Putting words in Jesus' mouth

[Socius]

I was going through some variants of what is possibly the oldest surviving manuscript of Luke's gospel Papyrus Bodmer XIV (P75) to discover that this MS does not include Jesus' famous saying at the crucifixion "Then Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing'." I checked the variants of this reading to discover that the more reliable MSS such as Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (corrected) also omit this saying. Even Codex Bezae omits this reading. Nestle-Aland 27 put this saying in double brackets, meaning very doubtful. The NRSV does the same. The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament give this passage a {C} rating meaning probably not original. The person to have said similar words to these was Stephen before his death in Acts 7:60. Maybe Stephen showed greater resolve at death? (Compare with Matthew 27:46 and 26:39).

This reminded me of other sayings Jesus unlikely had said. In Mark 7:1-24 Jesus' disciples were accused for eating with defiled hands. Jesus' response to this is that "whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile" (7:19). This verse ends with the Markan conclusion that all foods were declared clean. Matthew does not seem to go this far in the parallel passage (Matt 15:1-20). We do not get the impression from Matthew that all foods were declared clean. Rather, it seems that Matthew attacks an extremist demand on the tradition about hand washing.

In Mark Jesus then takes the disciples away and instructs them about the parable concerning defilement (7:14-23). If anyone would have understood what Jesus intended to teach (that all foods were declared clean) then the disciples would have, including Peter. However, Peter needs a special revelation that foods were considered clean in Acts 10:9-16. Why? Especially startling is Peter's response after his vision that he can eat what he likes; "By no means Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane and unclean." If Jesus had really taught all foods clean as in Mark 7, then why did Peter need another revelation and why did he still doubt?

There are many other similar types of examples. Jesus' teaching on divorce is a good one. But you can see my point with the above two examples. Jesus was not always the radical that Christians make him out to be. His disciplces seem to be these radicals on a number of occassions. What is really significant is that early Christians were willing to go further and beyond what Jesus said and did, even if this meant changing what he said and did so as to be relevant to their own socio-historical context. One only needs to read the different variants of the surviving MSS and read about the diverse forms of Christianity within the first few hundred years to see this. Unfortunately Christians nowadays are afraid to to be as radical as the early disciples for fear that they do not sound scriptural. I love reading the bible, but fear when others hold on to an idolised allegiance to the bible that stuns development and growth. The bible is an interesting book to read and a great one to critically study, but lets not get carried away by putting a book before humans. If God exists I doubt even he/she would want that. There are many stories and books that can inspire us and the bible, for me at least, is one of those books. Even the "bad" stories in the bible, like what we find in parts of the OT, are good for instruction. These stories can teach us how not to act and allow us to be thankful that we have moved beyond such frightening beliefs. A reminder of what not to become and what not to expect of others.

To conclude, we need less worship and more action, which will turn out to be the best form of worship, that is, if God exists.

[Metacrock]

They weren't being radical when they put in stuff or left it out. They were quoting the traditions they had in their communities. The Gospels were written by communities over time and the redaction processes were specific to each community.

we sort of have to either become textual critics or trust the copulation in a general way. If Jesus himself didn't say "forgive them they know not what they do," that's ok because the redactor using it shows that the community understood it as properly part of the teachings they heard. It doesn't have to be the very words of Jesus to be the "sort of thing" he was teaching. That's all we can really expect to get is the sensibilities of a community, the community began through exposure to Jesus' teaching.

[Socius]

They weren't being radical when they put in stuff or left it out. They were quoting the traditions they had in their communities. The Gospels were written by communities over time and the redaction processes were specific to each community.

First, what you say just pushes the problem back one step. Whether it's the community or scribe the changes occur. But no, it was more than that you say. The early period was diverse and communities were fighting eachother for authority. Changes in text were made to support pejudices and biases. Many variants were created for polemical and apologetical purposes. As Kin Haines-Eitzen says, "the mininterpretation and misus of written texts could not be prevented" (Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature, Oxford Uni. Press, 2000, p. 105).

For polemical changes in texts see Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christolgical Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford Uni. Press, 1993).
For apologetical changes see Wayne C. Kanaday, Apologetical Discourse and the Scribal Tradition: Evidence of the Influence of Apologetic Interests on the Text of the Canonical Gospels (Atlanta: SBL, 2004).

And that it is one of the reasons why text-critics by-and-large have abandoned the quest for the original text. The original text is beyond our reach.

we sort of have to either become textual critics or trust the copulation in a general way..

I choose the former.

[KR Wordgazer]

One thing about "Jesus declared all foods clean." We are reading our own Gentile culture into the text. Jews did not consider pork, shellfish, etc., to be "foods." Mark was making a statement that not following all the cleanliness rules that had been added later, did not make foods unclean. This is what Jesus was actually saying.

Peter's vision wasn't actually about foods, but about the Gentiles. The vision was of creatures that Peter would not consider acceptable as food-- just as he wouldn't consider Gentiles to be acceptable as followers of God. God showed him otherwise, using the unclean animals symbolically to make His point.

Later, when God began pouring out His Spirit on the Gentiles, the founders of the faith (who were all Jewish) met in council in Jerusalem. They decided that since God had accepted the Gentiles as they were, the Gentiles did not have to convert to Judaism to be saved. Gentile believers didn't have to be circumcised or to follow Jewish food laws. But that doesn't mean the Jewish followers all of a sudden stopped being Jewish themselves, or started eating things they had always considered disgusting! Not eating unclean animals was not burdensome to the Jews. They recognized, though, that it would be burdensome to Gentiles, who were used to depending on some of these animals for food and did not consider them disgusting.

It's as if someone came to me and said, "It's not unlawful to eat sea urchins now. Here, have some. They're a delicacy in Japan!" My response would be, "Thanks anyway, but to me, that isn't food. I don't mind if the Japanese eat them, though."

It's easy to misunderstand the texts when we don't understand the cultural constructs.

[Socius]

One thing about "Jesus declared all foods clean." We are reading our own Gentile culture into the text. Jews did not consider pork, shellfish, etc., to be "foods." Mark was making a statement that not following all the cleanliness rules that had been added later, did not make foods unclean. This is what Jesus was actually saying.

Peter's vision wasn't actually about foods, but about the Gentiles. The vision was of creatures that Peter would not consider acceptable as food-- just as he wouldn't consider Gentiles to be acceptable as followers of God. God showed him otherwise, using the unclean animals symbolically to make His point...

How can you not think that the Markan account is not about Gentiles in light of 7:24-30?

[Metacrock]

They weren't being radical when they put in stuff or left it out. They were quoting the traditions they had in their communities. The Gospels were written by communities over time and the redaction processes were specific to each community.

First, what you say just pushes the problem back one step. Whether it's the community or scribe the changes occur.

pushing the problem back one is helpful. Yes there's still a problem that doesn't mean we haven't made some progress by pushing it back. It does more than push it back to take out commentary like "radical." That's not facing the text in a scientific manner but indicates reading in our own attitudes.

But no, it was more than that you say. The early period was diverse and communities were fighting eachother for authority.

assertion not in evidence. Even though its probable in some ways, we don't have enough evidence to make that judgment.

Changes in text were made to support pejudices and biases. Many variants were created for polemical and apologetical purposes. As Kin Haines-Eitzen says, "the mininterpretation and misus of written texts could not be prevented" (Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature, Oxford Uni. Press, 2000, p. 105).

you are just reading in a bunch of reasons not in evidence, reason thought up to enforce your own theological assertions.

For polemical changes in texts see Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christolgical Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford Uni. Press, 1993).

He's doing the same thing. he has his own struggles with his background. His father was at Moody he was at Moody so he has his own struggles with that background. he sees belief and you see belief as indicative of fundies. Only fundies believe. that's not scientist that's using it as personal therapy.


Moreover what do you mean by "radical?" from what perspective are you using that term? One thing I will go along with you on, there can be many reasons for any particular variant.

For apologetical changes see Wayne C. Kanaday, Apologetical Discourse and the Scribal Tradition: Evidence of the Influence of Apologetic Interests on the Text of the Canonical Gospels (Atlanta: SBL, 2004).

Paul Tillich had apologetic interests in using Heidegger in his ontology. that phrase is not meaningful, it's preparative. Apologists is seen as a con job. That's bull shit.

you have a need to read into it something that bolsters your problem with the tradition.

And that it is one of the reasons why text-critics by-and-large have abandoned the quest for the original text. The original text is beyond our reach.

that may be so. that doesn't mean the text is bull shit and has nothing to say to us.

we sort of have to either become textual critics or trust the copulation in a general way..

I choose the former.

that should have been 'compulation." O my God ahahahahaahaha what a mistake!

now I don't know really know what you mean by agreeing with it.

The text confers grace upon the reader. That's it's primary purpose. It's primary purpose is not to give a literal historical account but to confer grace. Meaning it's not Bull Shit, it's not false. It's just not literally historical.

[Metacrock]

I infer from your quoting of Russell that you are an atheist. Is that right?

[Socius]

pushing the problem back one is helpful. Yes there's still a problem that doesn't mean we haven't made some progress by pushing it back. It does more than push it back to take out commentary like "radical." That's not facing the text in a scientific manner but indicates reading in our own attitudes....assertion not in evidence. Even though its probable in some ways, we don't have enough evidence to make that judgment.

Facing the text scientifically,if it al possible, means not be guided by theological prejudices. Understanding the origin and development of the text by the data and not allowing personal worldview to significantly altar results is the test. We must strive to allow the data speak first and not force ourselve to fill in the gaps with our beliefs. Harder said than done I know, that is why dogmaticism is dangerous!!! Where does data speak in dogmaticism?

you are just reading in a bunch of reasons not in evidence, reason thought up to enforce your own theological assertions..

I hope you have read the texts i qouted before making judgments upon them. Even with Ehrman, don't resort to dismissing his contribution by attacking his character. We all have stories and are where we at based on these stories. Lets go beyond character assination and deal with what is presented. By the way, I don't agree with all Ehrman says, but I think he has valid points on several important issues.

that may be so. that doesn't mean the text is bull shit and has nothing to say to us...

I agree and didn't mean to say that. Alternatively, it doesn't mean there is no bullkshit in the text either. I'm not speaking universally.

we sort of have to either become textual critics or trust the copulation in a general way..

I choose the former.[/quote]

that should have been 'compulation." O my God ahahahahaahaha what a mistake!

now I don't know really know what you mean by agreeing with it. ..[/quote]

hehehe...definitely the former then

[Socius]

The text confers grace upon the reader. That's it's primary purpose. It's primary purpose is not to give a literal historical account but to confer grace. Meaning it's not Bull Shit, it's not false. It's just not literally historical.

I actually don't disagree entirely with what you say here. But that it is not a literal historical account shows that what is important is the idea of the narrative to give food to the soul. That's why debates between atheists and theists usually miss the point and distract from the more important things.

As to your question of whether I am an atheist for quoting Russell.

I really hate titles. I would probably be seen as a soft or sympatheitic atheist more than anything else. If God exists then I have doubts that any current definitions of God are entirely accurate. That does not mean there is no truth in the world religions. In regards to Christianity, if God exists then I don't doubt that Jesus does not reveal to us some of those divine traits, i'm sure he would, though I wouldn't say that he does all the time. I don't worship him,but respect who he may have been. Our religions are tribal and cultural and say more about who we are than who God is. But having said this, I'm not entirely convinced God exists. God may be a myth to the true sense of the term. I am quite fond of this site http://www.spiritualatheism.com/

I'm more of a humanist than anything else. Also, I'm a PhD student working on 2 manuscripts. One on the scribal behaviour of an II/III century manuscript as part of my research (Luke and John's Gospel). The other, i'm transcribing a 12th century manuscript as part of an international project that is wanting to collate the text of John's Gospel.

Also, I find fundamentalism of any type, atheist and theist, abhorrent. I have no intention of winning argumets, just trying to understand, offer a new perspective and learn from differing perspectives.

[KR Wordgazer]

One thing about "Jesus declared all foods clean." We are reading our own Gentile culture into the text. Jews did not consider pork, shellfish, etc., to be "foods." Mark was making a statement that not following all the cleanliness rules that had been added later, did not make foods unclean. This is what Jesus was actually saying.

Peter's vision wasn't actually about foods, but about the Gentiles. The vision was of creatures that Peter would not consider acceptable as food-- just as he wouldn't consider Gentiles to be acceptable as followers of God. God showed him otherwise, using the unclean animals symbolically to make His point...

How can you not think that the Markan account is not about Gentiles in light of 7:24-30?

Did I say that the gospel of Mark is never about Gentiles? I said that what is meant by "food" would be something different to Jesus' audience in that scene (who were Jews).