^
^
^
^ Toва по никакъв начин не отговаря на въпроса ми.

Въпросните хора които ти определяш като боговдъхновени и добавят доста явно измислената и пресилена история за злите, озверели евреи които убиват Йешуа, кото едва ли не самите му екзекутори не искат да го екзекутират и ритуално си умиват ръцете от кръвта му и други антисемитски моменти, просто за тяхно удобство.

It appears, then, that Luke 23:34 was part of Luke's original text.
Why, though, would a scribe (or a number of scribes) have wanted to
delete it? Here is where understanding something about the historical
context within which scribes were working becomes crucial. Readers
today may wonder for whom Jesus is praying. Is it for the Romans
who are executing him in ignorance? Or is it for the Jews who are responsible
for turning him over to the Romans in the first place? However
we might answer that question in trying to interpret the passage
today, it is clear how it was interpreted in the early church. In almost
every instance in which the prayer is discussed in the writings of the
church fathers, it is clear that they interpreted the prayer as being utTHE
SOCIAL WORLDS OF THE TEXT 193
tered not on behalf of the Romans but on behalf of the Jews. 10 Jesus
was asking God to forgive the Jewish people (or the Jewish leaders)
who were responsible for his death.
Now it becomes clear why some scribes would have wanted to omit
the verse. Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of the Jews? How could that
be? For early Christians there were, in fact, two problems with the
verse, taken in this way. First, they reasoned, why would Jesus pray
for forgiveness for this recalcitrant people who had willfully rejected
God himself? That was scarcely conceivable to many Christians. Even
more telling, by the second century many Christians were convinced
that God had not forgiven the Jews because, as mentioned earlier, they
believed that he had allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed as a punishment
for the Jews in killing Jesus. As the church father Origen said:
"It was right that the city in which Jesus underwent such sufferings
should be completely destroyed, and that the Jewish nation be overthrown"
(Against Celsus 4, 22). 11
The Jews knew full well what they were doing, and God obviously
had not forgiven them. From this point of view, it made little
sense for Jesus to ask for forgiveness for them, when no forgiveness
was forthcoming. What were scribes to do with this text, then, in
which Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what
they are doing"? They dealt with the problem simply by excising the
text, so that Jesus no longer asked that they be forgiven.
There were other passages in which the antiJewish
sentiment of
early Christian scribes made an impact on the texts they were copying.
One of the most significant passages for the eventual rise of antiSemitism
is the scene of Jesus's trial in the Gospel of Matthew.
According to this account, Pilate declares Jesus innocent, washing his
hands to show that "I am innocent of this man's blood! You see to it!"
The Jewish crowd then utters a cry that was to play such a horrendous
role in the violence manifest against the Jews down through the Middle
Ages, in which they appear to claim responsibility for the death of
Jesus: "His blood be upon us and our children" (Matt. 27:2425).
The textual variant we are concerned with occurs in the next
verse. Pilate is said to have flogged Jesus and then "handed him over
to be crucified." Anyone reading the text would naturally assume that
he handed Jesus over to his own (Roman) soldiers for crucifixion.
That makes it all the more striking that in some early witnesses—including
one of the scribal corrections in Codex Sinaitius—the text is
changed to heighten even further the Jewish culpability in Jesus's
death. According to these manuscripts, Pilate "handed him over to
them [i.e., to the Jews] in order that they might crucify him." Now the
Jewish responsibility for Jesus's execution is absolute, a change motivated
by antiJewish
sentiment among the early Christians.
Sometimes antiJewish
variants are rather slight and do not catch
one's attention until some thought is given to the matter. For example,
in the birth narrative of the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph is told to call
Mary's newborn son Jesus (which means "salvation") "because he will
save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). It is striking that in one
manuscript preserved in Syriac translation, the text instead says "because
he will save the world from its sins." Here again it appears that a
scribe was uncomfortable with the notion that the Jewish people
would ever be saved.
A comparable change occurs in the Gospel of John. In chapter 4,
Jesus is talking with the woman from Samaria and tells her, "You
worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because
salvation comes from the Jews" (v. 22). In some Syriac and Latin
manuscripts, however, the text has been changed, so that now Jesus
declares that "salvation comes from Judea." In other words, it is not
the Jewish people who have brought salvation to the world; it is
Jesus's death in the country of Judea that has done so. Once again we
might suspect that it was antiJewish
sentiment that prompted the
scribal alteration.
My final example in this brief review comes from the fifthcentury
Codex Bezae, a manuscript that arguably contains more interesting
and intriguing variant readings than any other. In Luke 6, where the
Pharisees accuse Jesus and his disciples of breaking the Sabbath
(6:14),
we find in Codex Bezae an additional story consisting of a single
verse: "On the same day he saw a man working on the Sabbath,
and he said to him, 'O man, if you know what you are doing, you are
blessed, but if you do not know, you are cursed, and a transgressor of
the Law."' A full interpretation of this unexpected and unusual passage
would require a good deal of investigation. 12 For our purposes
here it is enough to note that Jesus is quite explicit in this passage, in a
way that he never is elsewhere in the Gospels. In other instances,
when Jesus is accused of violating the Sabbath, he defends his activities,
but never does he indicate that the Sabbath laws are to be violated.
In this verse, on the other hand, Jesus plainly states that anyone
who knows why it is legitimate to violate Sabbath is blessed for doing
so; only those who don't understand why it is legitimate are doing what
is wrong. Again, this is a variant that appears to relate to the rising
tide of antiJudaism
in the early church.




Та не, не смятам че тези хора са богоизбрани. Би било изключително убидно за който и да е било бог.

А отностно кларификацията ти касаеща пиенето на отрова - това е лъжа:





Then come the last twelve verses of Mark in many modern English
translations, verses that continue the story. Jesus himself is said to
appear to Mary Magdalene, who goes and tells the disciples; but they
do not believe her (vv. 911).
He then appears to two others (vv. 1214),
and finally to the eleven disciples (the Twelve, not including Judas Iscariot)
who are gathered together at table. Jesus upbraids them for
failing to believe, and then commissions them to go forth and proclaim
his gospel "to the whole creation." Those who believe and are
baptized "will be saved," but those who do not "will be condemned."
And then come two of the most intriguing verses of the passage:
And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they
will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and
they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it
will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal
them. (vv. 171
Jesus is then taken up into heaven, and seated at the right hand of
God. And the disciples go forth into the world proclaiming the
gospel, their words being confirmed by the signs that accompany
them (vv. 1920).
It is a terrific passage, mysterious, moving, and powerful. It is one
of the passages used by Pentecostal Christians to show that Jesus's followers
will be able to speak in unknown "tongues," as happens in
their own services of worship; and it is the principal passage used by
groups of "Appalachian snakehandlers,"
who till this day take poisonous
snakes in their hands in order to demonstrate their faith in the
words of Jesus, that when doing so they will come to no harm.
But there's one problem. Once again, this passage was not originally
in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe.
In some ways this textual problem is more disputed than the passage
about the woman taken in adultery, because without these final
verses Mark has a very different, and hard to understand, ending.
That doesn't mean that scholars are inclined to accept the verses, as
we'll see momentarily. The reasons for taking them to be an addition
are solid, almost indisputable. But scholars debate what the genuine
ending of Mark actually was, given the circumstance that this ending
found in many English translations (though usually marked as inauthentic)
and in later Greek manuscripts is not the original.


Цитатите са от Misquoting Jesus на професор B. Erhman ако някой се чуди. Aко не се доверява, има си нет