of decades after Jesus. I'll post up the picture but it doesn't give a source..... back in the day I was collecting material for myself, not to prove anything.

Jerusalem Kidney Census
Agrippa, on behalf of the Romans, wanted the figures for a census of the Jews and the information is still used by literal minded historiansto calculate the munber of families and thus the numbers of worshippers for a Temple festival. The figure is huge, 600,000pairs of kidneys. and if it only gives the vaguest sense of the real numbers ..............

And so the question asks, 'How many people do think would have come to see Jesus in Galilee?'

This gives an idea about just how big Anna's Bazaar would have been (the money changers) and the sacrificial sellers, and priestly preparers of sacrifices. and that verse which I totally mistrust now repeated, offers proof of its deliberate misplacing.

....from Galilee..... (And)from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon.

..... Yes they did, to the Temple, But not the Samaritans who had their own Mountain to feast upon.
And so I ask you...... the Samaritans would never have come to the Great Temple, but surely for healing and to listen to the massively famous Jesus they would have come from Samaria? Surely that list would have read
from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon. ........ and Samaria?
...but it didn't. The above fits perfectly for the Great Temple, not for a visits to a famous healer....even the Romans came to him for that.

 

[Thomas]

I have shown how I come to doubt the inclusion of that verse ...

And I have shown that the doubt – founded on an argument about punctuation – is ill-founded. You have provided no evidence to infer the verse was inserted, none at all. Where is the text without the verse?

It can be read in different ways, yes, but there is no reason to assume the verse was inserted.

Try walking to Galilee from those provinces...

I've walked the London Loop – 150 miles – does that count?

The scholarship can't help you, only the evidence that research has produced.

You haven't produced any, that's my point.

We know that voice carries over calm water ...

We know lots of things, but we don't know whether He spoke from a boat, so all this is idle speculation.

 

[Thomas]

Again, @badger, let's return to the OP:

"The New International Version translation of the Gospel of Mark warns readers if there is evidence that verses were adjusted, added to or cut. A typical example is in the very first verse of chapter one, where the reader is informed that 'the Son of God' was not present in earliest copies of G-Mark."

But the doubt is there because the phrase is missing from some MS – but that is not proof that it was inserted. Another example is the 'long ending' of Chapter 16, again because in some MS the chapter ends quite abruptly at v8, and particular vocabulary distinctions in v9-20.

In short, sound reasoning based on textual evidence.

Because Mark 1:1 or 16:9 are questioned, that does not mean that every verses is questioned, and critique of any verse has to stand on its own merit, not doubt by association.

The case against your reading of the section:
That text was tampered with, inserted or simply not true, rests on your own assumptions, not on any evidence.
That Jesus spoke from a boat is pure invention, with nothing in the text to support it – the suggestion is an example of 'adjusting' the text.

 

[Thomas]

... and Samaria? ... but it didn't.

So you think your cut-and-paste does not comprise a type of 'adjusting' we should guard against?

 

[badger]

And I have shown that the doubt – founded on an argument about punctuation – is ill-founded. You have provided no evidence to infer the verse was inserted, none at all. Where is the text without the verse?

You think you've shown that you are right.
I think I've shown lots of reason to be very wary of the inclusion of all those other provinces, thus........

It can be read in different ways, yes, but there is no reason to assume the verse was inserted.

.......from my paragraph above.
Let's look at a Great Temple Feast...... who went to that, from where?
Galilee
Judea
Jerusalem
Idumea
regions across the Jordan......... That's Perea and the Decapolis
around Tyre and Sidon......... Philip's domain, and that sister's.

Excellent..... all there. And not Samaria, Samaritans having their mountain, but they would have come to Jesus if they could, after all, he was healing anybody, he even went to the Gerasenes and Gaderenes where they farmed all those pigs.
Mark (NIV)5 1 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes...................... A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside.

So we know that Jesus went to pagans as well as Jews....

And so...... where were the people from Samaria in that scene? None?
That's one cue..... I think that list was lifted from the congrehation of a Great Feast. It looked better than just 'Galilee'.
So I don't trust it.

I've walked the London Loop – 150 miles – does that count?

Very impressive. How long did that take you? How many days?
However many days it took you you've now got to turn around and walk back.
You would be gone from your home for a very long time...... I think you'd be safer at home if you'd lived back then, one of the peasant classes with a living and a dwelling to protect. (EDIT: THat's not an insult Thomas...... all classes beneath the Levites were peasant classes)

Nah....... Galilee, and the walk from around there would have been enough, methinks.

You haven't produced any, that's my point.

Not for you. Definitely not for you, I think, but I need to say that you've given me nothing to feel any better about those places which I think were added......

We know lots of things, but we don't know whether He spoke from a boat, so all this is idle speculation.

You may not know, but some of us feel secure in saying.... that he spoke from boats before and most probably would have spoke to them from that boat then, as he did on this one:-
{4:1} And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land. {4:2} And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, {4:3} Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to

 

[badger]

Again, @badger, let's return to the OP:

"The New International Version translation of the Gospel of Mark warns readers if there is evidence that verses were adjusted, added to or cut. A typical example is in the very first verse of chapter one, where the reader is informed that 'the Son of God' was not present in earliest copies of G-Mark."

But the doubt is there because the phrase is missing from some MS – but that is not proof that it was inserted. Another example is the 'long ending' of Chapter 16, again because in some MS the chapter ends quite abruptly at v8, and particular vocabulary distinctions in v9-20.

In short, sound reasoning based on textual evidence.

The evidence shows that the verses you mention were very dodgy indeed. Even many Peer-Reviewed Scholars say so....

Because Mark 1:1 or 16:9 are questioned, that does not mean that every verses is questioned, and critique of any verse has to stand on its own merit, not doubt by association.

Where the account leaves Jesus's mission and seeks to show how an action or speech was the fulfilling of a prophecy I chuckle out loud.
You must believe in what you do, but I need to be free with my opinions as well, and I reckon I could put it to an impartial jury. But that would then be a debate and this is just a discussion.

The case against your reading of the section:
That text was tampered with, inserted or simply not true, rests on your own assumptions, not on any evidence.
That Jesus spoke from a boat is pure invention, with nothing in the text to support it – the suggestion is an example of 'adjusting' the text.

Jesus often spoke from a boat, to be heard with any kind of gathering and for security.
Here is an account where it shows this perfectly:- (shown for the second time)
{4:1} And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land. {4:2} And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,

 

[badger]

So you think your cut-and-paste does not comprise a type of 'adjusting' we should guard against?

You should guard against? Yes..... you should definitely guard against folks like me who strip out what they believe is manipulation.
Definitely. Absolutely.
Why? I'm not trying to sell anything to you or any other...... I'm writing what I see as truth as I perceive it.

You can't harangue every person who has walked away from what you believe, surely? They'll only walk faster.
I've mentioned to other members here that I only know a couple of Christians around here, although some neighbours probably tick that box in questionnaires, or go to a Christian funeral..... or wedding. One acquaintance (a small Christian by my reckoning) paid £26,000 for the privilege, status etc of being wed in Canterbury Cathedral about ten years ago. Goodness knows what that costs today.

 

[Thomas]

You think you've shown that you are right.

We seem to be going round the houses here.

I have shown why you have not convinced me that Mark Mark 3:7-8 was 'adjusted'.
Nor do I see any reason to accept your adjustment to the text.

 

[badger]

We seem to be going round the houses here.

I have shown why you have not convinced me that Mark Mark 3:7-8 was 'adjusted'.
Nor do I see any reason to accept your adjustment to the text.

Convinced you? !!!
I have no interest in convincing you, simply offering my own opinions and beliefs.

 

[Thomas]

Convinced you? !!!

OK, perhaps that's too strong a word.

You offer no evidence to support your claim that the verse in question might have been adjusted.

 

[RJM]

Perhaps it's just a too literal reading of scripture as history: 'People came from all around'?
The gospels were written down and copied, originally from verbal accounts, and every copy had to be made by hand.

Again what is the great significance that the list may have been embellished? Poetic licence? Does it mean that people did not come from all around to visit Jesus in Galilee? Does that make it a big manipulative conspiracy by devious Christians? Is the Gospel of Mark to be taken as a chronological history, or as an overall coverage of the life and death of Jesus -- in a very condensed form?

Obviously Jesus was very well known beyond Galilee at the time of his (final) entry to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.
Am I missing something?

 

[Thomas]

Perhaps it's just a too literal reading of scripture as history

That tends to be a common practice outside of scholarly circles – people tend to hold ancient documents to the same standard they have come to expect of contemporary historical accounts.

Mark's is a dynamic testimony – and here is a quick covering of the Galilean ministry – with resistance at home, but a reputation spreading abroad.

Then we're beyond Galilee, and almost immediately on the road to Jerusalem.

 

[Ella S.]

That tends to be a common practice outside of scholarly circles – people tend to hold ancient documents to the same standard they have come to expect of contemporary historical accounts.

Mark's is a dynamic testimony – and here is a quick covering of the Galilean ministry – with resistance at home, but a reputation spreading abroad.

Then we're beyond Galilee, and almost immediately on the road to Jerusalem.

To clarify, are you saying that we should keep in mind the genre of the literature when interpreting it?

Or are you saying that we should approach historical sources with less scrutiny?

 

[badger]

That tends to be a common practice outside of scholarly circles – people tend to hold ancient documents to the same standard they have come to expect of contemporary historical accounts.

Mark's is a dynamic testimony – and here is a quick covering of the Galilean ministry – with resistance at home, but a reputation spreading abroad.

Then we're beyond Galilee, and almost immediately on the road to Jerusalem.

I don't think so.

Were you playing an academic-ststus card by any chance? In the above post. ?
Didn't you have to be shown what Jesus did in Jerusalem and Temple on Palm Sunday?

The entire campaign or mission was conducted around Galilee and in the North and the road to Jerusalem wasn't taken until those last days, just before that last week.

According to G-Mark......

 

[RJM]

@badger

Let's assume poetic licence was taken with the idea (that people came from all around to visit Jesus in Galilee) being extended to a specific list of places more likely to match the Jerusalem Passover crowds, and thus excluding Samaria.

What is the significance? As observed earlier it's obvious Jesus had a significant multitude of followers when he entered Jerusalem to hosannas from the whole population on Palm Sunday --although you suggest the palms were thrown down by greedy locals for all visitors to the festival, that is clearly not the intended meaning of the gospel story.

I do not see the inclusion of a list of places, that were indeed probably an unlikely distance from Galilee -- to colour the account -- to mean a deliberate conspiracy to alter the meaning of the gospel story. Why is it so sinister?

I don't understand the importance?

EDIT
I still don't see the importance either of the fact that not everyone notches up an 'Oh yeah' to the fact that Jesus's first stop on entering Jerusalem was the Temple, and that he looked around? It isn't significant enough to to most people to be an issue.

Again, why is it so significant to you?
You seem to make it a black mark against Christians in general?

 

[Thomas]

To clarify, are you saying that we should keep in mind the genre of the literature when interpreting it?

Yes.

Or are you saying that we should approach historical sources with less scrutiny?

Not at all.

In fact, all I was trying to do was show the points made don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Thomas]

Were you playing an academic-status card by any chance? In the above post?

No, I'm not an academic.

 

[Ella S.]

Were you playing an academic-ststus card by any chance? In the above post. ?

In the several months that I have been here, I have never seen Thomas make an Argumentum ab Auctoritate, much less one in which he himself is the authority. He has a decent habit of laying all of the evidence and reasoning for his arguments out in the open, allowing others to come to their own conclusions.

I wish I was as good about that as he is. I don't think this is a problem you are likely to have with him.