Freethought & Rationalism Archive

avi · 03-07-2010, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IIUC only a single manuscript, Codex Bobiensis, a pre-Vulgate Latin translation discussed later in the article, has the SE without the LE.

Thanks for the question, Andrew. If I have not confounded SE with OE, then Codex Sinaiticus also has the SE, without the LE.

avi

andrewcriddle · 03-07-2010, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IIUC only a single manuscript, Codex Bobiensis, a pre-Vulgate Latin translation discussed later in the article, has the SE without the LE.

Thanks for the question, Andrew. If I have not confounded SE with OE, then Codex Sinaiticus also has the SE, without the LE.

avi

I think you have confused SE with OE.

In Richard Carrier's essay SE = And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen. Codex Sinaiticus does not have this ending, it has what Richard Carrier calls the OE, ie Mark 16 ending with verse 8.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 03-07-2010, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

Some manuscripts contain only the SE (and one of them is among the oldest)

IIUC only a single manuscript, Codex Bobiensis, a pre-Vulgate Latin translation discussed later in the article, has the SE without the LE.

Andrew Criddle

Good one Andrew. Codex Bobiensis (k), is the only known manuscript that only has the SE (short ending). I previously wrote here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=102

Quote:

The next star witness against LE after

Codex Sinaiticus and

Codex Vaticanus is

Codex Bobbiensis

Quote:

Codex Bobiensis (k) is a fragmentary Latin manuscript of the bible. Specifically, it is an example of a Vetus Latina bible, which were used from the 2nd century until Jerome's Latin translation, the Vulgate, was written in the 5th century. The text contains parts of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 8:8-end) and Gospel of Matthew (Mt 1:1-15:36). The order of books was probably: John, Luke, Mark, and Matthew.[1]

It is from North Africa and is dated to the 4th or 5th century. Later it was brought to the monastery in Bobbio in northern Italy. Traditionally asserted to St. Columban, who died in the monastery he had founded there, in 615.[1] Today it is housed in the national library in Turin.

Researchers think, comparing the Codex Bobiensis with quotes from Cyprian’s publications from the 3rd century, that the Codex Bobienses is a page from the Bible Cyprian used while he was a bishop in Carthage.

From a paleographic study of the scripture, it is a copy of a papyrus script from the 2nd century. Codex Bobiensis is interesting, in that it is the only known scripture which has the addition of Mark 16:9's "short ending", but not the later, "long ending" through Mark 16:20.

The Latin text of the codex is a representative of the Western text-type in Afra recension.

JW:
Codex Bobienses has the following weighty attributes:

1) Age

It is one of the oldest extant Manuscripts, c. 400.

2) Connection to older textual evidence

It generally agrees to Early Patristic support (Cyprian).

The style of Bible, Vetus Latina, goes back to the 2nd century.

3) Variation in additions to AE

Codex Bobbiensis (itk) is also likely supported by ita, which is
considered the second best Itala witness. Part of the ending of "Mark" is
missing but an analysis of the related space indicates either the ending
was 16:8 or the SE. itk has the SE with no LE and ita either has the AE or
SE with no LE. The variation in additions after the AE (LE or SE) is
evidence that AE is original.

4) Western

Its provenance and text-type is Western adding scope to all of the
Eastern evidence against LE. It further solidifies Direction from AE to
LE as now there is East and West support for such change as well as Greek and Latin.

5) Authority

Generally considers Bobienses the most authoritative Latin manuscript of
Western text type and ita the second most authoritative.

JW:
k is quality evidence against LE. Note that extant AE (abrupt ending) goes back to 4th century, k is c. 400 and extant LE goes back to 5th century. This all coordinates with Jerome/Eusebius that AE is dominos in Greek to Jerome and LE is starting to be preferred in Jerome's time. Hence his use of it in the Vulgate.

Dr. Carrier's error here is likely from Metzger's:

Quote:

(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20.

JW:
Dr. Carrier probably just missed the qualification in the last sentence ("it" = Italian (Latin)). That's what drafts are for. We'll get it corrected.

Note especially here that k and possibly it-a combined with SE always being written before LE are evidence that not only is LE not original but that it was later than SE.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 03-08-2010, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

Some manuscripts contain only the SE (and one of them is among the oldest)

IIUC only a single manuscript, Codex Bobiensis, a pre-Vulgate Latin translation discussed later in the article, has the SE without the LE.

Good one Andrew. Codex Bobiensis (k), is the only known manuscript that only has the SE (short ending).

JW:
We both stand corrected. I still have not read the Carrier article in detail but I was looking for something else and found this footnote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

[4a] It’s often claimed only one ms. contains the SE alone (the Latin Codex Bobiensis, see section 2.2), but several Armenian mss. also contain the SE alone, according to Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (1977), p. 164.

That's why he gets the big bucks.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle · 03-08-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Good one Andrew. Codex Bobiensis (k), is the only known manuscript that only has the SE (short ending).

JW:
We both stand corrected. I still have not read the Carrier article in detail but I was looking for something else and found this footnote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

[4a] It’s often claimed only one ms. contains the SE alone (the Latin Codex Bobiensis, see section 2.2), but several Armenian mss. also contain the SE alone, according to Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (1977), p. 164.

That's why he gets the big bucks.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

The Metzger passage is online at Early Versions . I am not sure whether Metzger means that the Armenian manuscripts contain the short ending without the long ending or that they contain both the short and the long endings.

Andrew Criddle

storytime · 03-08-2010, 12:11 PM

Ok.. here's my question for Carrier and others. Why is the evidence for errancy not good enough as recorded by the church itself, namely the bishops, who could not decide and argued about the attributes[substance] to give the god-man Christ. Clearly the bishops were in charge of creating and writing the greatest lie ever told, and no one can conclude the whole thing was false from the get-go?

Of course there were contradictions, lost books, burned manuscripts; the "substance" of Christ never really attaining a satisfactory story to those whose desire was to have Him portrayed their own way.

We're talking about a myth, a story that cannot be true. Shouldn't we then be looking into the reasons of why this story was written, such as the political enviroment behind it?

Selsaral · 03-08-2010, 12:30 PM

If you're able to believe that an omnipotent God who wants to communicate with humans would choose out of the endless possible techniques arranging for ancient anonymous human authors to write a semi-mythical book thousands of years ago which needed endless translation and transformation through the ages, then it wouldn't be hard for you to believe that God didn't inspire Mark to write everything all at once. He could have easily divinely inspired endless edits.

The premise, that God would deliberately choose to communicate in the exact same way as Zeus and other myths (ancient anonymous texts), is absurd to begin with.

JoeWallack · 03-09-2010, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Good one Andrew. Codex Bobiensis (k), is the only known manuscript that only has the SE (short ending).

JW:
We both stand corrected. I still have not read the Carrier article in detail but I was looking for something else and found this footnote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

[4a] It’s often claimed only one ms. contains the SE alone (the Latin Codex Bobiensis, see section 2.2), but several Armenian mss. also contain the SE alone, according to Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (1977), p. 164.

That's why he gets the big bucks.
Joseph

ErrancyWiki

The Metzger passage is online at Early Versions . I am not sure whether Metzger means that the Armenian manuscripts contain the short ending without the long ending or that they contain both the short and the long endings.

Andrew Criddle

JW:
Metzger says here that the SE occurs in several Armenian texts including Etchmiadzin. Colwell wrote the definitive demonstration of the originality of the AE to the Armenian in 1937. The only Armenian text Colwell addresses in the study that has the SE is the famous Etchmiadzin. It's clear from Colwell that Etchmiadzin also has the LE:

Quote:

The location of Mark 16 9-20 here with the other
non-canonical pericopes testifies to the scribe's recognition of its
secondary character. In one codex it appears at the end of Luke
in a second hand, but the most interesting of these dislocations
occurs in Etchmiadzin 303, which has 16 9-20 at the end of Mark
and the short ending of Mark at the end of the Gospel of Luke
where it carries on the text of the last verse without a break.

Metzger's offending comment refers to the later study (1950) of Augustin Szekula The Short Ending of Mark in the Armenian Version. Good news and bad news on that. The good news is it's available online. The bad news is it's in Armenian. So apparently Szekula was aware of more Armenian
manuscripts than Colwell which included the SE but may in part or total, also include the LE. Again, Etchmiadzin not only only has the LE for the ending of "Mark", but has the SE at the end of "Luke". Every commentator I've seen (except Carrier) indicates that k is the only manuscript with only the SE.

Ehrman is the one here who would know for sure. I can only ask him one question per year though and I don't want to spend it on this (he passed on this assignment because he did not find it sufficiently interesting).

We just need to find someone here who knows Armenian to look at Szekula's book.
If only they had footnotes in Eusebius' time we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 03-11-2010, 10:08 AM

Gotta get down to it,
Christian soldiers are cutting us down,
Shoulda been done long ago.
What if you knew her (Constitution)
as she lay dead on the ground.
How can you run when you know?

JW:
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/artic...ation/19389649

Quote:

Last September, 58 of the nation's civil rights organizations asked Attorney General Eric Holder to rescind a 2008 legal memorandum that specifically permitted the relief group World Vision to maintain its "Christian only" hiring policy, a regimen that includes requiring employees to sign a statement of belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. This memo gave the group unfettered access last year to nearly $300 million of taxpayer money.

The best example of the harm of considering the Christian Bible authoritative remains the exception from criminal prosecution for not providing proper medical care to children because of religious beliefs.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Toto · 03-11-2010, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

...
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/artic...ation/19389649

...

I have copied this post to the church state separation forum. Please continue any relevant discussion there. (Note that World Vision does not seem to practice faith healing whatever their views on the alleged inerrancy of the Bible, and when their offices were attacked in Pakistan, they made a point of saying that the employees killed there were Muslim. Not sure what this has to do with forgery or fabrication in Mark.)

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

03-08-2010, 12:11 PM	#26
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	Ok.. here's my question for Carrier and others. Why is the evidence for errancy not good enough as recorded by the church itself, namely the bishops, who could not decide and argued about the attributes[substance] to give the god-man Christ. Clearly the bishops were in charge of creating and writing the greatest lie ever told, and no one can conclude the whole thing was false from the get-go? Of course there were contradictions, lost books, burned manuscripts; the "substance" of Christ never really attaining a satisfactory story to those whose desire was to have Him portrayed their own way. We're talking about a myth, a story that cannot be true. Shouldn't we then be looking into the reasons of why this story was written, such as the political enviroment behind it?

03-08-2010, 12:30 PM	#27
Selsaral Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan Posts: 3,095	If you're able to believe that an omnipotent God who wants to communicate with humans would choose out of the endless possible techniques arranging for ancient anonymous human authors to write a semi-mythical book thousands of years ago which needed endless translation and transformation through the ages, then it wouldn't be hard for you to believe that God didn't inspire Mark to write everything all at once. He could have easily divinely inspired endless edits. The premise, that God would deliberately choose to communicate in the exact same way as Zeus and other myths (ancient anonymous texts), is absurd to begin with.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.