Vorkosigan

Thanks!

manu dibango

Does anyone here have a reply to these acuusations towards Metzger?

On the balance can we consider Metzgers analysis to be objective?

manu dibango

When is this supposed to have happened?



If as you say textual evidence is split on whether this is pare of the original text, how did you decide that it is a later text as you state above?

Steven Avery

> Praxeas earlier -"Metzger does include .. Justin,Irenaeus and the Diatessoran, he omits other early evidences from Tertullian, Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitution and the 3rd century Council of Carthage, along with a number of other references either before or contemporaneus to the first manuscript evidences....Jerome not only quotes from the ending, he includes it in the Vulgate...

> Praxeas Which is why the dozen or so early church writer references that clearly use the ending of Mark as Scripture..."

Hi Amaleq, you will see eight above. all very significant, and six or seven quite early.

Add to that the following 4th century references.

Porphyry/Hierocles cited by Macarius Magnes when they claimed it was weak Christian teaching.
Aphraates A.D.
Rebaptism (Ursinis)
Ambrose

Gives you over a dozen before the Augustine sermon/lectionary references, and most of them clearly before any extant manuscripts that omit the section, such as Sinaiticus and the blank space in Vaticanus.

Hope that helps :-)

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

Steven Avery

Please.
So, if a narrator at the Yankee game tonight says.
The 25 are ready to play ball.
Oopps.. Mussina is ejected for trying to bean Gola Tola
The 24 will still strive to win without a relief picture.
You would accuse the narrator of forgery or something.

And of course you are starting with baggageful of your own presumptions, all in order to read out the ending of Mark.

Double-please. Maybe this was your real problem. Mark is abundantly clear that he was aware of the unique negative status of Judas.

paradidomi - (deliver, betray)

Mark 3:19
And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

Mark 14:10
And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.

Mark 14:43-44
And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.

It is this type of argumentation stuff that make me look at the textual criticism in general, and the skeptics/mythicists in particular, with a very curious eye about their ability to shake the cobwebs out...

Or the "right hand of God" argument, (where you use your own circularity .. well I'm not gonna accept one of the other passages, the 14:62 verse, as from Mark either.. sheesh... of course if you start from your presumptive base of fabrication and lying and forgery and plagiarism, you can "prove" anything else is wrong, including the ending of Mark... big deal)

Ergo.. It doesn't really pay to go in depth on more arcane styistic stuff. (I did that last on the Pastorals, and it all turned into nothing upon examination). Most everybody knows that those types of analysis can easily have multiple flaws and weaknesses, so that some over-arching conclusion based a lack of doublets in twelve verses would be the type of nonsensical argument that only a mythicist-type would trumpet.

Time is limited, and you can play that soft arguments stuff to a relatively naive and uncritical audience, the supposed skeptics. At this point, from your maneuverings on the "hard" arguments, the eleven and "right hand of God" .. I'll pass.

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

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

It is rather amazing the efforts folks will go to obfuscate the overwhelming external evidences for the ending of Mark, both the manuscripts, and the early citations.

> Praxeas "Overall, modern scientific textcrit labors under many paradigmic unbelieving delusions (Metzger himself is much like the infidels here in his view of NT authorship, as in 2 Peter) and that is why the skeptics like Joe refuse to battle the true inerrantists on their actual turf of defending an inspired and preserved Bible. ....... GIGO."

JW:
And the textual evidence that you cut-and-paste is also skewered to the max. I previously indicated a couple of the problems such as the Old Latin and the Vaticanus situation, and there is much more in the Jim Snapp site, and the Wilbur Pickering discussion below. The simple fact is this..

The ending of Mark is heavily preponderant in
a) diverse text-lines
b) diverse geographical locales
c) multiple languages Greek-Latin-Aramaic

Somehow the textcrits that you embrace (because you are refuse to deal with the true believers in the Bible) virtually ignore the basics.

Praxeus
"Which is why the dozen or so early church writer references that clearly use the ending of Mark as Scripture before any manuscripts whatosever are alone a virtual proof"

I see that you really didn't address the fact that we have a dozen early church writer usages of the ending of Mark. Not surprising.

Simply you point out that Eusebius and Jerome, and some later writers address the issue as a question, which is in fact discussed quite in depth by Jim Snapp, which you apparently did not read.

And even in your quote you don't even mention that Jerome included the ending in the Vulgate AND quoted from it as Scripture, leaving out the context.

http://www.esgm.org/ingles/appendf.h.htm
MARK 16:9-20 AND THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION Wilbur Pickering, PhD
"Jerome is cited as being against the passage because he put Marinus’ questions in a certain “Hebidia’s� mouth and used an abridgement of Eusebius’ answers in reply. However, Jerome’s own evaluation is clear from the fact that he included Mark 16:9-20 in his Latin Vulgate; he also quotes verses 9 and 14 in his writings."

You will see that Pickering points out a couple of additional Metzger misinformations. We get so used to his errors and bias that they become second nature.

Michael Marlowe summarizes the historical questionings from Scrivener
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
"The language of Eusebius has been minutely examined by Dean Burgon, who proves to demonstration that all the subsequent evidence which has been alleged against the passage, whether of Severus, or Hesychius, or any other writer down to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century, is a mere echo of the doubts and difficulties of Eusebius, if indeed he is not retailing to us at second-hand one of the fanciful Biblical speculations of Origen. Jerome's recklessness in statement as been already noticed (Vol. II. p. 269); besides that, he is a witness on the other side, both in his own quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate, for could he have inserted the verses there, if he had judged them to be spurious?"

The stylistic arguments are discussed in more depth by A. W. Wilson
http://www.nttext.com/variant.html

Oh, possibly to add to the dozen-plus list above, early writer citations,
Epiphanius, Marcus-Eremita, Severian, Nestorius ,Hilary of Poitiers (pre-360), Ephrem Syrus (370) Basil (pre-379), Epiphanius (400) John Chrysostom's Lectionary (pre-360). Didymus of Alexandria (390)

Apparently the number of citations is actually closer to two dozen. allowing to the time of Jerome and Augustine.

btw, If you want to go into this in more depth on Eusebius, may I suggest..
Kelhoffer's Article on Eusebius and the Ending of Mark
discussed and linked from Stephen Carlson's site
http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...ebius-and.html
or
http://www.degruyter.de/journals/znw...pdf/92_078.pdf

I could see someone like Joe weakly saying "well, I'm not sure its the proper ending". However, his chutzpah, his brazen assertion, (combined with apparent ignorance), missing the overwhelming positive evidence for the ending, appears now to be a willful ignorance, an ignorance he seeks so that Joe can make auxiliary attacks on believers in the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the New Testament that declares Him.

(Well, you see there is no ending, therefore A,B,C are wrong).
Same old tacky junque from Joe.

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

Vorkosigan

I'll be back to the argument later this week. Swamped again.

JoeWallack

Apologies And The Apologetic Apologists Who Tell Them. A Fair And Balanced Look At The Religious Right.



Praxeus
"I see that you really didn't address the fact that we have a dozen early church writer usages of the ending of Mark. Not surprising."


JW:
No, I just presented the evidence for a more important Category of Evidence First, Church Fathers who Identified the issue. I see you still haven't found the Church Father here in your favor. I understand. Typing in "Liars", "Jesus" and "Big" must have yielded a lot of hits.


Praxeus
"Which is why the dozen or so early church writer references that clearly use the ending of Mark as Scripture before any manuscripts whatosever are alone a virtual proof"


JW:
"Clearly" above could clearly only be used by someone not clearly familiar with the specific supposed early church writer references. Say someone who is clearly only looking for evidence to support their clear pre-existing conclusion and clearly largely copying from Liars For Jesus. You know anyone like that?

From Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 6.6:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ata-book6.html

(And what better source on Peter than Peter himself!)

"Accordingly, in the Preaching of Peter, the Lord says to the disciples after the resurrection, "I have chosen you twelve disciples, judging you worthy of me," whom the Lord wished to be apostles, having judged them faithful, sending them into the world to the men on the earth, that they may know that there is one God, showing clearly what would take place by the faith of Christ; that they who heard and believed should be saved; and that those who believed not, after having heard, should bear witness, not having the excuse to allege, We have not heard."


Clement's quote has some similarity to the following excerpt from one of the Long Endings:

16:5
"And he said to them: Go into all the cosmos and preach the gospel to every creature.
16:6
He who has believed and been baptized will be saved, but he who has not believed will be condemned."

We have the following reasons though to think that Clement was not quoting from the Long Ending of "Mark":

1) Clement explicitly refers to "The Preaching of Peter" as the Source.

2) The similar excerpts have different words and phrasing.

3) The similiar excerpts are one of the most important themes in Christianity and therefore would be found in many Sources.

4) Clement's quote has Jesus saying "I have chosen you twelve disciples". This version of the Long Ending has Jesus saying "afterward he appeared to the eleven as they reclined". Doh! So the major Church Father of his Early Time, Clement, gives us a Tradition that Jesus appeared to "The Twelve" and not The Eleven. Just like Vorkosigan said. Speaking of "Vorkosigan" I just remembered the name of that Church father you've been searching for, "Verbose of Hyppocritia". I find it especially Ironic that subsequent "Church Tradition" Sith Canned supposed ReLieable testimony it had from Peter (The Preaching of Peter) and replaced it with Not Peter testimony ("Mark") saying it was Peter testimony even though it says it was not Peter testimony. Question for Yuri:

How do you have a coherent, positive picture of Christian Martyrs without a coherent, positive picture of Disciples first?

Metzger simply assumes that Clement is evidence for 16:8 being Original:

http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/mar16v09.htm

"Clement of Alexandria [150-215 A.D.] and Origen [185-254 A.D.] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses;"


So Schmuelman! It would appear that one of the Twelve Early Church Fathers, Clement, has Betrayed your Confidence. You were wrong about Clement and you also didn't know that Omar was a Stoolie. I say your Judgment stinks and I wonder what other mistakes you've made regarding "clear" references from the edited, mistranslated writings of Liars For Jesus extant in Armenian and Latin?

Go ahead and Demonstrate Clear references for The Eleven. If you Dare.



Joseph

FEAST, n.
A festival. A religious celebration usually signalized by gluttony and drunkenness, frequently in honor of some holy Early Church Father person distinguished for abstemiousness. In the Roman Catholic Church feasts are "movable" and "immovable," but the celebrants are uniformly immovable until they are full. In their earliest development these entertainments took the form of feasts for the dead; such were held by the Greeks, under the name Nemeseia, by the Aztecs and Peruvians, as in modern times they are popular with the Chinese; though it is believed that the ancient dead, like the modern, were light eaters. Among the many feasts of the Romans was the Novemdiale, which was held, according to Livy, whenever stones fell from heaven.

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

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

Jayhawker Soule

:notworthy simply outstanding :notworthy

Amaleq13

Less invective, more focus on the substance. Leave any old baggage at the door, por favor. It does not enhance a rational argument only serves to distract from any points you hope to make.
-Amaleq13, BC&H moderator