Bible Study The Ante-Nicene Fathers and the New Testament

[King James]

The Ante-Nicene Fathers. They were around before the critical texts. Which texts did they use and quote from? Simple. Ones that modern bibles claim to be late, inferior, and erroneously added to works. See more about it:

[video=youtube;KdDT1u946V4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDT1u946V4[/video]

If you want to see the whole series on the subject, there are 15 parts total. Keep in mind this is not King James Only Material.

 

[Brother Mike]

Good information if you have not understood this before. I use the KJV, but not a happy fan of the 3rd edition .........

With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because "Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy", even though he remained "convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John.

Erasmus should have told them to stick it.

Mike.

 

[King James]

Mark 16:9–20 in the manuscripts and patristic evidence

The earliest clear evidence for Mark 16:9-20 as part of the Gospel of Mark is in Chapter XLV First Apology of Justin Martyr (c. 160). In a passage in which Justin treats Psalm 110 as a Messianic prophecy, he states that Ps. 110:2 was fulfilled when Jesus' disciples, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere. His verbiage is remarkably similar to the wording of Mk. 16:20 and is consistent with Justin's use of a Synoptics-Harmony in which Mark 16:20 was blended with Lk. 24:53. Justin's student Tatian (c. 172), incorporated the "Longer Ending" into his Diatessaron, a blended narrative consisting of material from all four canonical Gospels. And Irenaeus (c. 184), in Against Heresies 3:10.6, explicitly cited Mark 16:19, stating that he was quoting from near the end of Mark's account. This patristic evidence is over a century older than the earliest manuscript of Mark 16. Writers in the 200's such as Hippolytus, Porphyry, and the anonymous author of De Rebaptismate also used the "Longer Ending."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The writings of these Church father is much older than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, not to mention that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus themselves disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone. These two texts are considered the authority for bibles today on these verses...well for the entire New Testament. westcott-hort, nestle aland, and the united bible society favored these texts with a primacy towards Vaticanus for their New Testament because they are the oldest found texts. Who cares that the Early church fathers quoted majoritively from what resembles the majority texts. To be clear the modern scholars don't believe the majority texts were even written at that time even in light of obviously knowing this information I'm presenting. They use Sinaiticus and Vaticanus simply because they are the oldest texts around even though they don't even agree with each other let alone with the majority of the Early church fathers quotations on the New Testament texts they were using even though the ones I'm talking about lived and died before the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were even written.

A weird coincidence, I shouldn't really mention, the Gospel of Mark is 678 verses total with these twelve verses.

 

[Brother Mike]

I happen to like Mark just as it's written in the KJV. Nothing in Mark 16 contradicts any thought or operation of God anyway.

Mike.

 

[King James]

Let us give a proof from early Church Fathers showing the Byzantine text-type is very old. The Byzantine text of Matthew 27:34 uses the Greek term oxo, translated vinegar: "They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink." The Alexandrian text uses the term oinon translated wine, in this passage. The parallel passage found in Mark 15:23 uses oivnon and the near v. 36 passage uses o[xoV ; Luke uses oxoV in the near 23:36 passage; and John uses oxouV in the near 19:29 passage. Because of these uses some critics claim the Church Father quotations using oxouV (vinegar) may not come from Matthew but one of the other Gospels. But as Pickering and Robinson have pointed out, the term gall makes it possible to identify the Church Fathers' quotations as coming from Matthew 27:34 since gall is used in only one other New Testament Scripture (Acts 8:23).[113] Therefore we can have confidence these Church Father quotations come from Matthew, even though the Fathers made no statement to this affect. Following is a list of Church Fathers who use vinegar and gall in these same "quotation."
Barnabas, Barnabas, 100 a.d.: "had given him to drink vinegar and gall" ( 7:5).
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 130-202: "He should have vinegar and gall given Him to drink" (Book IV:XXXIII:12; cf. XXXV:3).
Revelation of Esdras: "Vinegar and gall did they give me to drink."
Apostolic Constitutions, late 200s: "they gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall" (V:3:14).
Tertullian, Reply to Marcion, d. 220: "and gall is mixed with vinegar" (Appendix, V:232).
Gospel of Nicodemus, 4th century: "and gave him also to drink gall with vinegar" (Part II, 4).
Gregory of Nyssa, d. 394: "coln tekai oxei dixbrox" (Orat. X:989:6).
Gregory Nazianzus, d. 396, "Taste gall for the taste's sake; drink vinegar" (Oratio XXXVIII:18).
The above shows the Byzantine text of the Gospel of Matthew existed very early, even in the first century.

 

[turnorburn]

Are the Ante-Nicene Fathers writings outside of the New Testament?

tob

 

[King James]

Are the Ante-Nicene Fathers writings outside of the New Testament?

tob

Well, you want to put it that way, there are ZERO NEW TESTAMENT WRITTINGS. No originals. A five second Google search will show you, these are the guys in between the 12 disciples and the formation of the Roman Catholic Church, more importantly 325 A.D., Pre-Critical Texts. Some of them direct disciples of the disciples, mostly from John, then 2nd, 3rd, generation of this and so on. These are the guys that quote from the originals and the ones writing the original commentaries on the New Testament, and the ones that would be copying form the originals, or having copies made to spread the word. The determination is which copies do we have today are the right ones.

 

[farouk]

Are the Ante-Nicene Fathers writings outside of the New Testament?

tob

Well, you want to put it that way, there are ZERO NEW TESTAMENT WRITTINGS. No originals. A five second Google search will show you, these are the guys in between the 12 disciples and the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. Some of them direct disciples of the disciples, mostly from John, then 2nd, 3rd, generation of this and so on. These are the guys that quote from the originals and the ones writing the original commentaries on the New Testament, and the ones that would be copying form the originals, or having copies made to spread the word. The determination is which copies do we have today are the right ones.

I think it's fair to say that in the Providence of God the text of Scripture is dispersed within the totality of the textual evidence, rather than it being the case that some 'correct' version of the church has supposedly created or ratified the Biblical text.

 

[turnorburn]

That's what i thought..

Thanks King James, no further questions..

tob

 

[King James]

I think it's fair to say that in the Providence of God the text of Scripture is dispersed within the totality of the textual evidence, rather than it being the case that some 'correct' version of the church has supposedly created or ratified the Biblical text.

Well, we have two options. Either no texts are right, or two texts are wrong.

 

[farouk]

I think it's fair to say that in the Providence of God the text of Scripture is dispersed within the totality of the textual evidence, rather than it being the case that some 'correct' version of the church has supposedly created or ratified the Biblical text.

Well, we have two options. Either no texts are right, or two texts are wrong.

This avoids the reality that no two manuscripts are identical.

 

[farouk]

Good information if you have not understood this before. I use the KJV, but not a happy fan of the 3rd edition .........

With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because "Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy", even though he remained "convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John.

Erasmus should have told them to stick it.

Mike.

The purpose of Erasmus's Greek text was to justify his emendations to his Latin New Testament edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

"Church authority" wanted to make the textual process work in reverse.

 

[King James]

This avoids the reality that no two manuscripts are identical.

Especially the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus with 3,036 textual variations in the text of the Gospels alone. You know, the oldest and most reliable. The basis for Westcott-Hort, then Nestle-Aland, and United Bible Society versions, almost all modern bibles. Well, using these has changed the Vatican's stance considerably on their practices. Now they encourage reading the bible and they promote catholics and protestants working working together to produce bible translations. Many catholic websites promote the NIV for instance with the NIV being used in commentary for some catholic books. Many modern bibles also contain apocryphal texts versions and catholic bible versions.

Vaticanus has been altered by at least two hands as late as the 12th century.
It has almost 600 readings that do not occur in any other manuscript, which effects nearly 1,000 words.
● Vaticanus does not consider the following books as part as the Bible.
1. Revelation
2. Philemon
3. Titus
4. I & II Timothy
5. Large parts of Genesis, Samuel,
Kings, Nehemiah and Psalms.
What it does consider as part of the Bible is:
● Bel and the Dragon
● Tobit
● Judith
● Epistle of Barnabas

Sinaiticus Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found

Why do most of these versions include writings that they don't believe are real biblical texts? They include passages, then say, "these passages are from late inferior texts". Are they confident in their base texts? Maybe they just want to offend the least amount of people so they can get maximum profit on selling their bibles.