A salty problem in Mk. 9:49

I've always heard that it's a lot easier to add salt than to take it out.

HankD

 

Maybe some scribes thought that it was impossible to be salted with fire, same as it is to be ignited with salt.

 

It seems there are many more versions than just the HCSB that contain the shorter reading:

NASB - salted with fire

CEV - salted with fire

RSV - salted with fire

BBE - salted with fire

GOD'S WORD - salted with fire

ASV - salted with fire

Weymouth NT - salted with fire

Maybe it's more of a TR thing?

 

It is. Correct me if I am wrong, but Bluefalcon feels that Byzantine documents are closer to the originals than the Alexandrians.

THIS, I have no problems with. It is not KJVonlyism.

This is strictly preference and belief in which is the most accurate stream of texts. A lot of scholars believe the same way and others believe the other stream is best; both for differing reasons.

 

Mr. Falcon,

You have chosen for us to evaluate one of the most difficult passages in the entire Bible. And what, you may ask, is the basis of that statement? My reply:

“The passage is exceedingly difficult.” Grimm

“This is confessedly one of the most difficult passages to interpret in the N.T.” Gould

“It is exceedingly obscure.” Jansen

“It is exceedingly vexed.” Wolf

“It is exceedingly vexing.” Heumann

“There is great difficulty in this verse.” Clarke

“A difficult verse, on which much has been written—some of it to little purpose.” Brown

“Perhaps no passage in the New Testament has given more perplexity to commentators than this, and it may be impossible now to fix its precise meaning.” Barnes

“This is one of the most difficult passages in the whole book, both the meaning of the terms and the connection with what goes before being doubtful and obscure.” Alexander

“There is perhaps no passage in the New Testament which has so defied all efforts to assign to it any certain interpretation.” Bloomfield

“It is one of those knots which are yet untied, in the exposition of Scripture.” Ryle

“It has put to the rack the ingenuity of many learned men.” Grotius

“It is one of those passages in which, because of their extraordinary obscurity, crosses seem to be fixed on which to torture expositors.” Fritzsche

“It is certainly among the passages that are hard to be understood.” Spanheim

“Almost all expositors and critics speak of these expressions, and especially the former, as among the most difficult in the Bible.” Morison

James Morison further wrote (in 1884) of Mark 9:49, “Many separate treatises have been published on it, and very many long and elaborate notes, full of ingenuity and learning, have been written to throw light upon it.”


And needless to say, not only is the text difficult to understand, it is no less difficult to ascertain. In my personal opinion, gross simplifications of either are highly inappropriate.

 

Am I misunderstanding something here, or do I see a bit of arrogance in you attitude?

 

They remind me of The Old Curiosity Shop on Portsmouth Street in London.

 

For those who may not know:

Part of the Wescott and Hort theory was that the Byzantine texts were "conflated" (Scripture combo) and "smoothed" (words/phrases added for clarity) and that was done very early on in the copying of the manuscripts and perhaps even as far back as to the "smoothing" out of the originals.

They felt that the Alexandrian mss were of a greater purity being older, they were especially fond of Aleph and B even though Burgon called them (Aleph and B) "corrupt" because they were not only in such a great degree of disagreement with the Byzantine mss but that these two ancient Alexandrian mss (Aleph/B) were "hopelessly in disagreement" with each other.

We currently have almost 6000 Byzantine mss, but W/H focused in on about 6 Alexandrian mss as a representative of the Greek NT.

Modernly we have papyri mss discoveries such as p66 which are older than Aleph and B, which have Byzantine type "conflated" and/or "smoothed" readings.

W/H no doubt would call this a "smoothed" incident. But if "conflated" then where does clause b come from?

Personally, I would go with the Byzantine reading (no surprise) and view Aleph/B as a scribal omission.

As to the meaning, I would relate this passage to the following Scriptures:

clause a) For every one shall be salted with fire

1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

clause b) and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Hebrews 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

HankD

 

Amen, et dicet omnis populus amen!

HankD

 

No, it's not a TR thing, although the TR indeed has the longer passage. It's a consensus of all Greek manuscripts thing, and the TR eclectic (pick-and-choose) text happens to have it right here. I'm not supporting the longer reading because it's in the TR, but rather because the shorter reading has a valid explanation (error by homoioteleuton) and is extremely localized, while the longer reading is in the mainstream textual tradition and represents the consensus of all Greek manuscripts.

Yours,

Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]Cause and effect issue. . .

I only meant it was a TR thing because you prefer the text stream that the TR used in that particular verse.

And, I feel the same for most of the TR. You have a preference for those text streams due to your scholarship based on your theory of homoioteleuton. That's fine, I do not have an argument if that is your belief. I am not a scholar of old manuscripts, so I cannot say that your theory is the correct one. Although, you do make a point.

Personally, based on my HUMBLE experience, I tend to believe minor additions occurred and minor subtractions are both relevant in different scriptures.

But, like Dr. Bob says, the amazing thing about God's Word is the TOTAL amount of agreement with Greek Documents (unlike that of any other ancient manuscripts) is so minute, that God's Word has obviously been well preserved.

I did not say this is true just because you like the TR, but it IS somewhat of a TR thing when your most of the documents making up the TR are, in your opinion, the best. No disagreement with what you are saying. ...just wanted to be clear. I am NOT trying to make this a KJVo thing. Okay?