JoeWallack

JW:
Time to scour Praxeus' post to see what I've missed so far:





JW:
Uh, let me borrow your roseMary tinted glasses.



JW:
Conceited.



JW:
It's yours. Unless Schmuelman! has any comments here I will next summarize the Patristic Evidence for the Long Ending of "Mark"...It's (Scottish accent)Crap! Just kidding. Someone, anyone Beuhder?



Joseph

Church Tradition - An oral memorization technique whereby stories are continuously transmitted orally until no one remembers what really happened.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Steven Avery

Well, I do wonder what your position actually is, and what you are trying to show.. at one point you were emphasizing the lateness of the church writer references, but you apparently switched gears on that one.

We know that the Patristic evidence shows the Traditional ending even in the 2nd century, (which you have basically accepted vis a vis y Irenaeus and Tatian, plus we have the additional good presentation by Andrew on Justin Martyr) and then also general acceptance in the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries.)

btw, you made a very strange statement about Tertullian as well but I dunno if I will spend time on that one. He clearly references NT Gospels as Scripture, again and again, maybe you should do some rereading, for your own benefit.

We also know that the Traditional ending is overwhelmingly attested to in manuscipt evidences from
Greek manuscripts
Old Latin manuscripts
Latin Vulgate manuscripts
Aramaic manuscripts
Most other language manuscripts (Sahadic, Ethiopic, etc)

And overwhelming is truly the word. Often 99%.

So apparently you have one of the arcane textcrit theories that the Traditional ending was inserted around the end of the 1st century, or early 2nd, but perhaps not as canon or apostolic Markan (although to your way of thinking such categories are wrong anyway, an interesting irony, especially since even some alexandrian textcrit critics consider the ending as "canonical" if not Markan :-)

.. and the supposed evidences for this is mostly the two manuscripts missing the ending in the 4th century (with Vatiancus having the famous empty space ! :-) Along with the fact that there was some question in the 4th and 5th century, even though Jerome simply placed the ending in the Vulgate and referenced it as scripture. Most of any earlier evidences from silence go nowhere, the closest to substance is Origen, but his alexandrian locale fits the couple of alexandrian manuscripts without the ending.

You are welcome to your theories, and all the ink you are putting forth, however they so far are simply of no significance to those like myself who actually accept and appreciate the preservation of the Word of God, who read and defend the real, tangible Bible.

We do not and will not change our Bibles based on such absurd nonsense as a couple of rubbish bin texts, with scribes crossing out each others errors, in the comedy of errors known as Aleph and B.

Overall, the thread has actually long ago served its purpose, and your attempts to minimize the early church writer attestations is watched with bemusement. The Tertullian faux pas assertion was the most interesting aspect, also watching you essentially accept reference after reference.

================================================
The Heart of the Matter

Now, I will point out again that Joe has to put on this show, because so many of his supposed "errors" are dependent upon his telling believers that they should use the corrupt alexandrian text, that way he will have easy target errors, since the paradigms that "reconstructed" that modern eclectic text are paradigms of errors and manufacturing..(iie. fabricated) errors :-)

And Joe, like many skeptics, islamists, anti-mish, etc. really like to attack such fabricated errors ! :-)

Tis quite humorous, actually -- and quite transparent.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

JoeWallack

JW:
I'll now summarize the Patristic Evidence for the Original Ending of "Mark". I'm going to add to the summary two General Sources not previously Identified. Patristic writing from the second half of the 1st century and Patristic writing from the first half of the second century. While writings from this period don't generally show much detailed knowledge of the Four Gospels, as "Mark" was likely the first written and Christianity was significantly motivated to convert, a long ending of "Mark" would have been the best evidence that Christianity had for the supposed resurrection at the time and therefore good motivation for use if it existed. One possible reason Fathers did not give specifics of a post resurrection story for this time period is that it didn't yet exist or at least the most popular Gospel, "Mark", didn't have it.


1) Late 1st, General, Witness Quality Low, Short - no quotes, Evidence Quality - Low

2) Early 2nd, General, Witness - Low, Short - no quotes, Evidence Low

3) Early 2nd, Papias, Father, Witness - Low, Short - no knowledge, Evidence Low

4) Early 2nd, Anonymous, Preaching of Peter, Witness - Low, Short - a few similarities, Evidence - Low

5) Late 2nd, Justin, Apologist, Witness - Medium, Mixed, Evidence - Low

6) Late 2nd, Clement-A, Major author, Witness - Low, Short - no knowledge, Evidence - Low

7) Late 2nd, Tatian, Author of Dia., Witness - Medium, Long - good paraphrase, Evidence - Medium

8) Late 2nd, Irenaeus, Advocate, Witness - Low, Long - Explicit, Evidence - Medium

9) Early 3rd, Origen, Manuscript expert, Witness - High, Short - no knowledge, Evidence - Medium

10) Early 3rd, Tertullian, Major author, Witness - Medium, Short - only weak reference, Evidence - Medium

11) Early 3rd, Hippolytus?, Father, Witness - Low, Long - good paraphrase, Evidence - Medium

12) Early 3rd, Vincentius, Father, Witness - Low, Short - no knowledge, Evidence - Medium

13) Early 4th, Eusebius, Manuscript expert, Historian, Witness - High, Short - Explicit based on textual variants, Evidence - High

14) Early 4th, Aphraates, Father, Witness - Low, Long - clear paraphrase, Evidence - Medium.

15) Late 4th, Ambrose, Father, Witness - Low, Long - clear paraphrase, Evidence - Medium

16) Early 5th, Augustine, Father Apologist, Witness - Medium, Long - Explicit ID, Evidence - Medium

17) Early 5th, Jerome, Manuscript and Translation expert, Witness - High, Short - Explicit based on textual variants, Evidence - High

18) Early 5th, Hesychius, Father, Witness - Low, Short - Implication from textual question, Evidence - Medium

19) Late 5th, Victor - A, Father, Witness - Low, Long - Explicit based on textual variants, Evidence - High

20) Early 6th, Severus, Father, Witness - Low, Short - Explicit based on textual variants, Evidence - High


Let's summarize the evidence now just by one category at a time:

1) Date:

In general Earlier supports Short while Later supports Long. It would appear that some version of The Long Ending was known by at least the middle of the second century.

2) Witness quality:

In general the Better quality witnesses, such as Origen, Eusebius and Jerome (due to being manuscript, language and history experts), support the Short.

3) Testimony quality:

In general the Better testimony quality, due to Identification of the Ending Issue, supports the Short.

4) Witness quantity:

Depends on the time period cutoff. From the above, most are Short. After the 6th century most Fathers assume the Long is correct.

Conclusion based on the Patristic Evidence:

The Timing, Witness quality, and quality of Testimony indicates that the Short Ending was Likely Original.



Joseph

Steven Avery

A truism for any inclusion/omission question, as the quantity, length and exactitude of verse referncing increses from the 2nd to 5th centuries. Argument fails.

Jerome is actually evidence for the ending, in his use of he ending, discussion of multi Greek and Latin manuscripts, and inclusion in the Vulgate. Shows weakness of argument, combined with omitting 'equal', even earlier, quality references such as Irenaeus, Tatian/Justin Martyr, and Apostolic Consitutions/Didascalia. Argument fails.

Without the "Identification" discussions, there would basically be no issue at all (B.B.King)
Argument.. non-functional, due to false definition of 'quality' and missing that 'identification' argument is itself demonstration of widescale early Greek and Latin manuscripts with ending.

And lots of early writer testimony through the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries. In the 4th and 5th centuries there are over a dozen affirmative evidences, versus about 3 silences of significance. Obfuscatory and inaccurate time cutoff.
Argument.. fails

For those who want review the actual evidences

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...0&postcount=57
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark - scholarly references en masse

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...2&postcount=31
Last 12 Verses of Mark - Early Church Writers
(includes many references, even from UBS, not mentioned by Joe)

Joe, who doesn't have any cohesive view of the NT as scripture or as literature, of course has to take the ironic position of insisting on the dubious alexandrian 'version' of the NT because, without the alexandrian text, so much of his error argumentation simply vaporizes.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

JoeWallack

JW:
Perhaps more Amazing than the supposed resurrection of Jesus, which was unique except that it had already been done, is a mysterious Entity known as "Church Tradition", which unlike Jesus who allegodly could only resurrect once, can Incarnate Magnificently and limitlessly at an Apologist's whim to support Christian Assertions and then Disincarnate just as fast into a mayonaise jar on Robert Funk's porch when it goes against Christian Assertions as "only the opinion of men and not Scripture".

An important ingreekdyment in the Recipe for "Church Tradition" is Irenaeus of Lyons (yes "Lyons") whom Apologists summon forth (just as I have Summoned forth Eusebius

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=127635

to answer the Charge of Lying for Jesus. By the way, Eusebius has hired Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz and Elizabeth Taylor (the ACLU is doing it for free) to represent him and the first thing they've done is request a change of venue to S. California. If Eusebius is found guilty of Lying for Jesus the Republicans plan to run him against Hillary in 2008 figuring since the Democrats couldn't even beat Dubya (twice) how could they beat a dead guy?) to support key Christian assertions like What were the Gospels and Who wrote them.

When Irenaeus doesn't support Christian assertions though he disappears to where ever the hell Jesus has been for the last 2,000 years:

Irenaeus writes (On The Apostolic Preaching)
1:1:
and writes in
1:5:
Modern Christianity tries to sell the above sons of God theme as
figurative and intended to be a compliment to earthly family
relationships and not a replacement. Yet the wording of the Christian
Bible and the related understanding by important Church Fathers such
as Irenaeus indicate the sons of God theme was likely meant to be
taken literally as a Replacement of the earthly family relationship
and this understanding is supported by the related eschatological
belief of Christians like Ireneaus that earthly relationships were no
longer important due to the imminent return of Jesus. This attitude had major appeal to Constantine in deciding to make Christianity the favored religion of the Roman Empire:

The God Father Part Jew "Sonny Is Dead"

(Confirmation of Constantine by Priest) "Do you Don Constantino, take Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour (switch to Constantine assassins simultaneously killing wife, son and brother)
"Alfredo now sleeps with the Fishers of Men".

If this disregard for earthly family relationships is actually what the Christian Bible meant than it becomes ironic that an important platform of Current fundamentalists is earthly family relationships.


Joseph

CHRISTIAN, n.
One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html