Originally Posted by Steven Avery

"Wallack" - Wallace can be an anglicization of the Litvak Wallack or Wallach.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

However you parse Joe's comments they are a puerile non-relationship of convenience. From a textual analysis standpoint they are puzzling at best, nonsensical more accurately. Why try to defend them when they are simply absurd ?

Look at the obscurity wording. (Honestly I would prefer a different term <Avery edit> every word is significant so no food or animals or monsters, lest we have similes that do not smile.)

How can you tie ("we can tie" !!) one early writer to a whole questionable/inferior manuscript tradition (?) based on what "tends to agree" and "would seem" to "may have been" ?

Even putting aside 3 centuries one way and then 3 centuries return and all sorts of language and text difficulties ? This is science ? This is sense ? Or is this humor. (Perhaps JW does have a future there, unlike the present writer.)

Why try to forward Irenaeus forward 300 years to then try to go backwards 300 years. Only because you don't want to acknowledge the obvious significance of Irenaeus as an early church writer and you are desperate for any obfuscation possible, hoping that a dumbed-down readership might let it go by. (Successful, up to a point.)

Why compare Irenaeus, a late 2rd century early church writer, with Codex Bezae, an oddball 5th or 6th century manuscript with 100+ corruptions that have absolutely nothing at all to do with Irenaeus. Zilch, nada. (Based on a relationship with missing, non-extant yet conjectured progenitors.) All that .. simply to try to taint Irenaeus with the multitude corruptions of Bezae, that do not exist in the Ireneaus writings. Amazing. This is the modern textual "science" of spin & company.

Even beyond all the logical absurdities in the JW exposition, the native language of Irenaeus was Greek, so his verse references would most reflect the Greek manuscripts of his day. Bezae was hundreds of years later, a totally corrupt Latin manuscript (Targum per Burgon) that had a back-translation to Greek included. This is not even worthy of the phrase "apples and oranges".

To try to connect Irenaeus to any tradition through Codex Bezae is totally absurd, and does in fact require misusing the JW time machine.

Sometimes nonsense is defended just by rote and rot, as part of a rah-rah approach. If anything, my earlier post was a bit soft when you look at the JW shenanigans on Irenaeus, so I decided to get to the nitty-gritty a bit clearer here. So -- how many posts are we going to waste now on this silly JW blunder ? With spin, any blunder is worthy of a good dozen.

=====

Oh, wait. Joe indicated he did a study that focused on 16 citations from Irenaeus. Maybe that will help. Oh, wait, JoeW gave us absolutely no details.

How many references did you look at ? How many are Bezae corruptions, Joe ? How many are scripture citations ? What are the references ?

Hmmmm....

======

There are a few manuscripts that you might want to actually give the description: "questionable/inferior manuscript tradition" due to corruptness everywhere, that have a direct say in the discussion of the resurrection account of Mark. Vaticanus and Sinaticus obviously, where blunders and corrections and errors abound (and even the blank space issue for the ending) .. also the Old Syriac. If you want to directly knock out some manuscripts down to minor consideration .. those are the ones. And yes... Codex Bezae (which afaik does have the Markan ending) should also be lopped off. The oddball endpieces of the manuscript lines, full of obvious errors created by blundering scribes, are worthless to any sensible and real textual analysis. (The Reformation textual giants understood this obvious truism.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Originally Posted by Toto

I'm still waiting to see a connection between this digression and the longer ending of Mark.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Toto - I agree that Joe's claim :

"We can tie Irenaeus to a questionable/inferior manuscript tradition."
(based on what "tends to agree" and "would seem" to "may have been" ?)

in actual fact is simply false, so it has no relationship to the longer ending, it is nonsensical, nothing has been tied. However Joe wrote that as an obvious attempt to reduce the value of the Irenaeus citation.

You seemed to agree as well when you wrote:

"No one else seems to think that Joe Wallace claimed anything more than that Irenaeus's readings "tend to agree with Codex Bezae."

Which would have been a nothing point, a throwaway line in the debate. However this thread shows that Amaleq and spin and perhaps others actually seem to think that the Irenaeus evidence is reduced by :

"We can tie Irenaeus to a questionable/inferior manuscript tradition."
(based on what "tends to agree" and "would seem" to "may have been" ?)

Jumps over hundreds of years and language to language.
The New Skeptic Logic.

Therefore this thread is exactly and only about the Mark debate claim of Joe Wallack.

Hope that helps you see the picture and relationship. The whole discussion may qualify for GIGO. A garbage claim results in a bunch of dubious ongoing posts. Note however that there were a couple of solid, informative posts showing the Bezae corruption and note also that there are two other points on Irenaeus that Joe will not address, under the sections.

JOE WALLACK STUDY OF IRENAEUS CITATIONS !
JOE WALLACK WANTS IRENAEUS TO GIVE A "DETERING ANALYSIS"

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

However this thread shows that Amaleq and spin and perhaps others actually seem to think that the Irenaeus evidence is reduced by :

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

So far neither Amaleq, Toto or spin have commented directly on the JW logic.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

No benefit from indulging a misguided tangent.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Ameleq says he will not touch this one, to say if this is logical or not.

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

We can tie Irenaeus to a questionable/inferior manuscript tradition. His quotes tend to agree with Codex Bezae.... Its type is Western which fits Irenaeus and its later known provenance is Lyons ... So it would seem that its ancestor may have been what Irenaeus used.