Was the Gospel of Mark adjusted by Christians?

I'm not an expert, but would we expect the Taoist or the Buddhist canon to contain material by other than adherents?

Perhaps there is debate about lost or destroyed early documents, but the New Testament apocrypha is freely available, including here on IO

https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/

Before Luther's vernacular translation and the simultaneous invention of the printing press, the NT was not accessible to ordinary people, because books and literacy were restricted and it was in Latin.

Organised religion has many faults. But I do not believe it is reasonable to lay the invention of eucharistic Christianity in Paul's lap, that was already evident in Rome around 50AD -- or to give Constantine all the credit for its spread that has had such a great effect on people over two thousand years of history?

I find the attempts to minimize often come across a bit desperate? (Not directed personally at anyone)

 

The Original Post began with: "The New International Version translation of the Gospel of Mark warns readers if there is evidence that verses were adjusted, added to or cut."

Does my comment make sense now?

 

Yes, but it is agreed by general scholarship and it's not swept away -- it is openly discussed in notes in the NIV Bible itself -- as well as most modern Bibles. It's nobody's secret.

It is restricted to certain passages of doubtful provenance etc, after study and comparison by experts of old manuscripts in their original languages. It's not the same as someone saying: "Oh, I don't believe Jesus said such a thing, so let's remove it."

 

Logging off till tomorrow

 

What isn't?

Maybe I'm not fully understanding the conversation of this thread.

 

That's what I've been perusing, Amir.
I think that much of G-Mark is as original.

 

And so......... can I ask, do you accept and believe in all of the text of the Gospel of Mark?

 

There were different Christians, though........ as shown now by the thousands of different churches and creeds out there, and some of these deny others, even all the others. Some will not eat or drink with others.

This can be shown in the different 'faces' or 'persons' of Jesus shown in each gospel. But that is not for this thread.

 

Social Reformer...............
Mark {12:38} And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and [love] salutations in the marketplaces, {12:39} And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: {12:40} Which devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

 

Well......... yes, it does to me, Amir.

And the gospels presented a different Jesus, especially the Gospel of John.... whereas in this thread I am wandering through the Gospel of Mark and selecting out (what I believe to be) verses not original, in the Gospel of John I would be wandering through it and selecting out information, anecdotes and accounts which I believe are original to the real Jesus.

But I have no doubts whatsoever that there was an original Jesus, and Baptist, and close followers..... even enemies of Christianity confirmed their sound belief in 'Jesus the person'

 

I don't sift through it with a fine tooth comb as you do @badger That sort of intense bible study is not for me.

Experts agree the extended ending is a later interpolation and I believe the end-of-the-world passage was written after the destruction of the temple. I'm sure there's other stuff, but I don't believe that excising any passages referring to a spiritual Jesus is justified. I am always aware Paul was writing before the Gospel of Mark, and knew Peter and Jesus's brother James.

I have also read from the scriptures of other faiths such as I Ching and Bhagavad Gita, and even the Quran. Others too, of course: Yogananda, Ramakrishna, etc I conclude they are all spiritual texts, concerned with higher states of being and with the soul of man -- although they do of course also contain practical advice about living in the world.

I have no doubt at all that the Gospels are too. Parables like the sower and the seed are spiritual messages, and the life and death of Christ concern a spiritual figure of high stature -- not an unsuccessful social reformer who somehow created a religion by accident.

End of the day it doesn't matter. It is what it is, and efforts to minimise the role of Jesus Christ as a spiritual figure are much too late. So ...

 

Mark {15:27} And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. {15:28} And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors

Maybe it's just me, but wherever and whenever I read that prophecy or scripture was fulfilled, I look to see if the account will flow smoothly without any of it.........

 

OK, so you don't study it like I do. Fair enough.

Do you believe in what the experts all agree on? What experts?
I don't care what 'experts' all tell you, I really don't. Because there are experts who disagree with other experts about anything, everything.
You won't find many occasions when I have hid behind what an expert tells, nor will you find that I am much impressed by what experts think.

Do you follow those writings?

I have never before read a Christian who has described Christ as 'a spiritual figure of high stature'.

I read the story of the sower and seed as a real life analogy.
I have read about other individuals who were the nucleus of huge followings ......... by accident.

Today, some very few of us are free to write about and talk about what we believe in without dying from it. It's never too late to have the right to investigate individually and to ignore institutional indoctrination.

 

@badger

There are millions of Bible interpretations, and they will continue for as long as mankind continues to exist. Yours is one. I'm not the blinkered fundamentalist you seem to want 'Christians' to be. I am open to all/most faiths. They all have the same end goal, imo -- which is the soul -- and as organized religions they all have limitations.

I disagree with you that Jesus was just a petty social reformer who somehow ended up starting a religion by accident. I do think Christ is more than just any 'spiritual figure of high stature' but the point is Jesus was at least that.

 

Paul was writing before the Gospel of Mark came out. He knew Jesus's closest followers, Peter and James, and the author of the Gospel of Luke and of the Acts of the Apostles was a close companion of Paul. Eucharistic Christianity was already active in Rome around and before AD60 distinct from Judaism, according to Tacitus

At no point was anybody trying to portray Jesus as just a failed social reformer, imo

Such a conclusion can only be reached by tossing out all the parts of the Gospel of Mark the don't support the theory, regardless of what anybody thinks about 'experts'

Anyway ...

 

And where exactly did you get that from?

Like I have already written, I've never read that from a Christian before. .....as in ''they all have the same end....'

I am always interested to read those little additions of yours, like 'petty'.

 

It's sad that Paul didn't write down anything about Jesus (apart from those last hours) then.

I can think of one or two......... but no Christians were, for sure.

As already mentioned, when I read about what experts, (or taxi-drivers, or scholars, or any other groups of folks) have decided about something, I just ignore that......... because groups of folks have varying opinions.

 

He obviously assumed the people he was addressing already knew all that. It was common knowledge.

What was he then? Nobody else except Josephus mentioned him at the time, and not in the context of a revolutionary, but as a healer, etc.

But people are still entitled to disagree and to compare your theories to those of experts and historians?

That Jesus was always regarded as a spiritual teacher is too basic to argue, imo. Any other conclusion can only be reached by using it as a starting point, and then tossing out whatever from the Gospels does not suit the theory. People don't feel the need constantly to minimize the Buddha or other great spiritual figures.

At risk of labouring the point: everybody with a theory about Jesus does the same. Muslims, deists -- the list goes on. And so around it goes

But sorry for going off about it @badger It's your thread. We disagree at base level. I doubt there's more for me to say?

 

I wonder who reported all these things......... ?

Mark {15:34} And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? {15:35} And some of them that stood by, when they heard [it,] said, Behold, he calleth Elias. {15:36} And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put [it] on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down. {15:37} And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. {15:38} And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
{15:39} And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. {15:40} There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; {15:41} (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.

Psalm 22, so similar .................

Psalm 22 To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David. {22:1} My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far
from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring? {22:2} O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. {22:3} But thou [art] holy, [O thou] that inhabitest the praises of Israel. {22:4} Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. {22:5} They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. {22:6} But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. {22:7} All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head [saying, ]{22:8} He trusted on the LORD [that] he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

 

My belief is Catholic I believe in the spirit of the text, not necessarily the letter.

The Catholic position is stated firstly in Dei Verbum, one of the four constitutional documents of the Church, formulated at Vatican II in 1965.

What follows are extracts from Chapter III: Sacred Scripture, its Divine Interpretation and Interpretation

"... the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text)."
Para 11. My emphasis: the point here being not the literal word, but rather the point and purpose of the writing. The Church has long accepted that not every literal word is true.