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.SAM makes an off-topic comment about me making an off-topic comment.
Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1609
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNmnroyJSzoStephenGoranson wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:11 pm Again unclear. If you choose to write clearly, I will try again,
-
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Peter Head and James Snapp - sham ending of Mark debate
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/
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/
-
- 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
.
As far as I know, Roger often refers to himself as an amateur. What's wrong with it?
There is absolutely no question about his impressively high level of knowledge and the excellent quality of his work.
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.
Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original
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.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?
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.
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1609
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
The Unusual Suspects
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nagjPyNMu9Q
JW:
A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark
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
JW:
A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark
JW: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.
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
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original
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.
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1609
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
The Name Of The Ruse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUUB96c6EpY
JW:
A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark
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
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
JW:
A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark
JW: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.
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)) 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 = 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:
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:
|
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:
|
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
-
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
Only Vaticanus is early.
Possibly fourth century, possibly later. Very possibly c. 600s, definitely no later than 1400s,
Sinaiticus is 1800s.
Possibly fourth century, possibly later. Very possibly c. 600s, definitely no later than 1400s,
Sinaiticus is 1800s.
Re: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
Steven Avery: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.
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?