Chiasmus: An Important Structural Device Commonly Found in Biblical Literature

"Chiasmus: An Important Structural Device Commonly Found in Biblical Literature" (PDF)
by Brad McCoy

Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (book)
by John W. Welch

Textual Criticism - Mark 16:9-20

The ending of Mark, specifically Mark 16:9-20, has several variants, short and long.

From Wikipedia:

The final twelve verses, 16:9-20, are not present in two fourth-century Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.[17] The only other Greek manuscript without the ending is a twelfth century commentary on Matthew and Mark, known as "304".[18] As such, verses 9-20 are present in 99% of the Greek manuscripts,[19] with most of these witnessing to the "Byzantine text-type" manuscript tradition.[20] However, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, largely of the Alexandrian text-type, are generally highly valued as a witness to the autograph of Mark due to their antiquity. Because of this, and also because of linguistic and stylistic differences between these verses and the rest of the Gospel, there has resulted scholarly debate concerning the authenticity of these passages and the original ending of the Gospel.

Codex Washingtonianus (late 4th or early 5th century A.D.), included the addition to 16:14 that is known as the Freer Logion.

Another ending, called the shorter ending is found in an Old Latin manuscript of Mark.[21] Some seventh-to-ninth-century Greek manuscripts and Syriac, Sahidic, Bohairic and Ethiopic have minor variations on this shorter ending.

Hypotheses on how to explain the textual variations include:

Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at 16:8, and someone else (at an early date) wrote the concluding lines.

Mark did not intend to end at 16:8, but was somehow prevented from finishing (perhaps by his own death), whereupon another person finished the work.

The Gospel originally contained a different (perhaps similar) ending that was lost, for one reason or another, whereafter the current ending was added.

Verses 16:9-20 are authentic, and were omitted or lost from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for one reason or another, perhaps accidental, perhaps intentional.

James H. Charlesworth pointed out that Codex Syriacus (a 5th-century translation), Codex Vaticanus (mid-4th century), and Codex Bobiensis (4th- or 5th-century Latin) are all early manuscripts that exclude the Marcan Appendix. In addition to these, approximately 100 early Armenian translations, as well as the two oldest Georgian translations, also omitted the appendix (James Bentley p. 179) In Secrets of Mt. Sinai, James Bentley made this observation about the omission of the Marcan Appendix in Codex Sinaiticus: "The scribe who brought Mark's Gospel to an end in Codex Sinaiticus had no doubt that it finished at chapter 16, verse 8. He underlined the text with a fine artistic squiggle, and wrote, "The Gospel according to Mark." Immediately following begins the Gospel of Luke (p. 139).

There is much more on wikipedia. I recommend reading it for more information on this topic.

More Online Resources

Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James

I came across an interesting paper by David Paulsen about some of the work of William James. I find it interesting as it is in agreement with my thoughts on classical christian theology for pretty much the same reasons.

My own thinking is summarized by the Savior's command:

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. "
Matthew 5:48

How can we be perfect, like the father, if God is as taught by classical christianity?

Paulsen's paper is found at the link following:

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James
by David Paulsen, "The Journal of Speculative Philosophy" 13.2 (1999) 114-146

From the paper:

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has often been distinguished from the god of the philosophers. 1 The latter is allegedly only a human conception--a product of rational theologizing, with no explicit basis in biblical revelation. While the philosophers' God is variously conceived, it is usually said to be, among other things, absolutely unlimited in all respects, wholly other, absolutely simple, immaterial, nonspatial, nontemporal, immutable, and impassible. 2 By way of contrast, the biblical record describes the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "the living God" 3 who created man in his "own image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26), who spoke with Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend" (Exod. 33:11). He is the loving God who is profoundly "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" (Heb. 4:15) and salvifically involved in our individual and collective lives.

Not all philosophers have accepted the philosophers' God. Some reject this God on strictly logical grounds. For instance, Anthony Kenny argues that the God who is the product of rational theologizing is, ironically, irrational--an incoherent concept, a logically impossible being (1979, 121-22).

One of the more articulate dissenters from the God of the classical theistic tradition is William James, the American pragmatist. For James, there was a sharp contrast between the God of the Bible and the God of orthodox theology. He drew this contrast in a letter to Henry Rankin dated 10 June l903: "[T]he Bible itself, in both its testaments . . . seems to me by its intense naturalness and humanness, the most fatal document that one can read against the orthodox theology, in so far as the latter claims the words of the Bible to be its basis." But James rejected the god of orthodox theology, not because he thought the concept unbiblical and not because he thought it logically incoherent, 4 but because he found it devoid of significant practical meaning. In this paper, I set out by clarifying James's criterion of pragmatic meaning, then sketch his arguments against the God of the philosophers based thereon, and, finally, show that the God who survives James's critique seems very much like the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

Anthropomorphism

George Ernest Wright



Edmond La B. Cherbonnier

In Defense of Anthropomorphism

The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism

LDS Websites

FAIR

Mormon Archipelago

Mormanity, blog by Jeff Lindsay

LDS FAQs, by Jeff Lindsay

Mormon Think Tank, Kevin Graham

Blake Ostler

Mormon Miscellaneous, podcast by Van Hale

The King James Only Controversy

Here is a controversy of which members of the LDS church are largely oblivious: The King James Only Controversy.

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
Bethany House (March 1, 1995)
James White

Here is a website which promotes the KJO position: The King James Bible Page

One handy feature at this website is the online dictionary of King James Version words.

Below I have provided a quote from the site that promotes the KJO position.

"The vast majority of Christians are unaware that there exists a significant difference between the KJV and Bible versions published in the last 100 years -- a difference of doctrine and authority, not one of mere dialect. They are told that the KJV is antiquated, hard to understand, and inaccurate.

The King James Bible Page aims to set the record straight: the KJV is God's word in English, accurately translated from manuscripts preserved by God throughout history. Modern versions of the Bible, on the other hand, are translations of manuscripts that have been transmitted in a secular form throughout history, tainted by liberal, un-believing scholarship as early as the days Paul began penning Holy Scripture under the inspiration of God.

In many cases modern translations, such as the New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), and so many others, simply delete verses equivalent in quantity to the entire book of Second Peter. Learn about the history of the Bible, the value of the KJV, and the problems of academic seduction surrounding modern Christian scholarship, and arm yourself with the pure, trustworthy words of God.

One one the most significant failings of the Church today is a lack of final authority in Scripture. Anyone who is willing to correct the Bible is willing to put himself over the authority of the Bible. Every Christian should learn about this issue and understand that the Bible, not a man, is the final authority by which all spiritual matters must be judged. This is impossible when you do not believe the Bible in your hands is the pure, unadulterated word of God!"

Wikipedia has a rather long and in depth article on the King James Only Movement.

Just to clarify, I've posted the above out of an interest in learning about the beliefs of the traditional christian community, not that I support those ideas!

My interest, and that of other members of the LDS church is explained in my post KJV Bible as the LDS Authorized Version