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: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: non-arguments against the authenticity of the traditional Mark ending

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:10 am

Stuart wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:07 am

I don't accept that Mark is dependent upon Luke.


Ben Smith has this right.

BCHF
Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark
Ben C. Smith - Feb, 2020
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3818&sid=17fb0cff1b ... edc9bb6d2c

So I do not see any point in trying to follow your other speculations, since they are all interconnected.

And I write about it here:

Mark's dependence on Luke - the end of Markan priority - plus support for the traditional ending
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?th ... ding.1308/

Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: non-arguments against the authenticity of the traditional Mark ending

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:13 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:12 am
If you actually have something substantive in Acts, that would be another story. You are welcome to give it a try.
Nothing offered.
You earlier claimed that Mark utilizes Acts.

Looks like a phantom claim.

Maestroh
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Apologist 13 Mission Control

Post by Maestroh » Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:55 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:24 pm
JW:
This Forum is based on Science and Logic so Steven has no credibility here. He always reminds me of that scene from the Wizard of Oz where The Wicked Witch of the West is told to get lost because she has no power in Oz. Steven you have no power here. Begone! Before someone drops a first century of "Mark" manuscript on you.

Steven's only value here is as a textbook case for Apologetics. On defense, keep requiring a progressively higher standard of evidence against you and when you reach one that can't be met, posture that there is therefore no evidence against. On the offensive, keep requiring a lower standard of evidence until you can meet it and then posture that it helps prove your conclusion.

Case in point here. Evidence to identify who wrote the LE. There is evidence that "Mark" wrote it even though the evidence is better that "Mark" did not. There is no better evidence that any other identified person wrote it. So Apologetic Steven claims this is support that "Mark" wrote the LE.

Advice to fellow Truth-speakers here. If he won't answer the important questions, ignore him. If he insists on asking/repeating unimportant questions, ignore him. Homily don't play that game.


Joseph

The Strange Chapter of Dr. Jewkyll and Mr. Hymn

The amusing thing is this very same bozo who is arguing "Mark wrote the last 12 verses because 99.9% manuscripts" is the exact same bozo who DISMISSES 99.9% of manuscripts (Latin excepted) when it comes to the reading of 1 John 5:7 and the Comma Johanneum.

Methodological consistency is not his strong point. His ENTIRE reason is "because it's in the King James Version that I think is perfect," but he won't ever say it that way.

Incidentally, I (again!) find it amusing that he's demanding extreme details on how something happened; this is the same person who thinks John wrote 1 John around 40 and there was already a dropped Comma by 80 AD - but he can't give us where or how or by whom this happened.


Yet he's got the audacity and hypocrisy to demand this level of proof from folks he can't provide such proof.

Maestroh
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

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

Post by Maestroh » Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:56 pm

Incidentally, I think "lost ending" is the most probable explanation.

Stuart
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: non-arguments against the authenticity of the traditional Mark ending

Post by Stuart » Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:45 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:13 am
Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:12 am
If you actually have something substantive in Acts, that would be another story. You are welcome to give it a try.
Nothing offered.
You earlier claimed that Mark utilizes Acts.

Looks like a phantom claim.
Incorrect presentation of what I said. I only claimed the LE used Luke and maybe Acts.

The LE is not Mark. My statement is the two are different authors from different eras.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: non-arguments against the authenticity of the traditional Mark ending

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:57 am

Stuart wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:45 pm

The LE is not Mark. My statement is the two are different authors from different eras.
You claimed that Acts was used for the long ending.

Specifics you never gave.

Why not show the verses in Acts, and where they were needed for the long ending.
Or .. simply acknowledge that you are giving a circular non-argument.

Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the Latin exception destroys the attempted analogy of Mark ending and heavenly witnesses

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:03 am

Heavenly Witnesses

"Latin exception"

Quite an exception.
Which we can estimate at way over 500 manuscripts.likely closer to 1,000,

Total number of mss. without the Mark ending,in Greek-Latin and Syriac combined - 3
Add a few in Armenian, perhaps Georgian.

Not much of an analogy.

Maestroh
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: the Latin exception destroys the attempted analogy of Mark ending and heavenly witnesses

Post by Maestroh » Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:21 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:03 am
Heavenly Witnesses

"Latin exception"

Quite an exception.
Which we can estimate at way over 500 manuscripts.likely closer to 1,000,

Total number of mss. without the Mark ending,in Greek-Latin and Syriac combined - 3
Add a few in Armenian, perhaps Georgian.

Not much of an analogy.

The analogy is dead on right.

In one case you blow your horn about "99.9% of the Greek AND the Latin AND the Syriac" - and then you ABANDON that same 99.9% when it comes to a different reading.


I reiterate:
1) You don't REALLY care about Greek or even the number of MSS.
2) You don't REALLY care about Latin or the number of MSS.
3) You don't REALLY care about Syriac either.

You're simply STARTING with the KJV and engaging in apologetics - and then PRETENDING you actually care about those things to make your point.

Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

walking back the claim that the Mark ending was dependent on Acts

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:31 am

Stuart wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:45 pm
I only claimed the LE used Luke and maybe Acts.
"maybe" Acts. Ok, you walked it back.
Last edited by Steven Avery on Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

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

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:33 am

With c. 95% of the Latin mss having the heavenly witnesses verse. That is solid ms. authority.

With the Mark ending the 99.5% is ALL the mss. in the three major language lines -- Greek, Latin, Syriac

The "analogy" is logically absurd. This is trivially easy to see.

Post Reply