Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Steven Avery » Sun May 07, 2017 5:56 am

spin wrote:
Steven Avery wrote:
Ulan wrote:When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the now powerful church hierarchy unified the Greek and Latin text traditions, respectively. This took a few centuries.
Before you go haywire wth criticism, you should try to write clearly.
Sorry about your reading problems, but Ulan's statement was quite clear. Use of words like "haywire" point to the usual Avery tainting the waters.
Yawn. Always the politician. The haywire part referred to an absurd accusation part, that I did not include, in respect for Ulan.
Steven Avery wrote:So your claim is that two distinct church hierarchies were involved, but your Greek one is unnamed and without a locale. And was not Roman, as you wrote abov, and had nothing to do with your "state religion of the Roman Empire" above.
spin wrote:There is no reason for you to confuse text traditions with church hierarchies. It should be obvious that things in different languages would have language based traditions. Tradents work in the language of the tradition they receive and pass on what they receive... in that language usually. The process of normatizing across languages is not an easy task, hence the centuries Ulan mentions, but it would not be a total process given the means of transmission, though the emergence of an orthodox text tradition would tend to spread so that other texts would be less frequently used though a few of them may have been preserved for "scholarly interest".
Yawn, again.

Let's see if Ulan is as obtuse as you, or if he can actually answer the question. E.g. Where and when was the Greek text normalized.
And what about the dozens of Alexandrian manuscripts, in the Greek, that were not normalized? (And that have the Mark ending.)

And I know from experience (including the FRDB thread on the Mark ending) that spin plays a shell game, thinking he can hide ignorance of a matter with diversion writing. This is a good example.

Thanks, spin!

Steven

Steven Avery
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Steven Avery » Sun May 07, 2017 6:03 am

Ulan wrote:When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the now powerful church hierarchy unified the Greek and Latin text traditions, respectively. This took a few centuries.
Let's stop here.

How could the one Latin "state religion of the Roman empire" unify two different language text traditions? One of which had nothing to do with Rome.
Apparently you want to call the Greek Byzantine church a part of the "Roman Empire", with a second and different state religion. You should make that clear.
The discussions on this generally are in a state of flux:

Was the Byzantines Greek or Roman?
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ ... an.188137/

When do you believe the Greek manuscripts were normalized?
And how do you account for the many Alexandrian manuscripts? (Which were not normalized, and yet do not have the Mark ending.)

And why is the Mark ending in the manuscripts way before this (non-specified) normalization?

When you write poorly, you should be willing to accept correction, rather than play a bluster game.
Ulan wrote: It helped that the Greek world of the Empire had become rather small at that point and there was not much space anymore for different text traditions, which means that you don't even need a conscious decision for this to happen. It's the text that survived the shrinking of the Greek world.
Actually, you will find Greek Byzantine texts from the Balkans, Austria, Russia, Turkey and other lands. You will find Greek in Egypt as well. To call this "not much space" is silly writing. In fact there are different text traditions in the Greek, a point about which you seem to be ignorant. We even have a decent number of Alexandrian minuscules (except that they do not have the Mark ending, which basically negates your position that thousands of manuscripts do not matter.)
Ulan wrote:I mentioned the Vulgate for the Latin. It was the most influential text in western Europe, even if the Vetus Latina still existed. However, chasing the phantom of an authentic text is a uniquely Protestant problem (caused by the "sola scriptura" doctrine), which means that the continued use of the Vetus Latina in some areas, or phrases from it in local Vulgate editions, was not an issue. Still, the Vulgate (in our modern use of the term; the old use included the Vetus Latina) was definitely predominant, and Bede refers to the Vetus Latina as the "former edition", because it had been, already in his time (8th century), mostly superseded by the Vulgate. In this sense, the decision of the Council of Trent was just an acknowledgment of the state of affairs at that time. The Vulgate was already for all practical purposes the standard text, because it was more popular..
A lot of words, basically saying nothing. Except that there was variation, and the Mark ending was in all the diverse elements.

Even the Vulgate text was rather wild, not normalized, as could be seen from the difference between the text of the Sixtene and Clementine Vulgates.
Ulan wrote:I gave a rough estimate of >9th century for the Greek versions to converge in the tradition of the Greek Orthodox Church (the so-called "Byzantine text-type"). This is not a fixed date, but rather the time when the balance had shifted. The Alexandrian-type manuscripts are obviously earlier, as are the Western-type ones. They make up the largest part of our early text tradition. It's slightly involved to make statistics of this from before the 9th century, as the manuscripts often mix text types. However, there are so few texts from that time that people have done it. Also, even the Byzantine text-type was not that unified between the early manuscripts. They belong to several distinct subtypes.

And they all had the Mark ending. And much of this was before your 9th century "sort-of" demarcation.

Thus you have totally undermined your own argument that the numbers of manuscripts with the Mark ending are irrelevant. All you have basically said is that 4/5 of the 1700 Greek and thousands of Latin and Syriac manuscripts are less important than the first 1/5. That still leaves dozens, or hundreds, of manuscripts that even you consider very relevant.

Thanks! You have successfully decimated your own argument.

Steven

davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by davidbrainerd » Sun May 07, 2017 7:06 am

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.



I think its obvious why the (seeming) majority of the Christian world has given up defending this ending. The missing pieces of the resurrection story can just be filled in from Matthew, Luke, John, while dropping this Montanism. I wonder what role the Montanists had in writing this ending, or creating Mark itself. Was the reason Tertullian saw Marcion's godpel as a shorter Luke rather than longer Mark because the Montanists were still in the process of creating Mark by shortening Matthew and Luke?

Ulan
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Ulan » Sun May 07, 2017 11:05 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Ulan wrote:When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the now powerful church hierarchy unified the Greek and Latin text traditions, respectively. This took a few centuries.
Let's stop here.

How could the one Latin "state religion of the Roman empire" unify two different language text traditions? One of which had nothing to do with Rome.
Apparently you want to call the Greek Byzantine church a part of the "Roman Empire", with a second and different state religion. You should make that clear.
I already corrected your erroneous view in my last post. When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, this state religion was not "Latin". From the very beginning, it used two languages, and mainly Greek. The official schism was only in 1054, and before that, it was at least officially one church. There wasn't too much communication between the Greek and the Latin church parts though, apart from the ecumenical councils. I have already explained the reason why the different language text traditions were separate entities.

The capital of the Roman Empire was transferred from Rome to Byzantium in the year 330 AD, when it was renamed Constantinople. It stayed there till the year 1204 AD and again 1261-1453. This part of the Roman Empire never had any other name than "Roman Empire".

When Christianity became the state religion in the year 380 (Imperial Edict of Thessalonica, Greece, for the whole Roman Empire), Constantinople was the Roman capital and the center of the Christian World. Christianity had just been legalized in the year 313 before Constantine moved the capital there in 330. Of the first seven Ecumenical Councils that decided the direction of Christianity, three were in Constantinople proper, three just outside of the city (2x Nicea, once Chalcedon) and one in Ephesos, which is slightly further away, but still in Asia Minor.

Rome had to fight for its role. The city was a backwater from the third century on, when education in the western Empire had mostly collapsed.
Steven Avery wrote: The discussions on this generally are in a state of flux:

Was the Byzantines Greek or Roman?
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ ... an.188137/
Now we go with game forums? How does this even matter? All major decisions regarding Christianity were done in and around the Roman capital, Constantinople.

I have already addressed your other questions.
Steven Avery wrote: When you write poorly, you should be willing to accept correction, rather than play a bluster game.
I can't even see now that you are able to grasp the subject matter, like this insistence on the "one Latin state religion of the Roman Empire". Where is your history education?
Steven Avery wrote:
Ulan wrote: It helped that the Greek world of the Empire had become rather small at that point and there was not much space anymore for different text traditions, which means that you don't even need a conscious decision for this to happen. It's the text that survived the shrinking of the Greek world.
Actually, you will find Greek Byzantine texts from the Balkans, Austria, Russia, Turkey and other lands. You will find Greek in Egypt as well. To call this "not much space" is silly writing. In fact there are different text traditions in the Greek, a point about which you seem to be ignorant. We even have a decent number of Alexandrian minuscules (except that they do not have the Mark ending, which basically negates your position that thousands of manuscripts do not matter.)
Try to read my last post in context. >9th century. The size of the Byzantine Empire varied greatly during its existence. Sometimes it included pretty much all of the Roman Empire proper, sometimes it shrunk to just Greece, the adjacent Balkans and western Asia Minor. In the last centuries, which are important for the predominance of the Byzantine text type, it was small. It's funny that you list the Balkans and Turkey separately. Do you know where Constantinople is? (Rhetorical question; the answer is No). And who cares for Byzantine texts in Austria or Russia? Do you think that has any relevance to the thread question?
Steven Avery wrote: A lot of words, basically saying nothing.
One thing I have learned is that you are deaf to things you don't want to hear.
Steven Avery wrote: And they all had the Mark ending. And much of this was before your 9th century "sort-of" demarcation.
Don't mix arguments. This was the answer regarding when the text traditions turned. If you look at the Catholic Epistles for example, you have only 6 manuscripts for the Byzantine text type before the 9th century, compared to 9 manuscripts with the Alexandrian text type. The situation reverses afterwards.
Steven Avery wrote:Thus you have totally undermined your own argument that the numbers of manuscripts with the Mark ending are irrelevant. All you have basically said is that 4/5 of the 1700 Greek and thousands of Latin and Syriac manuscripts are less important than the first 1/5. That still leaves dozens, or hundreds, of manuscripts that even you consider very relevant.
You are disingenuous again. I did say no such thing, don't put words into my mouth I haven't said. Regarding gMark, the situation is anyway clear: the earliest manuscript tradition shows the ending at 16:8 only. We have only indirect evidence that other versions existed. We also have evidence that, even when a manuscript shows the LE, it was added later, which further proves what is the older text.
Steven Avery wrote: Thanks! You have successfully decimated your own argument.
Dream on.

However, I didn't expect you to come to any other "conclusion". I'm not sure how you can even hold a position like yours for what seems to be decades in the light of such an overwhelming evidence that your position is wrong. But there you are, marching on. And really, this total lack of basic knowledge on your side about the history of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, or the state of Christianity during that time, is even embarrassing to look at, as is your jumbling of ideas about history in general, when you jump through the centuries as if time didn't matter. At least I have a better idea now where your ideas come from.

User avatar
spin
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by spin » Sun May 07, 2017 3:56 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Ulan wrote:When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the now powerful church hierarchy unified the Greek and Latin text traditions, respectively. This took a few centuries.
Steven Avery wrote:Before you go haywire wth criticism, you should try to write clearly.
spin wrote:Sorry about your reading problems, but Ulan's statement was quite clear. Use of words like "haywire" point to the usual Avery tainting the waters.
Yawn. Always the politician. The haywire part referred to an absurd accusation part, that I did not include, in respect for Ulan.
Steven Avery wrote:So your claim is that two distinct church hierarchies were involved, but your Greek one is unnamed and without a locale. And was not Roman, as you wrote abov, and had nothing to do with your "state religion of the Roman Empire" above.
spin wrote:There is no reason for you to confuse text traditions with church hierarchies. It should be obvious that things in different languages would have language based traditions. Tradents work in the language of the tradition they receive and pass on what they receive... in that language usually. The process of normatizing across languages is not an easy task, hence the centuries Ulan mentions, but it would not be a total process given the means of transmission, though the emergence of an orthodox text tradition would tend to spread so that other texts would be less frequently used though a few of them may have been preserved for "scholarly interest".
Yawn, again.

Let's see if Ulan is as obtuse as you, or if he can actually answer the question. E.g. Where and when was the Greek text normalized.
And what about the dozens of Alexandrian manuscripts, in the Greek, that were not normalized? (And that have the Mark ending.)

And I know from experience (including the FRDB thread on the Mark ending) that spin plays a shell game, thinking he can hide ignorance of a matter with diversion writing. This is a good example.

Thanks, spin!

Steven
Apologetic fools like Steven Avery who bring no skills to the forum but have a single drum to beat (his being the underpinnings of his belief in the sacrosanctity of the KJV and the text it represents) are incapable of providing anything of interest or usefulness to the forum, leaving him only to troll positions that disagree with his apologetic. (In the fog in his brain he seems to think that he got somewhere in that FRDB thread he refers to. I recommend people check out if he did there anything different from the nonsense he is doing here.)

He remains a contentless distraction who continues to ad hominem anyone who disagrees with his rot, here, for example, with Ulan potentially going "haywire" or being "obtuse". He does it all the time. I tend either to ignore him or to treat him with the respect he deserves. Idiots like Steven need to be pilloried for wasting everyone's time.

He cannot supply a reasoned discourse for his need to hang on to the long ending of Mark found in the KJV, a translation based on the worst Greek sources now available, so to defend the KJV he finds silly reasons to object to better sources such as the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, as if by pedantry he can defend his faith in an outdated translation. As a literal translation the KJV was very good for its time given the poor Greek text it is based on, but the science of translation and the quality of source texts has improved greatly over the last 400 years. Steven is just living in the past, where all literalists belong.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

iskander
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by iskander » Sun May 07, 2017 7:07 pm

spin wrote:
Steven Avery wrote:
Ulan wrote:When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the now powerful church hierarchy unified the Greek and Latin text traditions, respectively. This took a few centuries.
Steven Avery wrote:Before you go haywire wth criticism, you should try to write clearly.
spin wrote:Sorry about your reading problems, but Ulan's statement was quite clear. Use of words like "haywire" point to the usual Avery tainting the waters.
Yawn. Always the politician. The haywire part referred to an absurd accusation part, that I did not include, in respect for Ulan.
Steven Avery wrote:So your claim is that two distinct church hierarchies were involved, but your Greek one is unnamed and without a locale. And was not Roman, as you wrote abov, and had nothing to do with your "state religion of the Roman Empire" above.
spin wrote:There is no reason for you to confuse text traditions with church hierarchies. It should be obvious that things in different languages would have language based traditions. Tradents work in the language of the tradition they receive and pass on what they receive... in that language usually. The process of normatizing across languages is not an easy task, hence the centuries Ulan mentions, but it would not be a total process given the means of transmission, though the emergence of an orthodox text tradition would tend to spread so that other texts would be less frequently used though a few of them may have been preserved for "scholarly interest".
Yawn, again.



Let's see if Ulan is as obtuse as you, or if he can actually answer the question. E.g. Where and when was the Greek text normalized.
And what about the dozens of Alexandrian manuscripts, in the Greek, that were not normalized? (And that have the Mark ending.)

And I know from experience (including the FRDB thread on the Mark ending) that spin plays a shell game, thinking he can hide ignorance of a matter with diversion writing. This is a good example.

Thanks, spin!

Steven
Apologetic fools like Steven Avery who bring no skills to the forum but have a single drum to beat (his being the underpinnings of his belief in the sacrosanctity of the KJV and the text it represents) are incapable of providing anything of interest or usefulness to the forum, leaving him only to troll positions that disagree with his apologetic. (In the fog in his brain he seems to think that he got somewhere in that FRDB thread he refers to. I recommend people check out if he did there anything different from the nonsense he is doing here.)

He remains a contentless distraction who continues to ad hominem anyone who disagrees with his rot, here, for example, with Ulan potentially going "haywire" or being "obtuse". He does it all the time. I tend either to ignore him or to treat him with the respect he deserves. Idiots like Steven need to be pilloried for wasting everyone's time.

He cannot supply a reasoned discourse for his need to hang on to the long ending of Mark found in the KJV, a translation based on the worst Greek sources now available, so to defend the KJV he finds silly reasons to object to better sources such as the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, as if by pedantry he can defend his faith in an outdated translation. As a literal translation the KJV was very good for its time given the poor Greek text it is based on, but the science of translation and the quality of source texts has improved greatly over the last 400 years. Steven is just living in the past, where all literalists belong.
:thumbdown:

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by rakovsky » Mon May 08, 2017 9:10 am

iskander wrote: :thumbdown:
You know the routine by now.

:goodmorning:

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

iskander
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by iskander » Mon May 08, 2017 9:15 am

rakovsky wrote:
iskander wrote: :thumbdown:
You know the routine by now.

:goodmorning:
I am a slow learner but eventually... :goodmorning:

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by rakovsky » Mon May 08, 2017 9:39 am

I mean take this:
He cannot supply a reasoned discourse for his need to hang on to the long ending of Mark found in the KJV, a translation based on the worst Greek sources now available, so to defend the KJV he finds silly reasons to object to better sources such as the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, as if by pedantry he can defend his faith in an outdated translation. As a literal translation the KJV was very good for its time given the poor Greek text it is based on, but the science of translation and the quality of source texts has improved greatly over the last 400 years. Steven is just living in the past, where all literalists belong.
First, he has a "reasoned discourse", even if it's not persuasive for me. You don't have to be a "literalist" to think that the Long Ending is original. You could think that the whole book is a 4th century myth and still think that this long ending is original.

And so what if one picks the KJV over the YLT or another mainstream one? The only objection I can see there is not with how one translates the words, but whether the editor of the translation includes a footnote saying that 16:8 is originally the ending. The KJV doesn't use footnotes, AFAIK, anyway.

Personally, I think that the translation books should include a mention that the texts handed down have several different endings and then provide them. Then the reader can choose what they like best.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

User avatar
spin
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by spin » Mon May 08, 2017 10:01 am

rakovsky wrote:I mean take this:
He cannot supply a reasoned discourse for his need to hang on to the long ending of Mark found in the KJV, a translation based on the worst Greek sources now available, so to defend the KJV he finds silly reasons to object to better sources such as the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, as if by pedantry he can defend his faith in an outdated translation. As a literal translation the KJV was very good for its time given the poor Greek text it is based on, but the science of translation and the quality of source texts has improved greatly over the last 400 years. Steven is just living in the past, where all literalists belong.
First, he has a "reasoned discourse", even if it's not persuasive for me.
When asked why he rejected the short ending he refused to do so six times. The request gave him the opportunity to supplied a reasoned discourse for the long ending. Six times he refused.
rakovsky wrote:You don't have to be a "literalist" to think that the Long Ending is original. You could think that the whole book is a 4th century myth and still think that this long ending is original.
This is true, though I did not say that one had to be. I'm saying that Steven supports the long ending because of his commitment to the literal correctness of the KJV.
rakovsky wrote:And so what if one picks the KJV over the YLT or another mainstream one? The only objection I can see there is not with how one translates the words, but whether the editor of the translation includes a footnote saying that 16:8 is originally the ending. The KJV doesn't use footnotes, AFAIK, anyway.

Personally, I think that the translation books should include a mention that the texts handed down have several different endings and then provide them. Then the reader can choose what they like best.
The RSV translation tradition does supply the long ending, prefaced with a statement saying that it is not found in the "most reliable early manuscripts". I recommend that people use the RSV as it usually does things in a scholarly manner, with a few exceptions, such as the inclusive gender language, which does not reflect the indications of the literal text.

My understanding of Mark is that it is defective both at the beginning and the end. The problems with the end has been outlined here enough. The beginning has been lost and a superscription has been added, which contains no verb, it is not part of the narrative nor does it provide a context for the combination of verses that follow. They are effectively dangling. The defective nature may indicate why there is no accreditation for the Malachi quote. We may be lucky that Mark survived given that it is so poorly represented in the manuscript tradition and may have only survived through the preservation of one defective copy, lacking beginning and end and patched up.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, Charles Wilson, Jax, MrMacSon, Ulan and 83 guests