spin

Your opinions are of no consequence. You have not done anything to support this vacuous claim, as is par for your course. You simply insult anyone who disagrees with your dogma.

You don't seem to even understand the notion of anachronism. But you are attacking Joe for what you think is the same thing that you in fact argue with your hordes of late manuscripts.

Insulting the mainstream with a hotchpotch of incoherent and contradictory uses of ancient sources in order to bolster documents that are fundamentally late and unrepresentative of early traditions doesn't aid your vain quest for acceptability. You need real, not butterfly, logic and significant, not cherry-picked, evidence. Your attitude doesn't have any impact if you are merely spouting incoherent rubbish like a crazed old Russian anarchist outside the castle gate.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
What I think about "Mark" in general is secondary regarding the question of whether the LE is original and here and with you is going to distract from the question.

I currently have two theories:

1) "Mark" is written primarily as entertainment c. 130. The irony in "Mark" that everyone, including Jesus, is subject to, supports "Mark" as entertainment as well as the sophisticated structure which relatively few authors would have been capable of at the time (probably Rome) and suggests an experienced playwright. The External evidence points to this time and it explains how subsequent authors that took "Mark" as historical had no access to historical witness (too late).

2) "Mark" is primarily theology written c. 90 by a Paulinist (when fake Paul is being manufactured) as Reaction to historical witness (Peter, James, El all). The discrediting of historical witness works better for the audience the closer it is to the historical witness. "Mark" is initially ignored by orthodox (historical) Christianity because it is seen as Gnostic. This coordinates with the orthodox identifying the first user of any Gospel as Marcion. Marcion was already using an edited version of "Mark" that exorcised the ties to the Jewish Bible before the orthodox retaliated with "Luke", an editing of Marcion's Gospel. This explains why the orthodox Gospels are so full of proof-texting from the Jewish Bible compared to "Mark". This is their reaction.

I currently favor 1). What I am sure about is that you and Vinnie have no idea who wrote "Mark". The idea that Peter was in any way behind a Gospel which represented his promotion of Jesus which explicitly shows him as a failure repeatedly in formulaic fashion and explicitly ends with no one, including Peter, even believing that Jesus was resurrected let alone that Peter ever promoted Jesus again, is ridiculous.

JW:
I already excerpted the relevant words for you which make clear that Snapp thinks Mark wrote LE but not as a part of the Gospel (this is what he has been reduced to).

JW:
No he does not. He confesses that the Internal evidence demonstrates that the LE is not original to "Mark".

JW:
As near as i can tell he is probably the foremost authority the world has ever known on this subject, early references. This is partly because his scholarship is good enough to recognize he has serious problems with the Manuscript evidence (unlike you).

He can find possible references but so far he has not been able to properly weigh them. I've introduced into the debate what appears to have heretofore been a foreign substance to him. Criteria to weigh these possible references. The lack of criteria allows him (in his mind) to dismiss evidence such as "Matthew"/"Luke"/"John" just because it is weak in some criteria and to keep some evidence such as "Justin" because it is strong mediocre in one category. Homily don't play that game. You have to use criteria to determine the relevant weight of all evidence.

JW:
Now you do (or at least should).

JW:
This doesn't mean much in the context of the debate. It explains why you are for LE but not whether LE is original. Snapp and I agree that Authority is the weakest category of evidence here. He has to because it goes against the LE. You don't seem to appreciate that it does you no good citing authority which agrees with you here because Authority as a category of evidence is against the LE (Ehrman, look out!).

JW:
It is truly amazing that in a Thread titled " The Original Ending of "Mark". Debate - James Snapp, Jr. verses Joseph Wallack" which refers to a debate titled "Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?" you have no idea what I'm debating with Snapp on.

You need to spend more time on the direct issues (evidence) and less on secondary issues.



Joseph

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

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Joe, "original" is not the debate. You and James Snapp both say it is not (James has it as a separate composition by Mark tacked on later, as we both know, so that is not really original, except in a very convoluted sense). Ototh, Maurice Robinson says it is, along with others. I strongly agree with Professor Robinson.

Thank you, Joe that is a start, although it does not indicate authorship, another critical issue. More importantly, it does not date the ending.

Most of our disagreement beyond that is textually paradigmic so I read a lot your post and (snipped) it, as not too relevant. Also I am self-suspending posting, and the paradigmic stuff would not go anywhere.

You gave a partial answer above. However, e.g. in your 130 AD Mark composition (by someone not Mark for a book that is not scripture that did not go to churches) when would you have the long ending added ? That is what I asked. Try to answer that, if nothing else. And for the 90 AD alternative, again not Mark.

I appreciate that you gave a partial reply here, you can also read me on the thread with James, where we probe some of those issues in a neat environment. And he does take some flak.

Bye for now. I'll check your answer and if looks like it could use a smidgen further, then I will respond. Otherwise I wish you well, and I appreciate that you showed the glaring hole in the theory of James Snapp (while I consider much of your other stuff mishegas, normal textcrit fare confusion magnifed through an oddball humor mirror).

Try to answer the one question above, when you date the long ending that is not by Mark as after the main body of the book that is not by Mark -- also the date of the two redacted verses that are not by the people who were also not Mark.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jakejonesiv

That is a good argument. I'll buy that.

Mark 14
²⁷ Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will have your faith shaken, for it is written: 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be dispersed.'
²⁸ N/A
²⁹ Peter said to him, "Even though all should have their faith shaken, mine will not be."

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Joe, please give a date for this redaction as well.

eg. In your first scenario .. are we talking say :

a) 130 AD - non-Mark written
b) 180 AD - 2 verses added in by new non-Mark redactors
c) 220 AD - last 12 verses added - 2nd group of non-Mark redactors

Or do you have b-c at the same time ? How many years did non-Mark circulate before non-Mark-resurrection-ending was added.

Were only those specific two verses added ? Did the 2 verses leave any trace in the manuscript lines like the afraid ending (AE) of non-Mark ? If not, Why not ?

Thanks for continuing to help with your textual theory.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Jerome, Letter 120: To Hedibia (2009)
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/je...ia_2_trans.htm

Although I have never had the honor of seeing your face, I know very well the reputation that you have gained in the world by your ardent faith. So, from far-off Gaul you have written to me, coming to seek me in my solitary repose in the wilderness near Bethlehem, so that I may respond to some little questions on Holy Scripture.

Shalom,
Steven

spin

Reading problem, Steven Avery, reading problem.

You merely want to cast aspersions on Jerome by claiming that he couldn't have known the gamut of Greek manuscripts because he'd never been spent time in Greece.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Lest any readers be spun.

The citation was Bruce Metzger

spin's "writing comprehension" problem came to the fore.

spin calls Greek manuscripts the "manuscripts of Greece" .. very strange. Mt. Athos manuscripts are examples of manuscripts of Greece.

The rest went from there.

The translation on the net above has the language-sensible. :

"almost all the Greek codices lacking it"

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

It's funny that Steven Avery who spent so much time treating Metzger like shite, insulting him, repudiating his work, is now pretending to be best buddies in order to impugn another source. Fickle are Steven Avery's allegiances. Sometimes he likes Jerome and at others he doesn't. Sometimes he likes Tertullian and sometimes he doesn't. We await the time when he takes the opportunity to use Hort to impugn someone else.




spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Lest any readers be spun.

I was thinking of putting "stopped clock" Metzger. Since I was surprised that he put such a fair evaluation of Jerome's comment.

Now it is standard fare in discussions to point out where even those whom are normally an adversary grudgingly agree, and Metzger is close to hallowed to many textcrits. The question really is .. was his remark sensible ?

As for Jerome and Tertullian they are both extremely significant. Some of my Bible buddies paint Jerome improperly, imho. On the Tanach (OT) he was critical to unraveling the Greek OT error in the church. He had lots of solid writing and work.

As for Hort, yeah, sometimes he has some good quotes, but I have not seen much about other writers. His silence to the Dean John Burgon demolishing of his system was probably his most telling 'words'.

Shalom,
Steven