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.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

SAM makes an off-topic comment about me making an off-topic comment.
I don't understand. I don't get why Roger became the focus of the LE. The argument is strengthened without mentioning him. I don't know what referencing Roger adds. If he's unqualified in your opinion what does referencing an unqualified person's opinion help with debunking the LE.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:11 pm Again unclear. If you choose to write clearly, I will try again,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNmnroyJSzo
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Peter Head and James Snapp - sham ending of Mark debate

Post by Steven Avery »

Yes, calling Roger Pearse an amateur was a bit tacky.
What an incredible job he does, including on the Eusebius Ad Marinum.
Our "professionals" could learn a lot from Roger.

Joe Wallack was clear in his debate with James Snapp, when he pointed out that James had already conceded the debate, since his position is not really for authenticity.

James is the Trojan Horse of Mark ending authenticity, making it a sham debate. One problem is that the simple and clear responses to arguments like Galilee and seven devils from Peter Head can never come forth from James Snapp.

Pure Bible Forum
Peter Head and James Snapp have a charade debate on the Mark ending
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?th ... ding.2516/

This was placed on the Facebook forum of Text & Canon.
https://business.facebook.com/textandcanon/

However you have to search down, the direct links don't work on business accounts.

Also on:

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/4672177 ... 880388606/
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
As far as I know, Roger often refers to himself as an amateur. What's wrong with it?

Of course I write as an interested amateur, not a professional scholar, so my opinions are those of an educated layman.

There is absolutely no question about his impressively high level of knowledge and the excellent quality of his work.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

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

Post by Ulan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:21 am .
As far as I know, Roger often refers to himself as an amateur. What's wrong with it?
Nothing. Given it was only mentioned to point out that nobody from the professional academic field of Christian Bible scholarship had ever made this complete argument available in an English translation (no idea whether that's true, I only repeat the statement), it's clear it wasn't meant as any kind of slight. if anything, it was a slight against the professional branch of Christian Bible scholarship.

Whether you follow the argument that was made, is a different question. Producing English translations of texts like that is more something for authors that write popular science pieces, as scholars themselves should be able to read the original. I'm not sure there's a big market for English translations of Church Father letters.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Unusual Suspects

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nagjPyNMu9Q

JW:
A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark
4. Method
Finally, in terms of method, it is a general principle within New Testament textual criticism to work on the principle that the reading which explains the other readings is to be preferred. Snapp attempts to explain the ending at Mark 16:8 as an editorial emendation by “overly meticulous scribes,” that is, as a deletion of material within their exemplars.

But evidence for this sort of speculative conjecture is lacking. A stronger argument is that an ending at Mark 16:8 explains the origin of the other readings. It is an unusual and abrupt ending, which gave rise to a natural desire for a clearer ending, and this is evident in both the Shorter and the Longer endings to Mark. This is the tendency of the textual tradition as already noted.
JW:
Simply and concisely put. Too simply and concisely:

1. "Method" here is The Difficult Reading Principle. [understatement] Head has understated its significance here.[/understatement] The difference between 16:8 and other endings is whether or not there is a post resurrection witness, reunion and conversion of The Disciples. Since GMark is likely the original Gospel narrative, this is the most important issue for Christian historical assertion.

2. Head has simply listed Method as a category of evidence which favors 16:8. He has not ranked it though as to relative importance. In general, The Difficult Reading Principle would be the most important category.

3. The Difficult Reading Principle consists of the Inscriptional and Transcriptional. Inscriptional considers what is more likely to have been written by the author. Transcriptional considers what is more likely to be earlier in the transmission (so to speak) process. Head's "Method" here is just Transcriptional. Regarding Inscriptional, this also favors 16:8 as there would be no difference in "Mark's" description of The Disciples.

4. Note the Head Evangelical understating words, "unusual" and "abrupt". Just unusual and abrupt and, dare I say, unorthodox, to leave the Disciples as never seeing, hearing and believing a resurrected Jesus?

For known Stephen. Head is a Bible scholar (professional) and I am an amateur. But to answer what you really want to know, doesn't the above tell you who I think is a superior scholar.


Joseph

Roger, go home and get your fucking shinebox! - Me

The New Porphyry
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

But I got to be honest with you. I like some 'evangelical' scholarship. It doesn't mean I don't recognize some intellectual limitation or bias. But the same thing holds true with any scholar including myself. When I order dinner through some app I am 'biased' toward certain choices. It's part of human nature. But what I treasure above all else is erudition. Head is a good scholar. So is Wasserman. I like Evangelical Textual Criticism as a site. Is there a bias there? Of course. But again what human being isn't directed towards familiar choices. Roger Pearse is an 'amateur' but he's done more for my knowledge of early Christianity (because of his dedication to providing primary sources on the internet). I like you too Joe. Anyone who shares an interest in these things is a worthwhile companion in this life.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Name Of The Ruse

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUUB96c6EpY

JW:
A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark
3. External Evidence
The straightforward evidence of the two great fourth-century codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, is unduly minimized by Snapp. These are our earliest complete Greek manuscripts of Mark, and they both end the Gospel quite clearly at Mark 16:8.
JW:
Simply and concisely put. Too simply and concisely:

1) In absolute terms both are weak evidence. They are a long way from original and preserved by a biased institution. And for very difficult readings even the best Manuscripts will normally be on the wrong side:

Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Readings

2) In relative terms they are better evidence (better for what was earlier than what was original). They are commonly promoted as the best manuscript evidence for LE because of their age but it is actually their Text Type (Alexandrian) that is most important. Defenders of LE posture that relatively speaking Sinaiticus and Vaticanus need qualifications but the reality is that it is the earliest Manuscripts with LE that need qualifications (there is no unqualified evidence for the LE through the 6th century):

Table of NT Greek Manuscripts

Manuscript Date Contents Qualifications Commentary
P137 c. 200 1:7-9, 16-18 - A little piece but the cumulative effect of little pieces will have some weight.
P45 c. 250 4:36-40; 5:15-26, 38-43 6:1-3, 16-25, 36-50; 7:3-15, 25-37 8:1, 10-26, 34-38, 9:1-9, 18-31; 11:27-33, 12:1, 5-8, 13-19,24-28; - The prize of the early witness as it is before the Lucian Recension. It contains a minority of GMark but as I've previously indicated Lakuna Markata. The Relationship of Lacunae to Difficult Readings it suggests that lack of excerpts containing difficult readings was intentional. A related observation is that p45 appears to have originally contained about a Chapter more than orthodox GMark, suggesting Secret Mark.
P88 c. 350 2:1-26 - -
Sinaiticus c. 350 All - Ends at 16:8. Note that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both after the Lucian Recension and as noted Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Readings both are usually on the wrong side of difficult readings.
Vaticanus c. 350 All - Ends at 16:8. GMark was likely written c. 100 so up to 250 years later there is no extant Greek Manuscript support whatsoever for the LE. c. 300 Eusebius famously testifies that the LE is rare and in bad company and Jerome later confirms. Presumably Lucian and the scribes of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are aware of the LE but it is just too weakly attested to use.
P0188 c. 350 11:11-17 - -
Washingtoniensis c. 400 Almost all including 16:9-20 After 16:14 has Freer Logion (For we are many (sentences))
And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or: does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now" - thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, "The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more in order to inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.
Significant Textual Variation, especially after the above =
16:14 ὕστερον
16:17 ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει
16:17 λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς
16:18 ὄφεις
16:19 κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
16:20 σημείων. ἀμήν

Western order = Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. After Eusebius not so famously commented that "Mark" and "Luke" did not write any post resurrection sightings leaving that to the superior witnesses "Matthew" and "John".

Text type eclectic (harmonistic). Supporting eclectic ending.

Caesarean/Westen text type for "Mark" as a whole. But textual variation for LE tends to agree with the inferior (later) Byzantine.
Note that this is the first extant Manuscript that contains the LE. About 100 years after Eusebius famously opined that it was acceptable to choose whichever earlier ending you preferred. The main takeaway of the Freer Logion is that at this time it was considered okay to ADD to the ending of GMark and secondarily that it was okay to add the LE. Supporters of LE simply include Washingtoniensis along with the overwhelming quantity of Greek support without giving it qualification. Again note that this qualification is not only content but timing = c. 400 it's become acceptable to add to the ending of GMark but specifically the LE is not considered sufficiently authoritative to limit the ending to only it. Can you say "transition"?

Washingtoniensis specifically and the following witnesses for LE generally, show significantly more Textual Variation after 16:15. This suggests that in the development of the LE 16:15 was a natural stopping point =
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
The main underlying issue of Textual Criticism is for each candidate, which has the best explanation for change? For supporters of LE Washingtoniensis is a claimed star witness as it is near in date to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. But Washingtoniensis, with its significant variation from the LE, also provides quality evidence for change to the LE. So which is it better evidence for?
Alexandrinus (CA) c. 450 Almost all including 16:9-20 The Text-type is Byzantine which is the weakest of all the Greek Text-types.
CA contains the Eusebian Canons in an early form. This is consistent with the original Eusebian Canons which did not include the LE. So while CA does include most of the LE it also indicates that earlier evidence did not include it.
A short space appears between 16:14 and 16:15, and the “T” in the αυτοις(autois) in 16:15 is enlarged in the margin. This is exactly where The Freer Logion was. Jerome c. 400 and Codex Washingtonianus c. 400 evidence the existence of The Freer Logion. So CA likely shows awareness of even more textual variation in the LE here.
In its text of Mark 16:9-20, Codex A has the variant εκ νεκρων (ek nekron), “from the dead,” in 16:14. Textual variation. Evidence of unoriginality.
And does not have the phrase και εν ταις χερσιν (kai en tais chersin), “And in their hands,” in 16:18. Textual variation. Evidence of unoriginality.
In summary, while CA is probably the best Manuscript witness for the LE it has every characteristic of a later Manuscript reading:
  • 1) Late Text-type, post recension.

    2) Evidence of an earlier reading.

    3) Awareness of Textual Variation.

    4) Textual Variation.
(That it is on the wrong side of The Difficult Reading Principle goes without a Saying).
O Snapp!
Ephraemi Rescriptus (ER) c. 450 Most including 16:9-20 The text has been erased and written over making it very difficult to determine what was original. The Text-type is weak Alexandrian. ER contains the Ammonian Sections. This is consistent with the original Eusebian Canons which did not include the LE. So while ER does include most of the LE it also indicates that earlier evidence did not include it. In summary, while ER is a good Manuscript witness for the LE it has some characteristics of a later Manuscript reading:
  • 1) It has the Ammonian Sections which means it was aware of the earlier tradition of 16:8 being the ending.

    2) The Codex has been erased and written over meaning there is probably more Textual variation than what has been officially noted (unknown letters/words and partial letters/words assumed to be standard).

    3) The Text type is weak Alexandrian (Category 2 rating).

    4) Textual variation:
    16:14 lacks δὲ
    16:20 adds ἀμήν
Regarding Textual Variation in general for the LE it is interesting to note that there is exponentially more Textual Variation after 16:14-15 than before, right where the Freer Logion is, suggesting an earlier ending than the LE before 16:6. Presumably the Gospel Text was written over because it was Alexandrian and therefore (in the Middle Ages) considered non-authoritative.
Codex Bezae (D) c. 450 Original Missing 16:15-20 16:15-20 was added much later and the accompanying Latin version likewise originally was missing 16:15-20 which was also added much later. In verse 9, D has εφανερωσεν πρωτοις (efanerosen protois) instead of εφανη πρωτον (efane proton); in verse 10, D has αυτοις (autois) after απηγγειλεν (apengeilen); in verse 11, D has και ουκ επιστευσαν αυτω (kai ouk episteusan auto) instead of ηπιστησαν (epistesan); D adds και (kai) at the beginning of verse 12; near the beginning of verse 15 D has προς αυτους (pros autous) instead of αυτοις (autois); in the same verse D omits απαντα (apanta) and inserts και (kai) before κηρυξατε (keruxate). The added
16:15-20 is the standard LE text. The Text-type is Western which is inferior to Alexandrian. D contains the Ammonian Sections. This is consistent with the original Eusebian Canons which did not include the LE.
We have the following reasons to think that 16:15-20 was either not original to D or had significant variation compared to the standard wording:
  • 16:15-20 is missing in the original Greek and Latin.

    16:9-14 has significant variation from the standard wording which makes it likely that if it originally had 16:15-20 there would also be significant variation.

    It has the Ammonian Sections which means it was aware of the earlier tradition of 16:8 being the ending.

    The Text type is Western.

    Two of the three so far extant Manuscripts of the time period, c. 450, Washingtoniensis (Freer Logion), Alexandrinus (space between 16:14 and 16:15) also evidence significant variation at this point.
It's possible that 16:14 was an ending to GMark or that there was a significant variation to 16:15-20 after 16:14.
P069 c. 450 10:50-51; 11:11-12 - -
P0274 c. 450 6:56- 7:4,6-9,13-17, 19-23, 28-29, 34-35; 8:3-4,8-11; 9:20-22,26-41; 9:43- 10:1, 17-22 - -
P0313 c. 450 4:9, 15 - -
072 c. 500 2:23- 3:5 - -
0213 c. 500 3:2-3,5 - -
P84 c. 550 2:2-5, 8-9, 6:30-31, 33-34, 36-37, 39-41 - -
P024 c. 550 1:2-11; 3:5-17; 14:13-24,48-61; 15:12-37 - -
042 c. 550 All except 16:14-20 Missing 16:14-20
references the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons
That it is only missing the second half of the LE suggests it was intentional.
The references to Ammonian and Eusebian indicate awareness of an earlier ending.
As we have already seen there is significantly more textual variation starting at 16:14 suggesting what follows was an even later addition.
043 c. 550 1:1- 14:62 - -

3) Again, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are relatively weak evidence by themselves but do coordinate with an important criterion identified by Head, Direction of Change. They nicely suggest that through the fourth century 16:8 was dominant and the textual tradition pivoted with the evil & wicked Eusebius (you say Eusebias, I say Eusebs) who decreed that it was okay to choose the ending you wanted if you read it somewhere.


Joseph

I read it somewhere. I wrote it down and then read it. - Eusebius

The New Porphyry
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery »

Only Vaticanus is early.
Possibly fourth century, possibly later. Very possibly c. 600s, definitely no later than 1400s,

Sinaiticus is 1800s.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

Post by gryan »

Steven Avery wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:04 am Only Vaticanus is early.
Possibly fourth century, possibly later. Very possibly c. 600s, definitely no later than 1400s,

Sinaiticus is 1800s.
Steven Avery:

I see from various web sources that you base your dating on stained pages and torn pages.

Have any professional textual critics responded to your hypothesis with a refutation?
Post Reply