The “Longer Ending” of the gospel of Mark was not the majority text, as late as the 5th century. Victor of Antioch said that the majority of copies of Mark in Antioch in the 5th century lacked Mark 16:9-20. It is deceptive to indicate that the absence of the Mark Longer Ending has scant MS evidence. It would also be deceptive to state that the omission of Mark 16:9-20 is an Egyptian or Alexandrian one. Again, Severus, in Antioch, Syria, and Victor, in Antioch, Syria acknowledged that in the 5th century, the best copies, and even the majority of copies, omitted Mark 16:9-20. This is why I do not care what the number of copies made in the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th centuries, do include it. Isn’t that reasonable? See my notes in my translation of the Gospel of Mark.
Please share this post about the longer ending of Mark.
I have completed and uploaded editions of the Epistle of Jude translated from the Textus Receptus and from the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine textform. These, like my eclectic edition, show the readings of 62 Greek manuscripts plus 12 Greek New Testament editions, including the Antoniades, Von Soden, Pickering, Tregelles, SBL, NA28, Wesctott and Hort, Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus, Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus, Hodges/Farstad, Tommy Wasserman, and David Robert Palmer editions. These are PDFs in landscape mode.
We have all heard of harmonizations in the Greek text between the gospels. But harmonization is not limited to the gospels. I am working on the Acts of the Apostles right now, and we have a harmonization in Acts 9:5,6 in the Latin text and the Textus Receptus,
“It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” Then, trembling and awe-struck, he said, “Lord, what do you want me to do?” And the Lord said to him,
These words are not found in the Greek manuscripts, but come from Erasmus’ first edition of 1516, which in turn came from the Vulgate and old Latin MS h, which in turn probably came from Paul’s own later recounting of this event, found in all Greek editions in Acts 22:10 and 26:14.
Ephesians 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needs it.
1 Thessalonians 4:11,12 “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.”
Notice two things from the above verses: 1, NOT working with your own hands when you are cabable, but instead living in dependence on someone else or on government aid, is not respectable. 2, it is very close to stealing.
I get a kick out of how the New Revised Standard Version weakens every instance of the Greek word HUPOTASSW, seemingly just so that wives are not commanded to submit to their husbands. Here are 3 instances of the Greek verb HUPOTASSW in 1 Peter in the NRSV:
In 1 Peter 2:13, the NRSV says “accept the authority of” the emperor. I guess we can accept the emperor’s authority without obeying him or submitting to him? Cool.
In 1 Peter 2:18, slaves are to “accept the authority” of their masters. I don’t think it would go over well if the slave did not actually obey his master, submit to his master, whether he “accepted the authority” or not. The master says, “Slave, go chop a cord of wood.” Slave says, “Master, I accept your authority over me, but I think I will play dominoes right now.”
Then we have 1 Peter 3:1, where the NRSV says “wives, accept the authority of your husbands.” No, it says “wives, submit to your husbands.” That is really quite different. Peter goes on to say in verse 6 of 1 Peter chapter 3, that Christian wives are daughters of Sarah, so they should imitate Sarah, who called her husband “lord.”
Yes, that is most certainly “politically incorrect.” But our Lord was arrested for being politically incorrect, and so were his apostles. Just because the world is rebellious against God’s ways, and worldly wives are rebellious, does not matter. We, as God’s people, do not conform to the world. And we as God’s people should not use biased and corrupted Bible translations like the NRSV.
Entrance Exam for Admission to Harvard College from 1869
I have typed up the Harvard Entrance Exam from 1869. Of the 210 candidates who took this test, 185 were admitted. In those days very few young people attended high school, and those who did, intended to go to college, and so they did study such preparatory subjects as Greek and Latin.
Algebra from the 1869 Harvard Admissions Exam
Its headings are: Translate into Latin, Latin Grammar, Greek Grammar, Greek Composition, History and Geography, Arithmetic, Logarithms and Trigonometry, Albebra, and Plane Geometry. Some of the topics are: Gyges, Coriolanus, Ephesus, Scipio, the Manilian Law, Elision, the construction in Object-Clauses after verbs of striving, Xenophon, Gryllus, Leonidas, Pausanias, Lysander, Pharsalia, Philippi, Actium, Athens, Sparta, Pericles, prime numbers, logarithms, Binomial Theorem, Cosines, Secants, radii, polygons. Here is a link where you can download the PDF of the Harvard Admissions Exam of 1869 here.
Please share this post about the Harvard College admissions exam of 1869:
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, Gospel Problems and Solutions, Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum
Announcing a new upload for you to download. This PDF contains Eusebius’ Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum. Edited by Roger Pearse, Greek and Latin translated by David J. D. Miller. This document contains the famous passage by Eusebius which indicates that in his day, almost all copies of the Gospel of Mark did not contain 16:9-20. For that section of the text, right-click Eusebius- Gospel Problems and Solutions, Quaestiones ad Marinum, and choose “save as,” and tell your computer where to save the pdf, then open it and go to page 113 of the pdf, (p. 97 of the printed document.) There you will find the section entitled “To Marinus.”
Please share this post about Eusebius’ Quaestiones ad Marinum: