Hi,
Now we see some of the most absurdist argumentation possible:
JoeWallack wrote:JW
debated James Snapp Jr.... I introduced an element to the argument that he had never seen before = formal criteria (here used for the External). ... I currently judge the most important criterion for evidence to be credibility (of source).]
The argument that an ECW silence such as that of Origen (if he were silent) is == to ECW use of a verse or section is totally specious. A flunk of Logic 101. Especially in the Ante-Nicene period, where even the most prolific writers only touched a small % of verses. A silence of any small number of ECW is as minor an evidence as possible. While the inclusion of the section means the verses were in the Bible.
JoeWallack wrote:Richard Carrier, ...Regarding credibility of source let's match the three best witnesses for 16:8 (as original) against the three best witnesses against:
Again, the fallacy here is kindergarten glaring. A witness for inclusion means that the section was in their Bible. A witnesses against simply means that we don't have an extant record of the section in their Bible. Totally different.
And to say that Jerome is a witness against is Wonderland logic, for a number of reasons. Jerome included the ending in the Vulgate, and the thousands of Vulgate ms all have the traditional ending. This is part of the 99.9% (999 out of 1,000) Greek, Latin and Syriac mss that have the ending. We can consider the attempt to avoid the massive evidence the elephant smashing the critical text parlor tricks.
Thus, with the Vulgate text, Jerome accepted authenticity. He simply pointed out, echoing a writing from Eusebius (essentially the same singular testimony) that the Greek ms line included omission texts. (Mark just as likely wrote originally in Latin. Jerome was updating the Old Latin and did not indicate ms. lacking the ending there.)
And Jerome is a powerful witness for in his own usage
Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,
and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart,
because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Similarly Origen-Celsus has two allusions that indicate familiarity with the Mark ending (plus Origen was weak on Mark) so it 100% clear that he does not belong on any such list.
JoeWallack wrote:For:
- 1) Origen
2) Eusebius
3) Jerome
Against:
- 1) Irenaeus
2) Tatian
3) Ambrose
The conclusion follows the various methodology blunders mentioned above. Not sure who is more to blame, Richard Carrier or Joe Wallach, for such an absurd argument.
A couple of more errors.
The attempt to make a convoluted criteria of credibility, when the issue is very simple. Is the section in the Bibles in Gaul used by Irenaeus (Greek and Latin.) Is the section in the Bibles used by Tatian? Whether they were orthodox, heretics, strict quoters, right on historical facts about the 1st century, etc. is all basically irrelevant.
Then, if the focus is ECW you have omitted Tertullian, far earlier than Ambrose.
Also the:
Justin Martyr allusion
The Treatise on Rebaptism.
The Council of Carthage under Cyprian.
Apostolic Constitutions.
Aphrahat.
Papias through Eusebius
Porphyry
Macarius Magnes
Hippolytus.
Thus, by choosing "3 against 3" you can omit a sound analysis. The "3" is barely 1, since Origen is not even silent, and Jerome is pro and Eusebius is simply a discussion of mss and the canon table.
The "3" for inclusion is about a dozen early. With fine "credibility"
(I'm not double-checking each one, nor am I including all.)
I've rarely seen such a rigged and deficient methodology as this Carrier-Wallach nonsense.
This is the type of junque pseudo-scholarship that comes out of trying to hold up the decrepit positions of Hort.
Steven Avery