Mark could have been written in greek.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the other hand, \u201cin the prophets\u201d is found in Codex Washingtonianus, which dates as early as the late 4th<\/sup> century (and so is not much younger than Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus); Codex Alexandrinus, perhaps as early as ca. AD 400; Codex P and Codex \u01a9 from the 6th<\/sup> century; Codex E from the 8th<\/sup> century, and F, G, and H from the 9th<\/sup> century. So there are four manuscripts reading \u201cin the prophets\u201d from the 6th<\/sup> century and earlier, https:\/\/truthinmydays.com\/why-there-is-an-error-in-mark-12-in-your-bible-another-example-of-the-evangelical-betrayal-of-the-bible\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Codex Washingtonianus<\/strong>, Codex Washingtonensis<\/strong> or Codex Freerianus<\/strong>, designated by W<\/strong> or 032<\/strong> (in the Gregory-Aland<\/a> numbering of New Testament<\/a> manuscripts), \u03b5014 (in the von Soden<\/a> numbering of New Testament manuscripts), also called the Washington Manuscript of the Gospels<\/em>, The Freer Gospel<\/em> and The Freer Codex<\/em>, is a Greek<\/a>uncial<\/a> manuscript of the four Gospels<\/a>, written on parchment<\/a>. Using the study of comparative writing styles (palaeography<\/a>), it has been dated to the 4th or 5th century.[1]<\/a>:\u200a113\u200a<\/sup> The manuscript has some gaps<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Aland, Kurt<\/a>; Aland, Barbara<\/a> (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism<\/em>. Erroll F. Rhodes (trans.). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company<\/a>. ISBN<\/a> 978-0-8028-4098-1<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, as Robert Gundry noted some time ago, it was common practice when dealing with composite quotations, if a source was to be cited, to name only the most important author (The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel<\/a><\/em>, 125). Mark is simply informing the reader that his primary interpretative horizon is Isaiah. And as is well recognized, Isaiah and in particular his vision of new exodus salvation do indeed play a fundamental role in his Gospel (see my Isaiah\u2019s New Exodus in Mark<\/a><\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n So why put Malachi first? Dick France suggests that it would be odd to have Malachi\u2019s \u201cSee!\u201d (idou<\/em>) halfway through the citation, and the idea of a \u201cmessenger\u201d is more explicit in his citation than in Isaiah 40:3<\/a>, which instead offers an appropriate comment on the messenger\u2019s role (The Gospel of Mark<\/a><\/em>, 63). Another suggestion is that the resulting Isaiah-Malachi-Isaiah pattern reflects something of Mark\u2019s well-known sandwiching technique (e.g. Mark 3:20-35; 11:12-25<\/a>; Watts, Exodus<\/a><\/em>, 89-90). In such structures the central element, in this case Malachi, provides the key to the theological purpose of the sandwich (see J. R. Edwards\u2019s \u201cMarkan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives<\/a>,\u201d NovT 31 [1989], 196).<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.thegospelcoalition.org\/article\/you-asked-did-mark-fumble-his-opening-quotation\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland’s Crowned With Glory<\/a><\/em>, \u00a92000, used with permission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Traditional Text reads, “As it is written in the prophets,”<\/em> and then cites from Malachi 3:1<\/a> and Isaiah 40:3<\/a>. Other texts read, “As it is written in the Prophet Isaiah,” <\/em>before quoting Malachi and Isaiah. The reading of the Traditional Text has considerable support. It is found in many of the Greek uncials (A, K, P, W, P) the majority of Greek minuscules (28, 1009, 1010, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1242, 1252, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148) and the majority of Greek lectionaries. Thus the Greek support dates from the fourth century onward. Additionally we also find the same reading in the Syriac Harclean version (616 AD), the Armenian version (fourth\/fifth century) and the Ethiopic versions of the sixth century. It also receives patristic citations from many of the church fathers such as the Latin version of Irenaeus (202 AD), Photius (895 AD), and Theophylact (1077 AD).<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/av1611.com\/kjbp\/faq\/holland_mr1_2.html#_ftnref1<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n READ https:\/\/syri.ac\/syriacbible<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Sons of Zadok<\/strong> (Hebrew<\/a>: \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e6\u05b8\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05e7 b\u01ddn\u00ea \u1e62\u0101d\u014dq<\/em>) are a family of priests (kohanim<\/a>), descended from Zadok<\/a>, described in the prophecies of Ezekiel<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zadok himself was the first high priest<\/a> in Solomon’s Temple<\/a> (10th century BCE). His descendants were high priests in that temple until its destruction in 587 BCE<\/a>. Ezekiel’s prophecy came several decades after that destruction, and describes the Zadokite family’s loyalty to God while the rest of the nation rebelled against God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The sons of Zadok are mentioned four times in the Hebrew Bible, as part of the Third Temple<\/a> prophecy in the final chapters of the Book of Ezekiel<\/a>,[1]<\/a><\/sup> and are a theme in Jewish and Christian interpretation of these chapters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/sup> Ezekiel 40:46, 43:19, 44:15, 48:11<\/p>\n\n\n\n Qumran<\/p>\n\n\n\n Various documents of the texts found at Qumran mention the teachers of the community as “kohanim Sons of Zadok”,[55]<\/a><\/sup> leading some scholars to assume that the community at Qumran included priests who refused to participate in the Hellenization<\/a> of the priesthood then taking place in Jerusalem.[56]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n REVIEW According to\u00a0Vermes<\/a>, every book of the Tanach was represented by fragments except Esther, probably because it involved a Jewish woman intermarrying with a gentile king. The reason the already-written Maccabees book would definitely NOT be found there is that the Dead Sea sect was absolutely opposed to the Maccabean\/Hasmonean High priests. The background of the “Damascus” document and a bunch of their other writings makes it appear that the sect split off from the “mainstream” Jews precisely because non-Zadok decended High Priests were serving in the Temple. After Onias the High priest was murdered, first the Seleucid Kings in charge installed some, and then the Maccabees themselves \u2014 non Zadokites \u2014 took over the High priesthood. The Dead Sea guys withdrew to\u00a0Qumron<\/a>, probably to maintain purity for themselves and their leaders, who were apparently Zadokite priests. The Book(s) of Maccabees would have been absolutely anathema to them, and they would neither have copied nor kept copies of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n REVIEW There are several books called “Maccabbees,” and they’re pretty much unrelated to each other. They also written across a wide time span. Only the first book (IIRC) would have been composed in time for the Dead Sea Sect to have it in it’s collection. But since they were an isolationist sect who weren’t too pleased with the monarchy and the priests, it makes sense that they would not have preserved a book which glorifies both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/judaism.stackexchange.com\/questions\/12427\/were-the-books-of-maccabees-found-in-the-dead-sea-scrolls<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jews<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prayers for the dead form part of the Jewish services<\/a>. The prayers offered on behalf of the deceased consist of: Recitation of Psalms<\/a>; Reciting a thrice daily communal prayer in Aramaic<\/a> which is known as Kaddish<\/a><\/em>. Kaddish<\/em> actually means “Sanctification” (or “Prayer of Making Holy”) which is a prayer “In Praise of God”; or other special remembrances known as Yizkor<\/a><\/em>; and also a Hazkara<\/em> which is said either on the annual commemoration known as the Yahrzeit<\/a><\/em> as well on Jewish holidays<\/a>. The form in use in England contains the following passage: “Have mercy upon him; pardon all his transgressions. …Shelter his soul in the shadow of Thy wings. Make known to him the path of life.”[1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/sup> One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain<\/a>: Burrows, Winfrid Oldfield (1911). “Prayers for the Dead<\/a>“. In Chisholm, Hugh<\/a> (ed.). Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica<\/a><\/em>. Vol. 22 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 262\u2013263.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to catholics Jesus and Peter Simultaneously Prayed to Saints and for the Dead<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Tabitha was a disciple in Joppa who died. Peter prayed to her when he said \u201cTabitha, rise.\u201d See Acts 9:36-41. She was dead, and he was addressing her. There is no impenetrable wall between heaven and earth. This is not only praying to the dead, but for<\/em> the dead, since the passage says that Peter \u201cprayed\u201d before addressing Tabitha first person. And he was praying for her to come back to life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our Lord Jesus does the same thing with regard to Lazarus. He prays for Lazarus (a dead man: John 11:41-42) and then speaks directly to a dead man (in effect, \u201cpraying\u201d to him): \u201cLazarus, come out\u201d (John 11:43).<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.ncregister.com\/blog\/4-biblical-proofs-for-prayers-to-saints-and-for-the-dead<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAnd after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: \u2018Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous\u2019\u201d (Acts of Paul and Thecla <\/em>[A.D. 160]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death\u2014birth into eternal life]\u201d (The Crown <\/em>3:3 [A.D. 211]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.churchfathers.org\/purgatory<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first is Isaiah 8:19<\/a> (KJV):<\/p>\n\n\n\n 19 \u00b6 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n [Emphasis added.]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The second is 1 Corinthians 15<\/a>, especially v. 19 and 29 (KJV):<\/p>\n\n\n\n 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The next would be John 5:25-29<\/a> (KJV):<\/p>\n\n\n\n 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God<\/strong>: and they that hear shall live.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;<\/p>\n\n\n\n 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice<\/strong>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [Emphasis added.]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n There is also 1 Peter 4:6<\/a> (KJV):<\/p>\n\n\n\n 6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The last one that readily comes to mind is Romans 14:7\u20139<\/a> (KJV):<\/p>\n\n\n\n 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord\u2019s<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [Emphasis added.]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/christianity.stackexchange.com\/questions\/55944\/what-is-the-biblical-support-for-praying-for-the-dead<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Catholic view about St. Raphael did not lie<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This theory of broad mental reservation may then explain how it is that St. Raphael did not lie when he said, I am Azarias the son of the great Ananias<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is no falsehood in this statement, since \u201cAzarias\u201d means \u201cthe healer of YHWH\u201d and \u201cAnanias\u201d means \u201cThe goodness of YHWH\u201d or \u201cThe grace of YHWH\u201d. Now, the Angel was then only disguising his true name (which means \u201cGod\u2019s healer\u201d) and testifying that he is sent into the world by God\u2019s goodness. Thus, he gives his name through a certain riddle \u2013 but Tobit was thereby led to believe that the Angel was only a man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Raphael truly states who he appeared to be. That is, the Angel truly declares who he came as. While it would have been a lie for Raphael to say, \u201cI am not angel but only a man\u201d, he said no such thing. Rather, he identified himself in an obscure manner and, thereby, withheld from Tobit a truth which he had no right to know.<\/p>\n\n\n\nand three, all corrupt, reading \u201cin Isaiah the prophet.\u201d<\/s> It seems more accurate, in light of this, to say that the \u201cearliest and best witnesses\u201d read \u201cin the prophets,\u201d not \u201cin Isaiah the prophet.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
In the Book of Tobit, angel Raphael pretends he is Azariah, the son of Hananiah the elder. Why did the Angel lie? Isn’t it a sin to lie?<\/a><\/blockquote>