Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 08-08-2009, 03:17 PM

JW:
From: CARM Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?

Quote:

Early Patristic Evidence – Part Four (2 of 2)

As we continue to attempt to gauge the significance or insignificance of Origen’s non-use of unique parts of Mark, we should consider his tendency not to use Mark when he could make the same point by using Matthew, Luke, or John. Then we should ask if we can find places in Origen’s writings where the use of the unique material in Mark 16:9-20 would be advantageous to Origen as he was making a point.

My opponent attempted to use Origen’s statement in the preface of Against Celsus as if it shows that Origen did not shrink from using Mark. But that quotation is nothing but a remark that Origen was going to draw his quotations mainly from Matthew and that it would be superfluous to quote Mark because Mark says the same sort of thing! Being informed by this remark, we should not expect Origen to quote Mark at every opportunity.

It is granted that Origen was willing to quote Mark if he thought it would be advantageous to do so, but, judging from Origen’s sparse and sporadic use of Mark, he almost always did not think it was advantageous to do so when Matthew or Luke says what Mark says. Also, inasmuch as Origen did not know the Gospel of Mark so well, we are left to wonder, whenever Origen fails to use any potentially helpful passage found only in Mark, if such non-use reflects the contents of Origen’s copies of Mark, or if such a lapse is a result of a shortcoming of Origen’s memory.

My opponent attempted to present Against Celsus II:42 as a place where “the subject is Jesus’ prophecies and specifically regarding the benefits to his followers.” However, the point which Origen defends there is the claim that Jesus’ behavior was irreproachable. Origen mentions the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction about the spread of the gospel as an example of Jesus’ irreproachable honesty. There was no impetus for Origen to go into further detail about the Great Commission or the signs accompanying believers.

The next citation from Origen is in Against Celsus II:48 ~ “And these lame who have been healed, receive from Jesus power to trample, with those feet in which they were formerly lame, upon the serpents and scorpions of wickedness, and generally upon all the power of the enemy; and though they tread upon it, they sustain no injury, for they also have become stronger than the poison of all evil and of demons.” My opponent asks, “Why no mention of the LE?”
The answer is obvious. Origen is using Luke 10:19 (“Behold, I give you authority to trample upon serpents and scorpions,” etc.), and having called Luke to the witness stand, he sees no need for further witnesses. As Origen refers to poison at the end of his statement, he may allude to another witness that could testify (specifically, Mark 16:18), but this cannot be demonstrated. Furthermore, we may clarify my opponent’s claim that the topic here is the miracles of Jesus: study Against Celsus II:48, and you will perceive that Origen’s real topic is the works of the apostles, seen through the lens of John 14:12. Origen’s message is that when an individual who was spiritually lame is given power to trample upon the devil, a la Luke 10:19, this is a greater work than when Jesus miraculously gave a physically lame man the power to physically walk. Nothing here invites the citation of Mark 16:17-18.

Next, my opponent turned to Against Celsus II:62, and asked why Origen, after citing Luke 24’s account of Jesus’ appearance to Simon and Cleopas, did not also mention Mark 16:12. The answer is that doing so would be redundant. This is Origen’s normal treatment of Mark.

The same answer applies to Origen’s non-use of Mark 16:19 in Against Celsus II:68; Origen made his point via Luke 24:31, which is the appropriate passage to use in reply to Celsus’ objection because it explicitly mentions the sort of disappearance which Celsus seems to have had in mind. Origen didn’t use Mark 16:19 here for the same reason that he didn’t mention Acts 1:9. It would have been redundant, and superfluous, and it would have only restated what had already been established.

My opponent then cited Against Celsus II:70, where Origen, answering Celsus’ charge that it was only one woman who saw the risen Christ, writes, “It is not true that He showed Himself only to one woman; for it is stated in the Gospel according to Matthew,” and proceeds to cite Matthew 28:1-2 and 28:9. Origen does not proceed to cite Mark 16:12-20 for the same reason that he does not proceed to cite Luke 24, or John 21, or Acts 1, or First Corinthians 15:4-7.

My opponent, after reaching the bottom of the sack as far as Origen’s testimony is concerned, offers Celsus as a possible witness for the abrupt ending, on the grounds that Origen never says that Celsus made an objection to Mark 16:17-18. Two effective answers may be brought to bear upon that contention. First, many passages in the Gospels, though vulnerable to an objection or jibe by Celsus, appear to have been left untouched by Celsus. It is not remarkable that Mark 16:18 was one such passage. Second, if any silence from Celsus is significant, it is his silence about the abrupt ending of Mark! It is easy to picture Celsus noticing Mark 16:18, and figuring that he had already covered it in his generalized comments about the inconsistency of Christians’ appeals to miracles as vindications of their claims. But it is rather difficult to picture Celsus, fully aware that one of the Gospels contains no mention of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, figuring that this was a trifle, not worth mentioning.

(It may be helpful here to provide a reference to Celsus’ generalized comments about Christians’ appeals to miraculous signs. According to Against Celsus I:68, Celsus dismissed Jesus’ miracles by claiming that they were akin to the shows of magicians in the marketplace who expelled demons and dispelled diseases, and, retorting to Christians’ appeals to miracles, he claimed that such miracles could be attributed to an evil influence, on the grounds that Jesus Himself had prophesied that deceivers would perform miracles.)

So, if Origen is the best witness in the 200’s for the abrupt ending, this is because he is the worst witness for Mark 16:9-20. Apart from some tantalizing but inconclusive statements which might allude to the contents of Mark 16:9-20, Origen treats Mark 16:9-20 the way he treats most of the Gospel of Mark. My opponent’s citations from Origen are not evidence against Mark 16:9-20; they are not evidence for the abrupt ending, either.

Before leaving Origen, we should ask another question: what sort of Gospels-text(s) did Origen use? We have already seen that Origen assumed that Cleopas’ companion was named Simon. This is naturally deduced from the “Western” reading of Luke 22:34, in which the two travelers deliver, rather than receive, the news that the Lord has appeared to Simon. As a result of this “Western” variant, Luke 24:34 is harmonized with Mark 16:13. This does not mean that Origen knew Mark 16:9-20, but it raises the possibility that someone who preceded Origen, and who produced a text of Luke which Origen used, knew Mark 16:13.

Also, in Against Celsus I:62, Origen states, “Levi, also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a tax-collector, but he was in no way numbered as one of the apostles, except according to a statement in some [or, one] of the copies of the Gospel according to Mark.” (The copies of Against Celsus are inconsistent in the transcription of the name “Levi” – LEUIS vs. LEUHS vs. LEBHS.) Here Origen demonstrates his awareness of a variant which is extant in a narrow transmission-channel. In Mark 2:14, “Levi” is the usual reading. Origen affirms the existence of “Levi” in some copies (or one copy) of Mark, but clearly he prefers an alternative, and in D Theta f-13 and 565, an alternative is given: in those copies, “James” is read in Mark 2:14 instead of Levi. All these Greek manuscripts support Mark 16:9-20. So it is no great leap to conclude that Origen used manuscripts from differing transmission-channels, including at least one transmission-channel in which the text of Mark included 16:9-20.

So: Origen’s muteness about Mark 16:9-20 exhibits his usual neglect of Mark, and cannot be transmuted into meaningful testimony. Meanwhile, our consideration of the works of Origen has revealed a likelihood that Celsus was unaware of the abrupt ending of Mark, and a likelihood that among the Gospels-texts accessible to Origen, at least one of them included Mark 16:9-20. Although Origen does not explicitly quote from Mark 16:9-20, he does not mention the abrupt ending of Mark either. (No one in the 100’s or 200’s mentions the abrupt ending of Mark.) Origen’s testimony does not harm my case; it is, instead, slightly helpful.

Unless something about Origen and other witnesses in the 200’s remains to be said, we should move on to the fourth-century evidence, which includes Eusebius of Caesarea, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

JoeWallack · 08-09-2009, 08:43 AM

JW:
My opponent claims that "Matthew"/"Luke"/"John" are not evidence against LE. At this point in the debate I think we are reaching diminishing returns regarding their evidential value. I would be okay leaving the arguments I have already made for their evidential value against LE with the arguments Mr. Snapp has made to the contrary. But first, a brief summary.

"Matthew"/"Luke"/"John" have high weight potential due to Age criteria and actual weight due to Scope criteria. The combination means they have some weight and the criteria will do the heavy lifting. The highlights:

"Matthew" follows "Mark" reMarkably well to 16:8. After 16:8 "Matthew" hardly has any parallels to LE. The obvious conclusion is that the LE was not "Matthew's" source here. Especially telling is "Matthew's" copying of "Mark" 16:8 (ASV):

"Mark 16:8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid."

vs.

"Matthew 28:8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word."

Note that "Matthew's" conclusion here is the exact opposite of "Mark's", where "Mark's" women say nothing, "Matthew's" women say everything. "Matthew" is so dependent on his source though, "Mark", that he still uses "Mark's" basic sentence to make the change!

Also telling is that out of "Matthew's" 12 post resurrection verses, 5 deal with the problem of The Empty Tomb. In "Matthew's" version the post resurrection is dominated by sighting and not the empty tomb. So why devote such a high percent to the lesser story? Because "Matthew's" SOURCE "Mark" is dominated by the empty tomb so "Matthew" feels forced to deal with it.

I previously mentioned 3 qualities for good arguments:

1) Simple - "Matthew" does not use the LE because it was not in his copy of "Mark".

2) Logical - If "Matthew's" copy of "Mark" had the LE he would have used it.

3) Supported by the Text - "Matthew" follows "Mark" closely to 16:8, changes the conclusion of 16:8 and apologizes for the empty tomb.

The Reader should ask whose argument incorporates these qualities better here, me or my opponent?

Regarding "Luke" the evidence is similar that "Luke" did not have the LE as a source but somewhat weaker as it has a few parallels to the LE.

My opponent writes:

"J. Keith Elliott has weighed the sort of approach to Matthew and Luke proposed by my opponent. Dr. Elliott concluded, “We cannot use Matthew or Luke to make claims about what they may or may not have read in their copies of Mark 16.” Matthew and Luke had multiple sources and we cannot tell what Matthew and Luke were reading, or what they were thinking, when they wrote their accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances."

Actually we do know what "Matthew" and "Luke's" source was up to the resurrection sighting, it was "Mark". It's after the resurrection sighting that we don't know (other than we know it was not the LE). That's the point, we know the source before sighting but we don't know it after. The source is the same before but different after. The simple, logical and text supported answer is that the source was different. We also have the cumulative evidence here that where "Matthew"/"Luke" have "Mark" available as a source they usually tell similar stories with some different editing but their post resurrection stories are as completely different as handling Monty Python.

I've added "John" here as a witness against LE because my basic argument above fits "John" although "John" while using "Mark's" outline for the Passion, does not follow the details of "Mark" closely compared to "Matthew" and "Luke".

My opponent writes regarding "John":

"As for the Gospel of John, my opponent’s claim is not supported by the evidence. Instead, the evidence which he cited – comparing Mark 15-16 to John 19-20 – only reveals that John 19 closes at the same point as Mark 15. If you look, you will see that there is no indication of literary dependence upon Mark 16. The entire episode in Mark 16:1-8 about the women’s visit to the empty tomb is untouched by John. John 20 says nothing about Mark 16:9-20 that it does not say about Mark 16:1-8."

I did not make any analysis of Mark 15 and I explained in detail the parallels between Mark 16:1-8 and "John's" empty tomb story. I can easily forgive my opponent though because I did this through a cold link:

freeratio.org//showthread.php?p=6021094#post6021094

Quote:

Note that "John" accepts "Mark's" basic Empty Tomb story:

1) MM(M) comes to the tomb.

2) It's the first day of the week.

3) It's early.

4) The stone is moved.

5) MM sees an angel(s) in the tomb.

6) The angel is dressed in white.

7) The angel speaks to MM.

Also note the relationship here between time and content. "Mark's" empty tomb story is closest to "Matthew" which was written closest to "Mark". "Luke" and "John" maintain the relationship. This is what we would expect. As time goes by, deviation from source increases. We see the inverse relationship with the LE. No parallels to "Matthew", a few parallels to "Luke" and a few more parallels to "John". This suggests the creation of the LE is closer to "John" than "Matthew" and this coordinates with the External evidence. The first explicit reference is from Irenaeus.

When we get to the Internal evidence we will see that the theme of the LE, protection against suffering, is contrary to the theme of "Mark", and is clearly introduced as a major theme in Acts, which is likely contemporary to Irenaeus and first discovered by...Irenaeus.

I am also retaining the option to invoke other Gospels which like "Matthew"/"Luke"/"John" follow "Mark" closely to 16:8 but have little/nothing in common with LE.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 08-14-2009, 09:05 AM

JW:
My opponent also claims that Origen/Clement are not evidence against LE. Again, at this point in the debate I think we are reaching diminishing returns regarding their evidential value and I would be okay leaving the arguments I have already made for their evidential value against LE with the arguments Mr. Snapp has made to the contrary. But first, a brief summary.

I'll note that in general our argument over Origen reminds me of a military campaign where my opponent is continuously forced to concede argument territory and retreat and when the final battle lines are drawn, claims a draw.

The General Line
Origen is a significant Christian author and apologist and refers to every chapter of "Mark" except 2 and 16. My opponent claimed that Origen did not refer to chapter 13 but e-catena says he did, http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...na/mark13.html (13:31). I make no claim that e-catena is perfect so my opponent is welcome to demonstrate that they are wrong here. Since the LE is exponentially more interesting to chapter 16 than 16:1-8, the fact that Origen never refers to Chapter 16 is statistically already evidence against LE. Retreat!

The Post General Line
The primary assertion of Christianity is that Jesus was resurrected. The evidence before the resurrection sightings is that a possible unidentified angel(s) confirmed that Jesus was resurrected which sadly would not be considered very good evidence by critics. The post resurrection sightings by mere mortals would be considered the exponentially best evidence for Jesus' resurrection. As we would expect Origen refers to "Matthew" (7), "Luke" (6) and "John" (13) many times for post resurrection sighting. Unexpected is that Origen never refers here to "Mark". Retreat!

The AC Line
Specifically in Against Celsus Celsus makes a major issue out of the post resurrection narrative and Origen responds in kind. In this specific battle Origen defends with the post resurrection canons of "Matthew" (4), "Luke" (2) and "John" (5) but never "Mark". I've demonstrated above that "Matthew"/"Luke"/"John" show no/little awareness of the LE so most of the LE available to Origen would have been unique material. Retreat!

The Caesar Celsus Line
I've specifically pointed out places in Against Celsus where there is material in the LE that would have been useful to Origen in defending against Celsus and my opponent has confessed to us that he agrees with me here for most of these. That killer Rabbi is dynamite. Run away. Run away!

Mr. Snapp's defense against the above charges is:

Quote:

As we continue to attempt to gauge the significance or insignificance of Origen’s non-use of unique parts of Mark, we should consider his tendency not to use Mark when he could make the same point by using Matthew, Luke, or John. Then we should ask if we can find places in Origen’s writings where the use of the unique material in Mark 16:9-20 would be advantageous to Origen as he was making a point.

My opponent attempted to use Origen’s statement in the preface of Against Celsus as if it shows that Origen did not shrink from using Mark. But that quotation is nothing but a remark that Origen was going to draw his quotations mainly from Matthew and that it would be superfluous to quote Mark because Mark says the same sort of thing! Being informed by this remark, we should not expect Origen to quote Mark at every opportunity.

JW:
Yikes! Here's the quote:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html

Quote:

Now, with respect to our Lord's silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to the same effect. And the words of Matthew are as follow: "And the high priest and the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none,

Note that Origen is making a specific statement here regarding specific verses in "Matthew" and "Mark" to make a specific point. The reason Origen mentions "Mark" is because it agrees with "Matthew" and not to make a general point of giving a reason not to mention "Mark". Origen normally quotes multiple Gospels if it supports his point as we would expect. He also has a theme that the clearer a point is in the Gospels that supports him the more this discredits Celsus for missing multiple examples (as we would expect). In the offending verses here "Mark" is extremely similar to "Matthew" so the question should be why would Origen quote "Mark" again if it just repeats "Matthew's" quote? That is exactly why Origen simply says that "Mark" says the same thing. Not only does this not support my opponent's claim that Origen indicates he will avoid "Mark" if the information is repetitive, it indicates the opposite, Origen will invoke "Mark" even if the words are about the same (this one got my notice Jim).

My opponent claims that specifically for the post resurrection where the LE does contain information that would be useful to Origen, Origen neglects to refer to the LE because it is not needed to answer the objection raised by Celsus which can be answered with the other Gospels. The related question is why is "Mark" singled out for this treatment? Origen otherwise regularly quotes multiple Gospels on the same point to answer Celsus. I've noted that in general "Mark" has the least amount of unique material and lowest Christology so in general it is less likely to be referred to, but the LE has neither of these qualities. If Origen thought the LE canonical than he would have considered it sacred Scripture and intentionally avoiding it would be blasphemy for being ashamed of the words of Jesus.

Typically, the beginning and endings of Gospels generate the most Patristic interest. Per e-catena Origen refers many times to the first chapters of "Matthew" (3), "Luke" (21), "John" (74) and "Mark (7)". Regarding "Mark":

Quote:

Mark 1 - NIV, NAB - in Origen Commentary on Matthew Book X

And observe that it was outside of His own country He speaks the parables "which, when He had finished, He departed thence; and coming into His own country He taught them in their synagogue." And Mark says, "And He came into His own country and His disciples follow Him."[95]

Note that this is a commentary on "Matthew" so Origen is not forced to invoke "Mark" here but elects to because he thinks it helps his interpretation of "Matthew".

Quote:

Mark 1:1 - NIV, NAB - in Origen Against Celsus Book II

Nay, even one of the evangelists-Mark-says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee,"[13]

Quote:

Mark 1:1 - NIV, NAB - in Origen Commentary on John Book I

In addition to what we have said, there is also this to be considered about the Gospel, that in the first instance it is that of Christ Jesus, the head of the whole body of the saved; as Mark says,[67]

Again, "Mark" is invoked to supplement another Gospel.

Quote:

Mark 1:2 - NIV, NAB - in Origen Commentary on John Book II

"The messenger of the Lord, I am with you, saith the Lord Almighty," and as it is written of John the Baptist,[62]

Again.

Quote:

Mark 1:6 - NIV, NAB - in Origen Commentary on John Book VI

" This agrees with the words in John, in which the Baptist declares himself to those sent by the Pharisees, on the subject of his baptizing with water. Mark, again, says,[102]

Yet again, to the point of being redundant.

Quote:

Mark 1:11 - NIV, NAB - in Origen Commentary on John Book I

None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Saviour's exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,"[147]

Quoting "Mark" when it disagrees with "Matthew"!

Quote:

Mark 1:16 - NIV, NAB - in Origen Commentary on John Book X

and him who is seen by Jesus when walking by the sea of Galilee,[23]

Again and again.

So we see above that Origen has no problem referring to "Mark" when he is not forced to ("Mark" is not the subject, "Mark" is supplemental or "Mark" is redundant). This supposed refusal of Origen to invoke "Mark" seems very specific to the LE which is all the more reMarkable as the LE should be the part of "Mark" most interesting to Origen, has high Christology and mostly unique material. The objective Reader should ask herself than which theory is more likely, that Origen does not refer to the LE because he did not think it original or because of a currently unknown reason which my opponent will reveal in a subsequent post.

Note that the general points made above for Origen also apply to Clement.

Joseph

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

andrewcriddle · 08-15-2009, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Note that the general points made above for Origen also apply to Clement.

Joseph

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

Hi Joe

Would you agree that Clement's use of Mark is so limited that one really can't determine how his version of Mark ended ? (Origen is another matter)

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 08-15-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Note that the general points made above for Origen also apply to Clement.

Joseph

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

Hi Joe

Would you agree that Clement's use of Mark is so limited that one really can't determine how his version of Mark ended ? (Origen is another matter)

Andrew Criddle

JW:
No. The evidence for Clement is clearly weaker than Origen but I think still meets the minimum standard to be weighed:

1) Clement looks to me to refer to 9 chapters of "Mark".

2) He refers disproportionately to the first chapter which is expected.

3) The LE would be just as fascinating to Clement as it would be to Origen.

4) He does not refer to "Matthew's" post-resurrection sighting but that is understandable as it has the god-awful contradiction with "Luke" as to the reconnoiter (Galilee/Jerusalem).

There is no "cruncher" here as you Brits say like there is for Origen, the dedicated and detailed discussion of the post-resurrection sighting against an antagonistic, but there is coordination as the LE seems to otherwise be mostly unknown/not accepted in the East at this time.

Note Ben - Origen seems unaware of any textual variation for the ending of "Mark" which makes me wonder about the dating of Irenaeus.

Joseph

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

Steven Avery · 08-16-2009, 02:48 AM

Hi Folks,

Greetings. I may try to get to this more shortly, it takes time to review lengthy material, however I will share a couple of comments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

"My opponent raised an objection about complexity, but he overlooked these complex aspects of his own favored theory."

On this I agree with Joe Wallack. While James Snapp generally does a superb job on evidentiary matters he weakens his exposition significantly by adding on a totally unnecessary and questionable level of complexity. And I complement JW for his astuteness in finding one weakness in the approach taken by James. (One that I have taken up with him from the other side.) Both sides have poor Occam twisting and squirming, if not actually entering one of those TV dance contests.

Overall I think that the value of evidence has to be considered carefully in inclusion / omission verses and sections, preferably before presentation. Often the inclusion is 100% evidence, or at least extremely strong. While the 'evidence of silence' of an omission will vary widely, even wildly, depending on the specifics and the interpreter. There are cases on other verses where the silence would be complete, such as if we have someone writing a homily and skipping Acts 8:37, jumping from 36 to 38.

Personally I have no problem with Origen, known for perhaps the most alexandrian text of any early writer, being used as the one significant church writer evidence against the resurrection account given by Mark. Clement of Alexandria being an auxiliary and weaker evidence from silence. This is consistent with textual patterns and dwarfed by tons of inclusion evidence.

On top of that is the issue of the paradigms used for textual analysis in general, where the popular lectio brevior is often nonsense. This is one other area where the presentation of James Snapp is weakened as he will skirt around that paradigmic question in favor of straight textual and reference (where he is excellent) and hypothetical issues. From that perspective of considering the copying process I view any text with a mass of wide geographical and early writer and textual base as clearly original scripture, even if there is an element of exclusion in the evidence. This is quite easy to explain and understand, especially among those with a high view of the integrity of the Bible text. On the other hand, those who believe in this and that verse and section being redacted and this and that book forged .. so-called pseudonymity .. will be less likely to agree with this. All sides bring their presuppositions and perspectives to a question like the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus given by Mark.

Joe's supposed contradiction looks to be is a red herring, playing to the skeptic choir. CARM forums are quite is mixed on this, the choir sings loudly, if out of tune , here. There is no difficulty on the Galilee - Jerusalem question, however if Joe does show that Clement likely perceived a difficulty, the issue could be mildly relevant here. I just hope that Joe does not try to twist a writer like Clement into thinking like a FRDB skeptic simply for argumentation purposes.

In an earlier discussion I put in a post that had many of the specific quotations for reference.

Last 12 Verses of Mark - Early Church Writers
http://www.freeratio.org//showthread...02#post2426502

There is a longer version of this that divides the evidences into categories (that post being one of the five categories, in a sense the central one for consideration). I will plan on posting it either on a viewable page or here shortly, since it goes back a couple of years I expect a bit of updating first.

Shalom,
Steven

George S · 08-16-2009, 03:20 AM

Perhaps Bart Ehrman (chair of the Dept. of Religious Studies at UNC and recognized expert at Biblical textual analysis) is wrong when he states in Jesus Interrupted, and Misquoting Jesus that it is generally accepted among textual analysts that the ending of Mark is an add-on. So much so that modern translations (and even some editions of the KJV) include a footnote to that effect.

Is Ehrman simply wrong? How can there be a debate about something that is generally accepted among the scholars who have studied the topic?

Steven Avery · 08-16-2009, 04:07 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

it is generally accepted among textual analysts that the ending of Mark is an add-on. So much so that modern translations (and even some editions of the KJV) include a footnote to that effect.

You probably are confusing the NKJV as a King James Bible edition. And even its note does not match your representation at all. Often the opponents of the verses are a smidgen factually weak in this manner.

There was a significant scholarship debate in NC on this topic about a year ago, so the fact of the scholarship debate is itself a fact.

Basically every Bible actually includes the ending of Mark, so the question could be put in reverse.

Every Bible printed today has the verses, even notes say little.
All churches accept the verses historically.
99% or more of Greek Manuscripts have the verses
..................... Latin Manuscripts (including Old Latin)
..................... Aramaic Manuscripts
..................... Other language manuscripts
Historic Reformation Bibles have the verses without contention
Consistent and strong early church writer usage of the verses.
The Bible does not make sense with the verses removed.
...... (the skeptic will view this as a major plus for removal)

Why is there an issue or debate ?

Textual scholarship is, as I pointed out above, imbued with presups. The question could be flipped around, how could many modern scholars take such a confused view of the text ? What does that say about the scholars ? (Surely skeptics always appeal to majority scholarship

).

Sidenote: the Ehrman view is not at all "generally accepted" - the list of scholars who accept the resurrection account of Mark as scripture is large. Do we have to start making lists to parse the Ehrman statement ?

Do any skeptic and agnostic scholars accept the ending ? Do any scholars who see much of the NT as full of redaction and pseudonymity accept the ending ? Probably very few, if any.

So if the bulk of "modern scholars" believe the New Testament is an unreliable document, then the same bulk of "modern scholars" will wedge against the resurrection account of Mark, as they wedge against 2 Peter simply being written by Peter and the Pastorals simply being written by Paul, even while seeing the first-person remarks in those books clear as day. You, and they, may want to remove those four books from the Bible, however the Christian believer would hand-copy the manuscripts if Ehrman and the ilkies dictated their removal and eliminated their printing. The actual believers in the Bible would trounce and reject the removal of the four books just as they have trounced any "scholar" trying to remove the resurrection account of Jesus given in the Gospel of Mark.

If you want this in a little syllogism-style.

Believing Christians (A) read and embrace and accept their Bible as the pure word of God
Another group (Z) or groups working together, disbelieves the Bible
(Z) develops strained textual theory to make the Bible confused, corrupt, errant, contradictory
(Z) develops new Bible theories about inerrancy to make this acceptable.
(Z) applies this textual theory to the Bible
(Z) thus creates the new resulting "Bible" (versions)
(A) rejects the new resulting Bible if it is taken to extremes (e.g. ending of Mark)
(A) rejects the theory, & reviews where they got suckered by the strained textual theory
Now if A was alert, they would note what was going on before the 'extremes'. And some, the textual remnant, have been alert. And their voice has become clearer and stronger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Is Ehrman simply wrong?

Yes, if you make "generally accepted" into something more than "intensely debated" and then count noses, to whatever purpose. Bart Ehrman is not known for accuracy in his representations, as has been pointed out on this forum. Check the Pericope Adultera thread, where we have a horrendous example of misstatements from a teaching that directly has Bart's name attached. James Snapp has gone through Bart Ehrman's short sections on the ending of Mark and shown that he was factually very tricky, in a way that is par for the course from many of those who oppose the resurrection account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

How can there be a debate about something that is generally accepted among the scholars who have studied the topic?

How many scholars have 'studied the topic' to anything like the extent of James Snapp ?

You could have a lot of fun just looking at the blunder after factual faux pas James exposes from the modern scholars who write on this topic. Their numbers are legion. In my studies, the scholars often simply parrot Bruce Metzger, who himself was often slow to credit his sources. That does not count as studying the topic.

Oh, there may be one edition without the ending, if Daniel Wallace has been successful in his quest of removing the ending, and if there is a printed NetBible edition out. Although he would probably include the resurrection account as a footnote. From my checking, I do not know of a single printed edition, from the 1500s on (that is, ever) that has actually removed the ending. And, a step further, I do not know a single edition that has even ended with verse 8 the body of text, putting the ending only into a footnote or the margin. The most anybody has tried, that I have heard of, is stuff like brackets or smaller print, so the reader can accept the verses as scripture. Tricky stuff.

Are many scholars who work on these critical text modern version editions being hypocritical ? From their own perspectives are they adding to the word of God despite the warnings within scripture ? All that is another discussion.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

JoeWallack · 08-16-2009, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

[COLOR="Navy"]Hi Folks,

JW:
Steven! (said with Jerry's tone of acknowledging the presence of Newman).

Quote:

"My opponent raised an objection about complexity, but he overlooked these complex aspects of his own favored theory."

On this I agree with Joe Wallack. While James Snapp generally does a superb job on evidentiary matters he weakens his exposition significantly by adding on a totally unnecessary and questionable level of complexity. And I complement JW for his astuteness in finding one weakness in the approach taken by James. (One that I have taken up with him from the other side.) Both sides have poor Occam twisting and squirming, if not actually entering one of those TV dance contests.

JW:
Hence my use of criteria, specifically Direct vs. Indirect. All other things being equal, the Direct (simple) is preferred. An undervalued/unused criteria by Christian Bible Scholarship (C-BS).

Mr. Snapp has the foresight of the Guild Navigator in Dune to foresee that the Internal evidence will make clear that the LE is not original to "Mark". Some/all may find it Ironic that he will than argue that it is original to "Mark":

Quote:

Finally, I offer a concrete example of the distinction between the production-stage and the transmission-stage of ancient literary works. It is important to establish this distinction, because I grant that Mark did not add Mark 16:9-20 to Mark 1:1-16:8, and some readers might be tempted to consider the issue settled right there, presuming that if Mark did not add the passage, it cannot be original. But consider the case of Jeremiah chapter 52. At the end of Jeremiah 51, we find the explicit declaration, “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.” But the book of Jeremiah does not end there. It continues with chapter 52:1-34. Jeremiah chapter 52 is clearly not from the hand of Jeremiah; it closely resembles Second Kings 24:18-25:30. Yet the discovery of the contents of Jeremiah 51:64 and the realization that chapter 52 was not added by Jeremiah himself have not provoked calls by scholars or theologians to bracket, excise, or ignore Jeremiah 52.

Once it is recognized that a co-author/redactor other than Jeremiah was involved in the production of the book of Jeremiah, authorship ceases to be a decisive measure of genuineness, and genuineness is defined instead by the contents of the text when it took a definitive form and began its transmission-history. If we wished to peer closely into the production-history and transmission-history of the book of Jeremiah, we could open up a can of worms, because the book is extant in divergent forms. But today’s illustration involves only chapter 52: chapter 52 is a genuine part of the book of Jeremiah, not because chapter 52 is regarded as something written by Jeremiah, but because chapter 52 was added during the production-stage of the text. Similarly, Mark 16:9-20 is a genuine part of the Gospel of Mark.

This defense takes more twists and turns than the Reverend Jim trying to drive Tommy Tune through the streets of San Francisco at 3:00 in the morning after eating a batch of brownies to try and catch a red-eye.

Quote:

From that perspective of considering the copying process I view any text with a mass of wide geographical and early writer and textual base as clearly original scripture, even if there is an element of exclusion in the evidence. This is quite easy to explain and understand, especially among those with a high view of the integrity of the Bible text.

JW:
All categories of External evidence, Manuscript, Patristic, Scribal and Authority, are going to be against LE on the quality criteria. You also have to consider the Internal evidence and how it coordinates with the External (which C-BS often fails to do). Choosing quantity over quality kind of says it all.

Quote:

In an earlier discussion I put in a post that had many of the specific quotations for reference.

Last 12 Verses of Mark - Early Church Writers
http://www.freeratio.org//showthread...02#post2426502

There is a longer version of this that divides the evidences into categories (that post being one of the five categories, in a sense the central one for consideration). I will plan on posting it either on a viewable page or here shortly, since it goes back a couple of years I expect a bit of updating first.

JW:
I have faith that Mr. Snapp is the foremost authority the world has ever known on Patristic support for the LE (even Wallace refers to him) so it is an...opportunity (not sure "honor" is the right word here) to debate him. The next stage of my debate response will be going on the offensive against supposed questionable early Patristic references to the LE (the heart of the LE argument). I will be introducing a concept heretofore as unfamiliar to Mr. Snapp/Farmer as the concept of the Law was to Professor Kingsfield's first year Law students, criteria, to weigh the evidential value of these supposed references.

Joseph

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

Steven Avery · 08-16-2009, 08:39 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Hence my use of criteria, specifically Direct vs. Indirect. All other things being equal, the Direct (simple) is preferred. An undervalued/unused criteria by Christian Bible Scholarship

All superfluous to what I was sharing, since there is an alternative that gives Occam full rest. The context was only the complexity of the ending of Mark writing and transmission theory, not values of relative criteria.

And I was just pointing out some of the places were James handicaps himself, since he approaches the topic with many of the false presuppositions that created this mess in the modern versions anyway. Within that artificial limitation, James is best by test on the 12 verses today, and without that limitation he would be right up there with the Dean.

You don't have to worry about the Jerry scowl. Your position on this is so weak (when it is decipherable) that the techie details matter little. This is not a 'close call', we are talking mountain to ant-hill in favor of the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus in Mark.

Granted though, the main issues are presup, presup, presup. If you are playing to those who disbelieve the Bible as pure, and use the skeptic and cornfusenik textcrit presups, you can put on a nice show for them. It may be Wallfield-ian (or Seinack) entertaining anyway.

=====================

Since my disguise as a mild-mannered reporter for a major metropolitan newspaper has been recognized, I will take this op to thank the new FRDB administration for making this the Year of Never !

Appreciated !

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-16-2009, 03:20 AM	#117
George S Contributor Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Austin Posts: 16,498	Perhaps Bart Ehrman (chair of the Dept. of Religious Studies at UNC and recognized expert at Biblical textual analysis) is wrong when he states in Jesus Interrupted, and Misquoting Jesus that it is generally accepted among textual analysts that the ending of Mark is an add-on. So much so that modern translations (and even some editions of the KJV) include a footnote to that effect. Is Ehrman simply wrong? How can there be a debate about something that is generally accepted among the scholars who have studied the topic?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.