Mark 10:24 why was the end changed?

[farout]

In Mark 10: 24 it use to say "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches" to enter the Kingdom of God.: NKJ ad the is almost the same How far back in older versions of the Bible did it have closer reading to the above? When was it removed. Sources please.

 

[Brother Paul]

Funny, because scholars have pointed out that this wording is in all four families of Manuscripts...so why would these new modernist versions delete them?

 

[Last Things]

In Mark 10: 24 it use to say "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches" to enter the Kingdom of God.: NKJ ad the is almost the same How far back in older versions of the Bible did it have closer reading to the above? When was it removed. Sources please.

It just depended on the manuscript. It has always been omitted or included.

 

[Last Things]

Funny, because scholars have pointed out that this wording is in all four families of Manuscripts...so why would these new modernist versions delete them?

How are translations that use older manuscripts modernist?

The passage is found and absent in various manuscripts since the early days. Its not deleting a passage is it isn't there - that would be adding something.

 

[farout]

Funny, because scholars have pointed out that this wording is in all four families of Manuscripts...so why would these new modernist versions delete them?

Paul: Got hold off a real Biblical scholar who does this kind of research. The phase was not in any manuscript up to 4th century. After the 5th century it begins to appear. Who put it in is unsure.
How interesting this was for me.

 

[Last Things]

Paul: Got hold off a real Biblical scholar who does this kind of research. The phase was not in any manuscript up to 4th century. After the 5th century it begins to appear. Who put it in is unsure.
How interesting this was for me.

It is actually found since the 100s.

 

[Brother Paul]

It is actually found since the 100s.

According to what I could find, and granting that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit them… "for them that trust in riches" are found in the majority of all Greek texts, and also the Old Latin a, also b, d, f, ff2, l, q, A, C, D, as well as 21 Uncial copies, the Syriac Peshitta, the Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian and Ethiopic versions…

Many of these are pre-4th century so you are probably right...

 

[farout]

According to what I could find, and granting that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit them… "for them that trust in riches" are found in the majority of all Greek texts, and also the Old Latin a, also b, d, f, ff2, l, q, A, C, D, as well as 21 Uncial copies, the Syriac Peshitta, the Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian and Ethiopic versions…

Many of these are pre-4th century so you are probably right...

I thank you, however I could sure use some source's references, as I know my dear friend would want t correct his statement. can you help me with a bit more specifics, please. I don't know all this textual stuff at all. Tanks

 

[Brother Paul]

I thank you, however I could sure use some source's references, as I know my dear friend would want t correct his statement. can you help me with a bit more specifics, please. I don't know all this textual stuff at all. Tanks

Well first off all Majority Text samples (95% of extant samples) include the phrase with no rebuke from any church writer. The Textus Receptus samples agree as does Berry's Greek text. Also think about this logically...the phrase falls right at the end of Jesus discourse with the rich young ruler who could not part with his riches to obtain the kingdom.

Now the main reason for modern omission comes from those who declare by consensus (mainly modern scholars of the liberal Critical School camp) that Vat and Sin are the "oldest" which they are not) and the "best" (which is entirely a personal opinion) examples and we should judge all others based on these. But oddly even Westcott and Hort in their eclectic hodge-podge include the phrase.

Dean John William Burgon, who personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised" (1881), he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, affecting 2640 words."

And the eclectic (by opinion) blending of this and that, omitting this and that, we arrive at the so-called Critical Text. Now between the two (Vat and Sin) we see more corruption (both are filled with editorial marks, Sinaiticus shows editing as late as the 12th century) and disagreement...

There are 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows:
656 in Matthew
567 in Mark
791 in Luke
1022 in John
And in 90% of these cases these are in total disagreement with the quotations from earlier Texts quoted by those who received the originals from the Apostles and their immediate disciples…

So the work of Dr. Peter Ruckman and Dean Burgon are great starting places and also Tischendorf (who though a critical scholar is honest and objective within that school of thought)...Tischendorf was the person who actually discovered Sinaiticus...ALSO look up this name and read about this man...Constantine Simonedes

hope this helps some

brother Paul
[h=1][/h]