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.

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

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

Post by Stuart » Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:25 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
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.
No, I think Acts was referenced by the LE, in the mention of 11, although it's not necessary, as it's contained in Matthew also as part of the harmony. Matthew's is probably later addition as well.

But my main suspicion is the reference to speaking in tongues of verse 16:17, something not in the Gospels, but can be found in Acts (2:3-4, 10:26, 19:6) and also 1 Corinthians (12:10, 12:28, 12:30, 13:1, 14:46, 14:9, 14:13-14, 14:18-19, 14:21-23, 14:26-27, 14:39). You seem to hold the Gospels are before the letters, so the LE must be dependent upon either Acts for this addition, and I think that a bit more likely than Paul, as there is no other reference in the LE to Pauline thought. But Acts is aware of Paul and touches many of the same subjects. So it's six of one half dozen the other for the LE.
“’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: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:32 pm

And if Mark precedes Acts, and those were in fact the words of Jesus, there really is no difficulty at all.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1285
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Julian As Witness To 16:8

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:45 pm

JW:
I think it's safe to add Julian to the list of witnesses for 16:8 based on:

Julian’s Contra Galilaeos and Cyril’s Contra Iulianum: Two Witnesses to the Short Ending of Mark
John Granger Cook LaGrange College]


The Players =

Julian
Julian[a] (Latin: Flavius Claudius Julianus; 331/332 – 26 June 363) was Roman emperor from 361 to 363, as well as a notable philosopher and author in Greek.[3] His rejection of Christianity, and his promotion of Neoplatonic Hellenism in its place, caused him to be remembered as Julian the Apostate by the Christian church.[4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Galileans]Against the Galileans
Against the Galileans (Ancient Greek: Κατὰ Γαλιλαίων; Latin: Contra Galilaeos), meaning Christians, was a Greek polemical essay written by the Roman emperor Julian, commonly known as Julian the Apostate, during his short reign (361–363). Despite having been originally written in Greek, it is better known under its Latin name, probably due to its extensive reference in the polemical response Contra Julianum by Cyril of Alexandria.
Cyril of Alexandria
Cyril of Alexandria (Greek: Κύριλλος Ἀλεξανδρείας; Coptic: Ⲡⲁⲡⲁ Ⲕⲩⲣⲓⲗⲗⲟⲩ ⲁ̅ also ⲡⲓ̀ⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ Ⲕⲓⲣⲓⲗⲗⲟⲥ; c. 376 – 444) was the Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444. He was enthroned when the city was at the height of its influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the late-4th and 5th centuries. He was a central figure in the Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople.
AGAINST THE GALILAEANS

Excerpts from Cook's article =
8
In one of the Syriac fragments from book 14 of Cyril’s response to Julian, the philosopher attacks the resurrection narratives.9 The fragment is part of a MS that is dated to seventh century and that is a florilegium of excerpts from the patristic writers on “various Biblical passages and subjects.” Three of the excerpts are from Cyril’s treatise against Julian.10
And—in Matthew17—they saw an angel, but in Mark18 a young man. And in Matthew they went away and reported to the disciples about the resurrection of the Messiah;19 in Mark, however, they kept silence and did not tell anything to anyone.20 By means of these <differences> he brings charges against the Scriptures of the Saints, and says that they oppose each other
His copies of Mark, wherever he obtained them, almost certainly did not include the L.E. and so corresponded with the ending found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Otherwise he would not have written the text above, and he could have attacked the Galilaeans using texts such as Mark 16:16–18 with glee, as did an anonymous pagan philosopher, probably to be identified with Porphyry.23 Clearly Julian assumes that there was only one visit to the tomb by the women
[Mark] did not say that the Messiah appeared to them, nor that they said anything to the disciples; for [gyr = γάρ] they told no one anything.
If Cyril regarded the L.E. as authentic, he could easily have answered Julian with a reference to Mark 16:9 and simply have asserted, as earlier Christians had, that the times are the same—just expressed with different wording.34 Cyril’s response is designed to avoid the appearance of contradiction. The ending of Mark in his copies (or copy) of the NT in Alexandria, like those of Julian, probably resembled that found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, because in the Syriac MS he ends his quotation of Mark with the cognate of γάρ followed by three words (i.e., Mark 16:8).
Cook's main points for concluding that Julian was witness to 16:8 =
  • 1) Julian is comparing and critiquing the endings of "Mark" and "Matthew" for contradictions and says in "Matthew" the women told and in "Mark" they never did. But in the LE they did (as the Brits say "The Cruncher").

    2) Julian quotes the ending of "Mark" as 16:8.

    3) Julian likely would have made fun/claimed untrue 16:16-18:
    16
    17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;
    18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
    Julian as emperor would have known that there was no evidence that Christians could do any of this.
Julian writing 4th century would coordinate with Eusebius/Jerome observation that anything other than a 16:8 ending was rare at that time.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

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 » Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:04 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:08 am

Joe, what is your theory for the creation of the last 12 verses of Mark?

When? Where?

And, if your position is that it is not original Mark, is your theory that the original ending was lost, or that Mark ended his text at verse 8?


By whom? What language? Why?

Was the author familiar with primary sources?
Thanks!

perseusomega9
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

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

Post by perseusomega9 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:03 am

Keep up the great work Joe.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1285
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:44 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:04 pm
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:08 am

Joe, what is your theory for the creation of the last 12 verses of Mark?

When? Where?

And, if your position is that it is not original Mark, is your theory that the original ending was lost, or that Mark ended his text at verse 8?


By whom?
Thanks!
JW:
Aesop

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 » Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:08 pm

So you really have no textual theory.
Thanks!

Why are you wasting so much time pretending to be doing textual analysis or criticism?

Ulan
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

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

Post by Ulan » Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:04 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:08 pm
Why are you wasting so much time pretending to be doing textual analysis or criticism?
That's your general issue in a nutshell. Your question betrays that you think "textual analysis or criticism" means inventing things out of whole cloth. Which explains most of your posts. A theory is based on existing evidence - what you ask for is idle speculation.

There's no evidence available to answer any of your questions. The evidence is enough to conclude that the LE is not original, but, as with most NT texts, the authors are unknown.


Post Reply