Loomis

What about Mark 16:7?

“He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”

It looks to me like it’s talking about Mark 14:28

“After I am raised, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”

These verses foreshadow of a post-resurrection appearance in Galilee.

Right?

Ben C Smith

Joe Wallack has argued elsewhere that the original text of Mark lacked these verses.

Ben.

Loomis

What were his arguments? That Mark ends at 16:8 and so they must have been added later?

Ben C Smith

No, his argument is better than that. Here is a brief summary.

Ben.

Loomis

Thanks for the link. I’m glad I asked. That certainly is a much better argument.

Is Joe going to bring you with him to the dabate?

Maybe he should, because all of that ‘weighing the criteria’ bullshit is boring.

Loomis

Does Joe Wallack have an opinion on the Gospel of Peter chapter 14?

It says Peter and Andrew took their nets and went back to the sea. There is no mention of Andrew in Luke 5:3-10 or John 21:1. Andrew is only mentioned in Mark 1:16 - which suggests to me that GPeter was drawing from Mark.

JoeWallack

JW:
CARM removed my ban so it looks like the debate will happen there. I'm going to fast forward here to what Mr. Snapp considers an important part of his argument for the LE, early Patristic witness and specifically Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"):

The endings of the gospel of Mark The External Evidence

Online text at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xi.html.

Verses:

Mark 16


Criteria for Irenaeus as support for LE:

1) Age = ?

Irenaeus wrote late 2nd century but our related extant manuscript is much later. Much later than the Textual manuscripts. And in a different language. What to do? When in doubt, go "2".

2) Confirmation - quantity = 1

None.

3) Confirmation - width = 1

None.

4) Applicability (general vs. specific) = 1

Refers to 1 line of the LE

5) Direction (of change) = 2

N/A

6) Variation = 1

Irenaeus refers to the end of "Mark" but 16:19 is not the end of the LE.

7) External force = 1

Significant pressure to give "Mark" a happy ending. A significant issue for Irenaeus was the Gnostics who were Separationist and had the support of a 16:8 ending which showed the Christ gone.

8) Credibility of source = 1

Irenaeus' reasoning in Against Heresies is poor, even by Patristic standards. He's wrong about the Gospel authors and most claimed orthodox traditions. Specifically, he's wrong about 16:19 being a fulfillment of prophecy as his Greek translation of the related Psalm does not properly distinguish the different titles used for God and David.

There is no indication of what exactly Irenaeus bases his assertion on that 16:19 was original to "Mark". It's much better evidence that the LE existed late 2nd century than that it was original.

9) Directness = 2

Directly textual but just one line.

10) Common sense = 1

Irenaneus c. 2nd century testifies that at that time "Mark" has significant usage by itself. Not having post-resurrection communication with the same Jesus Christ that existed before the resurrection is huge support for the Separationists. Therefore, having Irenaeus here simply assert an ending that supports the orthodox without any real argument is right up his Elley. It's what he does.

In summary than:

1) Age = 2

2) Confirmation - quantity = 1

3) Confirmation - width = 1

4) Applicability (general vs. specific) = 1

5) Direction (of change) = 2

6) Variation = 1

7) External force = 1

8) Credibility of source = 1

9) Directness = 2

10) Common sense = 1

So we have 7 "1s" and 3 "2s". And so Irenaeus is relatively weak evidence for LE.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Loomis

Joe I’m tellin’ ya, that stuff’s really boring. :facepalm: You should look at 2 Peter 1:14. At first glance it looks like an allusion to the prophecy in John 21:18-19. But what’s interesting is that three verses later (2 Peter 1:17-18) the author makes an allusion to the transfiguration story in Mark 9:2-8.

- and that supports the argument that John 21 preserves the original ending of Mark.

If you took the time to understand this shit you would be in a much better position to debate Mr. Snapp because you could offer an explanation as to how Mark originally ended. As it stands now, you are just Snapp’s puppet on the defensive end of the stick. :bulb:

show_no_mercy

I think one of the drawbacks of bringing 2 Peter into this argument is that Irenaeus is ignorant of its existence, while at the same time Irenaeus knows about 1 Peter and the Long Ending present in our modern Mark. That might place 2 Peter well after the redaction of the longer ending in Mark.

Ben C Smith

I do not think Loomis is using 2 Peter as evidence of the longer ending of Mark; I think he is using 2 Peter as evidence of the (purely hypothetical) original ending of Mark now residing (redacted, of course) in John 21. That is a different issue.

Ben.