Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 07-03-2010, 06:45 PM

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

Quote:

I must ask our readers’ pardon for the delay in moving along to the internal evidence. I will deal with my opponents’ baseless objections to the testimony of Tatian and Irenaeus swiftly. He began with five objections to the testimony of Tatian.

The first objection was that Tatian “would be the first clear reference to the LE. Subsequently, except possibly for Irenaeus there are than no clear references to the LE until Eusebius.” This is not true; my opponent – who didn’t hesitate to put the silence of Clement and Origen on the scales – is once again attempting to smuggle in a dismissal of Papias, Justin, and Epistula Apostolorum, and the second-century patristic evidence that pre-dates Eusebius (such as Tertullian in Scorpiace ch. 15, Hippolytus, De Rebaptismate, Vincentius, and Porphyry).

The second objection was that “extant copies” of the Diatessaron, and other references, “show exponentially more variation than the Gospels.” There are no extant copies of the Diatessaron in Greek or in Syriac, one of which is the original language of the Diatessaron. (Even top-level scholars disagree about which of the two it was.) A Greek fragment might be a scrap from a copy of the Diatessaron, but some specialists in Diatessaronic studies believe it to be something else. Also, the claim that we are dealing with “exponentially more variation” is not valid; the variations in the Diatessaronic evidence consist largely of conformations to variants in the Gospels-texts in the languages in which the Diatessaronic evidence exists.

The third objection was, “It’s commonly thought that Justin had a Synoptic harmony with no LE.” That is false, for two reasons: first, it is not common knowledge that Justin used a Synoptics-Harmony. Second, Justin’s Synoptics-Harmony blended together Mark 16:20 and Luke 24:52, indicating that it contained Mark 16:1-20, and Luke 24:1-53.

The fourth objection was that the Syrian bishop Theodoret (c. 458) branded the Diatessaron heretical for lacking canonical material, notably the genealogies, and that this “helped justify subsequent additions to the Diatessaron to conform to manuscripts of the time.” My opponent is partly right. When and where the Diatessaron was regarded as heretical, many copies of it were withdrawn and destroyed. But, just as some individuals saw value in compositions by alleged heretics, and cleverly preserved them by editing them, and/or by removing references to their author, the Diatessaron survived in the West – barely – by having its text conformed to Vulgate, in the Latin Codex Fuldensis (produced in the 540’s). For that reason, Codex Fuldensis, by itself, can be regarded as a clear witness to the Diatessaron’s wording only where Codex Fuldensis’ wording disagrees with the wording of the Vulgate. Similarly, the text of the Arabic Diatessaron was based on a Syriac copy (made in 873), the text of which had been extensively (but not entirely) conformed to the Peshitta, so the Arabic Diatessaron, by itself, can be regarded as a clear witness to the Diatessaron’s wording only where the Arabic Diatessaron’s wording disagrees with the Peshitta.

But the question at hand is not about wording as much as it is about form. When we compare the arrangement of the text of Mark 16:9-20 in Codex Fuldensis to the arrangement in its far-distant relative, the Arabic Diatessaron, the arrangements are essentially the same. Here are the details; in the following list, “ArDi” = Arabic Diatessaron” and “Fuld” = Codex Fuldensis.”

ArDi 53 has Mk. 16:9 after Jn. 20:2-17.
Fuld 174 has part of 16:9 between Jn. 20:2-10 and 20:11-17.

ArDi 53 uses Mk. 16:10 after Lk. 24:9.
Fuld 176 uses Mk. 16:10 after Lk. 24:9.

ArDi 53 uses Mk. 16:11 between Lk. 24:10 and Lk. 24:11.
Fuld 176 uses Mk. 16:11 between Lk. 24:9 and Lk. 24:11.

ArDi 53 uses Mk. 16:12 between Lk. 24:11 and Lk. 24:13.
Fuld 177 uses Mk. 16:12 between Lk. 24:11 and Lk. 24:13.

ArDi 53 uses Mk. 16:13b between Lk. 24:13b-35 and part of Lk. 24:36.
Fuld 178 uses Mk. 16:13b between Lk. 24:13-35 and part of Lk. 24:36.

ArDi 55 uses Mk. 16:14 between Mt. 28:17 and Mt. 28:18.
Fuld 182 uses Mk. 16:14 between Mt. 28:17 and Mt. 28:18.

ArDi 55 uses Mk. 16:15 between Mt. 28:18 (with a variant from the Peshitta) and Mt. 28:19.
Fuld 182 uses Mk. 16:15 between Mt. 28:18 and Mt. 28:19.

ArDi 55 uses Mk. 16:16-18 between Mt. 28:20 and Lk. 24:49.
Fuld 182 uses Mk. 16:16-18 between Mt. 28:20 and Lk. 24:49.

ArDi 55 blends “And our Lord Jesus,” from Mk. 16:19, with Lk. 24:50.
Fuld 182 does not.

ArDi 55 uses “and sat down at the right hand of God” between Lk. 24:51 and Lk. 24:52.
Fuld 182 uses “and sat down at the right hand of God” between Lk. 24:51 and Lk. 24:52.

ArDi 55 uses Mk. 16:20 between Lk. 24:53 and Jn. 21:25.
Fuld 182 uses Mk. 16:20 after Lk. 24:53 and ends there with “Amen.” (Jn. 21:25 appears in Codex Fuldensis at the end of 181.)

The arrangements are almost identical. They both picture Jesus and the disciples proceeding from Galilee directly to Bethany, before returning to Jerusalem. They both picture the scene in Mk. 16:14 as occurring in Galilee. They both place “for they were sad and weeping” at the same point. This shows that the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 in these witnesses was not the result of conformation to the Vulgate or to the Peshitta; both witnesses – one from the eastern church, and one from the West – share the same form and thus echo the original contents of the Diatessaron made by Tatian.

My opponent’s fifth objection was that “Supposed early references to the LE” in the Diatessaron, “such as in Ephrem, may just be much lesser additions put in by Tatian only to harmonize rather than incorporate all of the LE.” This is complete speculation. None of the Diatessaronic evidence supports the idea that Tatian had a habit of inserting new phrases to make the Diatessaron’s contents more harmonious. In addition, the phrase in Ephrem’s citation serves no harmonistic purpose. Plus, other patristic writers who appear to have used the Diatessaron cite so much material from Mark 16:9-20 that it would be simply ridiculous to regard it all as “lesser additions” that just happen to correspond to the contents of Mark 16:9-20.

Regarding what my opponent mentioned about the Pericope of the Adulteress, the Genealogies, and Luke’s Prologue: this is not pertinent to the question at hand. It just shows, as all Diatessaronic scholars affirm, that the reconstruction of the Diatessaron requires a careful comparison of sources.

We now turn directly to the evidence from Ephrem, one of several Eastern witnesses to the contents of the Diatessaron. In one of Ephrem’s many hymns, he combined Mk. 16:15a and Mt. 28:19b, giving the sense of “Go into all the world [from Mark] and baptize in the name of the Father, and Son, and Spirit [from Matthew].” But this may be based on Ephrem’s recollection of a copy of the separate Gospels. For evidence about the Diatessaron, we turn to Chester Beatty Syriac MS 509, which was produced c. 500; it contains most of Ephrem’s commentary on the Diatessaron. In VIII:1, we find Ephrem’s words: “After they had crucified him, he commanded his disciples, ‘Go out into the whole world and proclaim my Gospel to the whole of creation, and baptize all the Gentiles’” – a clear combination of Mark 16:15 and 28:19, as I have already noted.

My opponent, however, seems to think that this passage shouldn’t count because it does not appear near the end of Ephrem’s commentary! He also seems to object that this passage shouldn’t count because it is “a combination of post resurrection stories”! A combination, in the Diatessaron; imagine that?!

(I must decline to answer my opponent’s claim that Matthew 28:19's phrase “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is "probably a forgery/interpolation," so as not to diffuse this discussion. It has been refuted by other writers.)

My opponent’s remaining grounds for resisting this clear evidence is that almost all of the words “Go out into the whole world and proclaim my Gospel to the whole of creation” can be found elsewhere in the New Testament. However, Ephrem explicitly says that he is quoting words that were stated by Jesus to His disciples after His crucifixion. This eliminates all references except Mark 16:15.

Then my opponent says, “So for an offending verse that my opponent already confesses is a conflation, why not a conflation without the LE?”

(Conflation – the combination of material from two or more sources – is the defining characteristic of the Diatessaron. There is no “confession” involved here; it’s a plain observation.) “Why not a conflation without the LE”? Easy: because without material from Mk. 16:15, Ephrem’s statement in VIII:1 would look like this: “After they had crucified him, he commanded his disciples, ‘Go out and baptize all the Gentiles.”

Next, my opponent offered some general objections about the Diatessaron. First he noted that a majority of scholars believes that the Diatessaron was originally composed in Syriac, and proposed that “this reduces its weight as witness for an original Greek LE in “Mark”.” However, while the shift from Greek to Syriac can lessen the weight of witnesses regarding wording, that is not the case regarding the form of the text itself – that is, cases such as the one at hand, involving the inclusion or non-inclusion of a sizable portion of text.

Second, he proposed that the “Gospel of Thomas” may have been a source of the Diatessaron. This speculative allegation has not received wide acceptance, and at any rate, the Gospel of Thomas was not the source of any of the parts of the Diatessaron pertinent to the subject at hand. Whatever non-canonical material Tatian used, he didn’t use it much.

Third, he stated, “Per Dr. Richard Carrier, Ephrem references many non-canonical words and phrases in D. This is again evidence that the sources for D were not limited to the Canonical Gospels.” Frankly I have serious doubts about Richard Carrier’s competence to evaluate any text-critical evidence whatsoever. In the places where the Diatessaron contains anything not found in one or more of the canonical Gospels, the material is very brief (an extra word or phrase), never anything nearly as large as Mark 16:9-20.

Fourth, my opponent, relying on analysis by Leslie McFall, stated that the Diatessaron omits 56 verses of the canonical Gospels. (The genealogy in Mt. = 17 verses, Luke’s prologue = 4 verses, the genealogy in Lk. = 15 verses, and the Pericope of the Adulteress = 12 verses; McFall provided further analysis which accounts for the remaining eight small omissions.) That observation has no direct impact on the question at hand. However, it helpfully illustrates and supports a couple of points in my case: it shows that Tatian used exemplars of the Gospels that did not contain the Pericope of the Adulteress; they were very early copies. It also shows that the Diatessaron’s non-inclusion of two large passages that were regarded as an integral part of the text – namely, the genealogies – was noted by those who had seen copies of the Diatessaron. Yet the authors who mentioned the Diatessaron’s non-inclusion of the genealogies do not mention that the Diatessaron did not include Mark 16:9-20, even though Mark 16:9-20 was in the standard text which they themselves used. This implies that Mark 16:9-20 was incorporated in the copies of the Diatessaron which they had seen; otherwise they probably would have mentioned its absence.

Fifth, he seemed to say that even if the entire LE is original to the Diatessaron, “Tatian’s source may still have been his motivation to harmonize with the primary source being the post resurrection information of the Christian Bible and not the LE of “Mark”.” This is practically self-refuting, inasmuch as the Gospel-accounts are easier to harmonize without Mark 16:9-20 than when Mark 16:9-20 is included. My opponent is essentially suggesting that Tatian, in order to harmonize Matthew, Luke, and John, added material from some non-canonical source which added an extra layer of difficulty.

Thus, my opponent’s whole case against the testimony of Tatian’s Diatessaron is not a case at all; it is simply reluctance hiding behind a series of baseless speculations and irrelevancies.

We now turn to what my opponent stated about the testimony from Irenaeus.

(Continued in Part 2)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

JoeWallack · 07-03-2010, 06:47 PM

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

Quote:

(Continued from Part 1)

Regarding my opponent’s additional statements about Irenaeus, so much of them are simply repetitions of his earlier specious claims, which I already answered thoroughly, that I hesitate to exasperate our readers by addressing them again. Eight brief statements shall suffice:

(1) My opponent’s generalizations about interpolations in patristic writings have about as much force as the statement of a prosecutor who says to the jury, “The witness is not telling the truth, because the witness is a human, and humans sometimes lie.”

(2) My opponent’s claim that Irenaeus “averages an embarrassing error about every 3 paragraphs” is irrelevant, particularly as he depends, at this point, upon the extant text of Irenaeus’ Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching, which was preserved in a different venue than the ultra-literal Latin translation in which Against Heresies III:10 has been preserved.

(3) My opponent’s claims that “Even my opponent would concede that other than possibly Tatian, Irenaeus is the first clear reference,” and that “even my opponent would concede no clear reference until Eusebius” are both false. The evidence from Justin, and from other writers before Eusebius, while not as explicit as Irenaeus’ citation, is also clear.

(4) The observation that Jerome, Victor, and Severus utilized Eusebius’ comments is not any sort of evidence of the contents of Against Heresies. Eusebius discussed the evidence that was in his manuscripts; Irenaeus did not. One could just as easily propose that because these writers did not mention the Vulgate – which was much more widely distributed than “Against Heresies” – the Vulgate must not have originally contained Mark 16:9-20!

(5) The observation that Against Heresies III:10 exists only in Latin is true of almost all of the text of “Against Heresies” which did not happen to be quoted by Greek writers or be preserved in Syriac fragments. But, as I already explained, in Codex 1582, which is a replication of a copy from the late 400’s (with a text of Mark that is Caesarean), there is a margin-note beside the text of Mark 16:19 that says, “Irenaeus, who lived near the time of the apostles, cites this from Mark in the third book of his work Against Heresies.”

(6) The observation that Irenaeus does not explicitly quote from Mark 16:9-20 elsewhere does not turn his citation of Mk. 16:19 into an interpolation. Like most other patristic writers, when citing from the Gospels, Irenaeus tended to use Matthew, John, and Luke much more frequently than Mark.

(7) Regarding the placement of Irenaeus’ explicit citation of Mark 16:19, the citation is entirely appropriate to the context. No placement is safe from the assertion that the placement shows that the passage is an interpolation, when that is what the claim-maker wishes the passage to be.

(8) My opponent mentioned that in Against Heresies II:22, Irenaeus does not explicitly cite from Mark 16:9-20 “when it would have clearly supported a different argument,” but myriad are the cases where patristic writers discuss a subject without using passages which are very relevant, and which appear, to us, to be natural passages to use to support their statements. In addition, in II:22, Irenaeus was answering the charge that the miracles performed by Jesus and His disciples only seemed to have physical effects. Although, as Irenaeus mentioned, the Scriptures abundantly oppose such a claim, it could be refuted most efficiently not by simply quoting from the New Testament, but by describing the physical miracles still being performed by Christians. So that is the main ingredient of the answer that Irenaeus gave. It is a very real possibility, however, that he modeled his description of physical miracles being performed by Christians upon his recollection of Mark 16:17-20, especially where he refers to driving out demons and healing the sick by laying hands upon them.

The flimsy beams and boards of my opponent’s ramshackle case against the integrity of the testimony of Tatian and Irenaeus have now been broken into pieces and are altogether swept away. Although I could collect a few splintered remains and feed them to the wood-chipper of further analysis, I don’t think our readers will feel robbed as we now proceed to the internal evidence.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

JoeWallack · 07-04-2010, 02:55 PM

JW:
Authority

We turn now to the final category of External evidence which is Authority. When I say “Authority” I mean modern authority such as professional Bible scholars. I have divided Authority into the following sub-categories:

1) Critical apparatus

2) Leading textual critics

3) Professional consensus

Critical apparatus
1) Per Wikipedia

Novum_Testamentum_Graece Nestle-Aland is “used as the basis of most contemporary New Testament translations, as well as being the standard for academic work in New Testament studies." Per Nestle-Aland the LE is not original.

2) I have faith that the other major critical apparatus likewise say the LE is not original.

Leading textual critics
1) Bruce Metzger is generally considered the leading textual critic of all time and he thought the LE was not original.

2) Bart Ehrman, Bruce Metzger’s protégé, while not having the consensus of Metzger, is likely considered the current leading textual critic and also thinks the LE is not original.

3) I likewise have faith that while after Ehrman, there are no clear leading textual critics, the majority of recognized textual critics think the LE is not original.

Professional consensus
1) Per Wikipedia

Gospel_of_Mark#Ending there is a consensus that the LE is not original “Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was a later addition to the gospel.”

2) My opponent will readily confess to us that there is such a consensus.

Since every reasonable sub-category of Authority is against LE it’s clear that Authority is against LE and my opponent will readily confess to this. My opponent and I would agree that Authority is the weakest category of evidence. Now to convert Authority into criterion. Some related observations by criteria:

1) Credibility - Generally Authority is much more credible than any other Category here as we know exponentially more about the qualifications of Authority.

2) Applicability – Applicability is also much higher for authority as we know the issue and rules for deciding the issue are the same as this debate’s.

3) Age – The great weakness of Authority. The nature of evidence is that it gets weaker with age.

4) Confirmation – A strength of Authority as there is a clear consensus.

5) Direction – Clearly a change from LE

6) Consistency – Agrees with every other category against LE.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 07-10-2010, 07:24 PM

JW:
We will now weight the evidence for the External Category, which consists of the sub-categories of Patristic, Manuscript, Scribal and Authority. We have already seen that all of these Categories individually are against LE so the Conclusion here will be no surprise. Regarding the importance of the following formal methodology for determining a conclusion, every article I saw in the research of this debate, for or against, would have been summarily rejected by any peer reviewed publication in any other major profession due to lack of organization, including lack of a formal methodology. The attempt at a methodology here is intended to move the profession of religion towards standards employed by other professions.

For purposes of comparing evidence for and against LE the weighting will be as follows:

High advantage = 3

Medium advantage = 2

Low advantage = 1

Criteria ranked in order of relative weight to each other:

Qualitative:

1 - Credibility of source.

Patristic
The 3 outstanding scholars and textual critics of the early Church, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome, all witness against LE. Compare to the sole star witness for LE, Irenaeus, who's scholarship in general is exponentially worse and lacks the evidence of those against here, that he even was any type of textual critic. 3 against.

Manuscript
N/A

Scribal
We've seen that the Scribal evidence is relatively light compared to the other categories. Scribes would have more credibility in general than Patristic or Manuscript as they are not limited to what their specific text says. They are specifically reacting to what the text says, presumably based on what the evidence says. 2 against.

Authority
The leading modern authority is against and it is generally accepted that modern authority is more credible than ancient authority. 3 against.

Credibility of source than is 3 against.

2- Common sense.

Was it more likely that LE would be added or deleted:

Patristic
What would a Patristic prefer if there was evidence for both? Clearly the LE. 3 against.

Manuscript
The LE always follows the SE. Evidence that the LE was recognized to be later. 1 against.

Scribal
N/A

Authority
N/A

Common sense is 2 against.

3 - Direction (of change).

Helps explain the relationship.

Patristic
Big advantage to against as there is a definite movement from against to for. We not only have the earliest Patristic evidence against LE but the Patristic evidence for LE gradually becomes stronger. 3 to against.

Manuscript
Big advantage to against as there is a definite movement from against to for in every significant language. 3 to against.

Scribal
N/A

Authority
Clearly a change from for to against. 3 against.

Direction of change is 3 against.

4 - Applicability (general vs. specific).

Does the source refer to the issue or just a reference to a text?

Patristic
Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus all identify the issue and are against. Victor is the only one for who identifies the issue. Note especially that Eusebius is the first to identify the issue and the lone father for here, Victor, is contradicted by near contemporary Severus. 3 against.

Manuscript
N/A

Scribal
The Scribal comments, which tend to be against are based on the Scribes general knowledge. 3 against.

Authority
Authority is looking at this from a general viewpoint. 3 against.

Applicability is 3 against.

5 – Age.

Patristic
The oldest Patristic evidence is “Matthew”, Gospel of Peter, “Luke”, “John”, The Epistula Apostolorum and Justin which are all against. Irenaeus, is the oldest evidence for. I no longer think Tatian is evidence for. 2 against.

Manuscript
The oldest Manuscript evidence against is Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sinaitic Syriac and Bobbiensis which are 4th century. The oldest evidence for is Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and Codex Bezae which are 5th century. 2 against.

Scribal
Relatively late. 1 against.

Authority
N/A

Age is 2 against.

6 - Confirmation – width. The context is geographical.

Patristic
Advantage to for as there is a concentration of against in the East., specifically Alexandria and Ceasarea. 2 to for.

Manuscript
Big advantage to for as there is a concentration of against in the East combined with relatively few manuscripts in total. 3 to for.

Scribal
Relatively few with many of these Armenian. 1 to against.

Authority
Every branch of authority is against. 3 against.

Confirmation - width is 1 to for.

7 - External force.

Patristic
Big edge to against as all Patristic believe in a resurrection sighting creating an expectation of one in related narrative. 3 against.

Manuscript
N/A

Scribal
For same reason as Patristic, 3 against.

Authority
For same reason as Patristic, 3 against.

External force is 3 against.

8 – Consistency. Does the evidence for the category coordinate with the evidence for other categories?

The evidence for all four sub-categories here is against. 3 to against.

Quantitative:

1 - Confirmation – quantity.

Patristic
Advantage to for as it has a few more supporters. 1 to for.

Manuscript
Huge advantage to for based on numbers. 3 to for.

Scribal
Almost all are against. 3 to against.

Authority
Consensus against. 3 to against.

Confirmation - quantity, how to weigh, 3s for and against? Giving Patristic and Manuscript more weight here, 1 to for.

2 – Variation. What is the quantity of variation in the category?

Patristic
Advantage to against as the Patristic is unanimous that without any resurrection sighting the ending is always 16:8. With a resurrection sighting it is usually LE but not always and there are several alternatives. 2 to against.

Manuscript
Big advantage to against as the ending of "Mark" after 16:8 probably has more variation than any other section of the Christian Bible. 3 to against.

Scribal
N/A

Authority
N/A

Variation is 2 to against

3 – Directness.

Patristic
Against has clarity of often being described with the specific words that end 16:8. For has more uncertainty because a partial/limited referral to has doubt as to the total. 2 against.

Manuscript
N/A

Scribal
Same as Patristic. 2 against.

Authority
N/A

Directness is 1 against.

Summary of Patristic evidence separated by Qualitative and Quantitative and in order of weight:

Qualitative:

1 - Credibility of source. Against = 3

2- Common sense. Against = 2

3 - Direction (of change). Against = 3

4 - Applicability. Against = 3

5 - Age. Against = 2

6 - Confirmation – width. For = 1

7 - External force. Against = 3

8 – Consistency. Against = 3.

Quantitative:

1 - Confirmation – quantity. For = 1

2 – Variation. Against = 2

3 – Directness. Against = 1

Totals:

Against 3 = 5 criterion

Against 2 = 3 criterion

For 1 = 3 criterion

Conclusion = The Patristic category of evidence is strongly against LE due to:

1 - 8 of 11 criteria favoring Against.

2 - 5 of these 9 criteria being 3

3 - 3 of the top 4 qualitative criteria all being 3 Against.

Note that at this point in the debate my opponent still has no formal methodology to support his conclusion. Therefore, his conclusion has no significant weight. In contrast I have provided my methodology above which my opponent is welcome to critique.

One advantage of a formal methodology is that conclusions can be measured relative to each other based on differences in accepted evidence. Even though I think that Irenaeus did not refer to LE, I think the extant evidence supports that he did. For someone though who did not accept Irenaeus as evidence for LE, or especially reduced its weight because of doubt, the overall conclusion based on my methodology would not change much. Similarly, I am now convinced by the extant evidence that Tatian did not refer to the LE, but even if I accepted him as evidence for LE it probably would not change the weight of my overall conclusion at all.

Unlike the supposed resurrection of Jesus I think it entirely possible that my opponent could raise a formal and professional methodology and based on accepting evidence much different than I did, support a radically different conclusion from me. But I need to see it first in order to properly critique it.

Alas, I fear there is no such hope for my opponent regarding the category of Internal evidence which we shall look at next as the careful and careless reader will note that here my opponent will be totally defensive.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 07-31-2010, 03:09 PM

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

Quote:

As this part of the debate concludes, my opponent’s comments about "Authority" may be briefly reviewed.

The errors and ambiguities in the UBS apparatus for Mark 16:9-20 have rendered it a shape-shifting chimera. From the 2nd edition to the 4th, readers can observe over a dozen changes. The apparatus in the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland NTG has fewer errors but it also has less detail. Neither apparatus provides an adequately detailed display of the pertinent evidence. (For instance, Vaticanus' blank space and Sinaiticus' replacement-pages are not mentioned or acknowledged in any way. Nor are Augustine's Greek copies.)

Bruce Metzger was a very good textual critic. But his comments about Mark 16:9-20 are ambiguous and misleading at some points. When Metzger wrote the first edition of Text of the New Testament, he relied heavily upon Hort, and wrote some things about Mark 16:9-20 (and some other passages) which he later withdrew. Metzger also regarded Mark 16:9-20 as canonical Scripture.

Bart Ehrman hasn’t written any detailed analysis of Mark 16:9-20, being content to permit his readers to view the evidence from a convenient distance, so to speak. I think it is not unfair to describe Ehrman’s descriptions of the evidence as tricky. He has given no real indication that he has studied this variant-unit in-depth. After becoming co-author of the fourth edition of Metzger’s Text of the New Testament, Ehrman retained the false claim about Ethiopic MSS that was in earlier editions, even though Metzger had withdrawn the claim in 1980. That’s not a promising indication of the depth of Ehrman’s research about this particular passage.

Regarding the view of a “majority of recognized textual critics” and the scholarly consensus that Mark 16:9-20 is a scribal accretion: many of the scholars who have written commentaries or articles on this passage have made errors of various kinds: apparent lack of awareness of early patristic evidence, failure to perceive Jerome’s use of Ad Marinum, mischaracterization of the silence of Clement and Origen (if Clement is silent in his Adumbrationes on Jude 24 and if Origen is silent in Philocalia 5:5), careless citation-errors of all sorts, exaggerations, distortions, and robotic repetition of Metzger’s statements. In the course of my research I have collected such mistakes in the writings of over 70 authors. Nobody’s status as an “authority” – as a professor or textual critic or commentator – automatically ensures careful research, accurate claims, or correct conclusions.

My opponent has referred to me as “the foremost authority the world has ever known now on the argument for the originality of the LE” but that does not make my view true or false. If there were twelve legions of high-quality scholars who agreed with me, that would not make my view true or false. Nor does the fact that so many scholars have uncritically absorbed the statements about Mark 16:9-20 in Metzger’s Textual Commentary make his conclusions true or false. So let us move along from this rather superfluous category, to examine some of my opponent’s repeated claims.

My opponent claimed that “The 3 outstanding scholars and textual critics of the early Church, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome, all witness against LE.” With enemies like these, who needs friends? Except for a possible allusion to Mk. 16:20 in Philocalia 5:5, Origen does not use Mark 16:9-20, but he does not use 33 of the other 57 12-verse sections of Mark. Such a vast non-use of Mark has no meaningful implications about the content of Origen’s copies of Mark. Eusebius, although he rejected the passage because it was not in his most cherished copies, was content to explain to his contemporary Marinus how to harmonize, and thus retain, the passage. Jerome used Eusebius’ material in his letter to Hedibia, and instructed her to harmonize the passage likewise. Jerome also included Mark 16:9-20 in the Vulgate, and used 16:14 to locate the “Freer Logion” for the readers of his composition Against the Pelagians.

My opponent’s claim about Irenaeus’ scholarship has already been addressed; he is just repeating an already-refuted position.

Next, my opponent asked, “Was it more likely that LE would be added or deleted”? and this is a question which I shall engage later in the discussion of internal evidence.

My opponent’s claim that the SE’s position before 16:9-20 is “evidence that the LE was recognized to be later” has already been answered. Again, he is just repeating an already-refuted claim.

My opponent’s repeated claim that “there is a definite movement from against to for” is false, and I have already shown this to be the case. The favorable and widespread attestation for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 became more favorable and mor widespread. If the score of a football game is 21-3 at half-time, and the final score is 120-12, what happened? The team that was in the lead has remained in the lead. Likewise, there was no shift from "against" to "for."

My opponent’s claim that we “have the earliest Patristic evidence against LE” is false; there is no patristic evidence against Mark 16:9-20 until the 300’s. As my opponent himself said, “Eusebius is the first to identify the issue.”

My opponent’s claim that “Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus all identify the issue and are against” is mostly false; Jerome and Severus both used Ad Marinum, but both retained Mark 16:9-20 and independently used it elsewhere in their works.

My opponent’s statement, “I no longer think Tatian is evidence for” is interesting but it provides no real ground to stand upon against the force of the testimony of Codex Fuldensis, the Arabic Diatessaron, and Ephrem’s Commentary VIII:1.

And, I believe our readers will agree, I could continue down my opponent’s lists, pointing out its various errors and baseless bare denials. It may be good “methodology” to organize one’s claims in an outlined form, but what real good is that when so many of the claims are either false or inaccurate? And if one’s claims are true, do they become truer by being re-listed? This prolonged “methodology” is partly clutter, and partly an attempt to obscure and/or skew the evidence. False claims do not become true by being methodically enumerated. One might as well assign colors to the individual pieces of evidence, as assign them the “weight” that my opponent has bestowed upon them. Such “weighting” is an exercise in groundless assertion, not analysis. My opponent resorts to such lists because if he didn’t thus speak for the evidence, the evidence would be allowed to speak for itself.

Speaking of evidence, it is time to proceed to the Internal Evidence.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

JoeWallack · 08-07-2010, 01:52 PM

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

Quote:

Internal Evidence: The Elegant Solution (Part 1)

Hort, in his 1881 Notes on Select Readings, did not spend many words on the internal evidence pertaining to Mark 16:9-20: "We do not think it necessary to examine in detail the Intrinsic evidence supposed to be furnished by comparison of the vocabulary and style of vv. 9-20 with the unquestioned parts of the Gospel. Much of what has been urged on both sides is in our judgment trivial and intangible. There remain a certain number of differences which, taken cumulatively, produce an impression unfavourable to identity of authorship. Had these verses been found in all good documents, or been open to suspicion on no other internal evidence, the differences would reasonably have been neglected."

Hort’s successors, though, have tended to avoid proposing that these 12 verses are not original mainly because of their absence in the two fourth-century codices which Hort valued so highly. Some of them have, instead, proposed that the internal evidence, rather than the external evidence, is the most important part of the case. The often-parroted statements of Metzger’s are typical; he listed exactly two reasons, drawn from internal evidence, why verses 9-20 “must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary.” His first reason is that a high number of words in these verses are not used elsewhere by Mark. His second reason is that the connection between v. 8 and v. 9 is excessively awkward; the scene in v. 9 is disconnected from the preceding scene.

Readers may consult p. 125 of Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the details, but what I just wrote is a fitting summary of all the internal evidence that Metzger presents: (1) there is a high number of once-used words and (2) there is a non-transition from v. 8 to v. 9. Variations upon these two themes pervade the commentaries, sometimes going into detail so as to list the once-used words. Dr. Bruce Terry, in the online essay “The Style of the Longer Ending of Mark,” which our readers can easily consult, has helpfully taken the time to test and answer these claims based on “style and vocabulary.” Objection #1 is easily and efficiently answered by Dr. Terry’s observation that an even higher number of once-used words occurs in another 12-verse section of Mark: in 15:40-16:4, there are 20-22 once-used words (the exact number varies depending on textual variants); therefore the 17 once-used words in Mark 16:9-20 (some of which are common words, such as the Greek word for “eleven,” which would be in Mark’s vocabulary because it was in everyone’s vocabulary) do not necessarily indicate a non-Marcan origin.

Dr. Terry also answered the objection that two words – the Greek words for “immediately” and “again” – which frequently occur in Mark 1:1-16:8 do not occur in 16:9-20. He simply arranged the entire text in multiple 12-verse sets, so that 1:1-1:12 = set #1, 1:2-1:13 = set #2, and so forth, until 16:9-20 = set #650. (Only undisputed verses in 1:1-16:8 were used for this calculation.) He noticed that 373 12-verse sets do not contain “immediately,” and 399 sets do not contain “again,” and 229 sets do not contain “immediately” or “again.” So his conclusion is quite justified: “It is hardly an objection to say that the last twelve verses are in the same category with more than one-third of the sets of twelve consecutive verses in the rest of the book.”

However, I think my opponent will agree with me that Dr. Terry’s analysis does not fully account for the non-transition between 16:8 and 16:9. No other transition in the Gospel of Mark is quite like the jump from 16:8 to 16:9. It looks less like a continuation from the preceding scene and more like the beginning of a new, summarized narrative about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. I submit that it looks like this because that is what it is. To review the working hypothesis: Mark served as an assistant to Peter in the 50’s and 60’s, recording and compiling Peter’s remembrances about Jesus. In the mid-60’s, after Peter’s martyrdom, Mark endeavored to produce a definitive form of Peter’s remembrances. But as Mark was almost finished, he was forced to suddenly leave the city (and go to Alexandria, where he was later martyred), and his work was left in the hands of his colleagues. They realized that the text was unfinished, and were unwilling to distribute the book in its unfinished state, but at the same time they were uneager to add their own words to it, so they supplemented it by attaching another Marcan composition: a short report of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. In this thus-completed form the Gospel of Mark was first transmitted to the church, and in this form it remained, until, in one transmission-stream, the supplemental attachment was removed by someone who considered John 21 to be a better sequel to Mark 1:1-16:8.

So Metzger was partly right: the internal evidence shows that 16:9-20 was “secondary” – but this should be understood as a secondary stage of the text’s production, and not as if these 12 verses first appeared somewhere down the line in the transmission-stage as a scribal accretion. Metzger affirmed in an interview with Christian History magazine in 1994 (accessible online) that although he believes that Mark 16:9-20 was written by scribes, “Many translators, including myself, consider verses 9 through 20 to be a legitimate part of the New Testament.” And, “Though these verses were not written by Mark, I believe we have here a fifth evangelical witness to the resurrection of Jesus.” That’s very close to the view that I advocate. Metzger’s theory differs from my own in just one respect: he believed that 16:9-20 was written and attached by a scribe, whereas I believe it was written by Mark and attached by an editor when the text was still in production.

Several commentators, repeating sentiments expressed by Hort (and, later, by Streeter), have noticed that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear to have been written by an individual who was consciously attempting to supply an ending for the Gospel of Mark. A person attempting to finish the account would continue the scene from where it left off; there would be no thought of restating the time and day; Mary Magdalene’s companions would not be inexplicably absent; Mary Magdalene would not be re-introduced as the woman from whom Jesus cast out seven demons. A person composing a conclusion to Mark’s account would be strongly motivated to specify that the disciples went to Galilee, and to mention, if not narrate, that Peter was specially forgiven and restored by Jesus.

Also, an ending-composer in the 100’s would not create tension with his respected source-materials. Yet Mk. 16:10-11 – in which Mary Magdalene’s report about seeing the risen Jesus is not believed – appears to disagree with Mt. 28:7-10 and 28:11 – where the disciples obediently go to Galilee. Mark 16:12-14 – which states that Jesus appeared to two traveling disciples, and appeared to the main group of disciples later after they had disbelieved those two – appears to disagree with Lk. 24:33-39, where the two travelers describe their meeting with Jesus, and Jesus appears to the entire group before their report is finished. Although these discrepancies are resolvable, it is difficult to perceive why they would be created by an author who could have just as easily written a less problematic, easily harmonized account. Similarly, in 16:14 the disciples are rebuked by Jesus because of their unbelief; this is not an unusual thing in the Gospel of Mark, but it would be remarkable for a writer in the second century to picture all eleven disciples being rebuked for their lack of faith.

In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of commentators who have proposed that Mark 16:9-20 is an amalgamation of materials from the other Gospels and Acts – a “pastiche” of snippets. This theory was advocated by James Kelhoffer in his 1999 dissertation (which was published as “Miracle and Mission”); he proposed that Mark 16:9-20 was written by a scribe in the first half of the second century who had access to all four Gospels and Acts. Kelhoffer proposed that this scribe paged through his source-materials 63 times (more than once every three words, on average), selected favorite words and phrases, and pieced them together to form what we know as 16:9-20. That is, this scribe, consciously writing an ending for the Gospel of Mark, sometimes mimicked Mark, and sometimes Matthew, and sometimes Luke, and sometimes John. But this individual also managed to write that the disciples did not believe Mary Magdalene, and that the main group of disciples didn’t believe the two travelers, and that Jesus rebuked all eleven disciples because of their unbelief, and that Jesus predicted some unusual signs not mentioned in the parallel-passages. In other words, although he slavishly relied upon the canonical Gospels, he also created discrepancies against them, inserted lines with no canonical parallels, and despite reading in Matthew and in John that the disciples went to Galilee, he declined to mention that they left Jerusalem. A better name for the “pastiche” theory is the “insane scribe” theory.

There are other weaknesses in the “pastiche” theory, but I decline to address them until it is clear if my opponent intends to advocate that approach or not. In the meantime, we may consider the opinion of Hort: the contents of these verses "are not such as could have been invented by any scribe or editor of the Gospel in his desire to supply the observed defect by a substantial and dignified ending," and if they were not written by Mark as the ending of his account, and were not written by someone with the intent of providing an ending, then "a third alternative remains" – "that they were adopted by a scribe or editor from some other source." As Hort summed up his case, he noted that there is no difficulty in supposing two things:

(1) “the true continuation of vv. 1-8 either was very early lost by the detachment of a leaf or was never written down,” and
(2) “a scribe or editor, unwilling to change the words of the text before him or to add words of his own, was willing to furnish the Gospel with what seemed a worthy conclusion by incorporating with it unchanged a narrative of Christ’s appearances after the Resurrection which he found in some secondary record then surviving from a preceding generation. If these suppositions are made, the whole tenour of the evidence becomes clear and harmonious. Every other view is, we believe, untenable.”

If we distill Hort’s ideas so as to follow a single track instead of this-or-that, we obtain a simple picture of the production-history of this passage:
(1) Mark intended to continue to write more after vv. 1-8, but did not do so.
(2) A colleague of Mark, receiving the unfinished Gospel, furnished it with an already existing Marcan narrative of Christ’s appearances after the resurrection.

As Hort said, when these two mechanisms are in place, the character of the evidence becomes clear and harmonious. This scenario provides an explanation of the summarized style of Mark 16:9-20, of its apparent discrepancies with parallel-passages, and of its unique statements; it also explains why a copyist in the second century, inheriting a tradition about how the Gospel of Mark was initially finished and disseminated, could and would decide to excise it, judging it as a superfluous patch, in favor of John 21 as a better (and more easily harmonized) and more authoritative sequel to Mark’s unfinished account.

Now, although I have opined that the short composition about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances was Marcan, Marcan authorship of 16:9-20 is not essential to my case. It seems reasonable to reckon that a colleague of Mark who would decline to compose an ending would also decline to attach material altogether novel to the Roman church. It also seems reasonable to reckon that Marcan material would be an editor’s first choice to use as the material by which to finish Mark’s Gospel-account, even if it was not an exact fit. But, again, although these points are more reasonable than their alternatives, there is no way to prove that that a freestanding Marcan composition was available for the editor to attach. All that can be shown is that Mark 16:9-20 is not non-Markan. And all that needs to be shown, in order to maintain that Mark 16:9-20 is an original and canonical part of the Gospel of Mark, is that it was present in the autograph when the text was initially disseminated for church-use.

William Farmer, in his book The Last Twelve Verses of Mark(not to be confused with John Burgon’s similarly named 1871 book), presented plenty of evidence showing that Mark could be the author of Mark 16:9-20. All too often, those who reject the Marcan authorship of 16:9-20 have done so because they have worked from the premise that Mark wrote it as the ending of the Gospel of Mark, without even considering the possibility that it was, when first written, composed by Mark as a freestanding text. Metzger acknowledged that it is more likely that Mark 16:9-20 “was excerpted from another document” than that it was “composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap.” He speculated that this document dated “perhaps from the first half of the second century” but offered no reasons why it cannot be as early as the production-date of the Gospel of Mark.

Revisiting Metzger’s objections (on p. 125 of his Textual Commentary), we have already seen that his point about vocabulary was dissolved by Dr. Terry’s observations. His remaining objection centers on the awkward non-transition between 16:8 and 16:9, and thus does not really address the possibility that Mark wrote the contents of 16:9-20 as a freestanding text; they only address the question of whether or not Mark wrote 16:9-20 as a continuation of Mark 16:1-8.

Continued in Part 2.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

JoeWallack · 08-07-2010, 01:55 PM

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

Quote:

Internal Evidence - The Elegant Solution (Part 2)

(Continued from Part 1.)

In this short time we have already covered almost all of the internal evidence that commentators typically use in their arguments against the authenticity of Mk. 16:9-20. Two other points may be covered in a summary fashion:

(1) Forms of the word EKEINOS are used absolutely, that is, as pronouns, in verses 10, 11, 13, and 20. It is unique to have this occur so often in such closely related passages, so this poses a problem for those who claim that Mark wrote 16:9-20 as the ending to his Gospel. It does not post a problem for my view, though, since the same author who wrote Mark 12:4-5 (where the same word is used the same way, twice) would be capable of the same usage in a short summary of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.

(2) Jesus is referred to as “the Lord” by the narrator nowhere in 1:1-16:8, but He is called “the Lord” or “the Lord Jesus” in 16:19. This objection is extremely feathery from the start, since Jesus is identified as Lord in 1:3 (in a quotation from Isaiah), in 2:28 (where Jesus refers to Himself as “the Lord of the Sabbath”), in 7:28 (where the Syro-Phoenician woman addresses him), and in 12:36-37 (in a quotation from Psalm 110:1). It practically floats away when we simply ask if an author who declined to refer to Jesus as “the Lord” in one lengthy narrative could refer to Jesus as “the Lord” in another more summarized and more formally worded narrative.

In conclusion, the internal evidence indicates that Mark 16:9-20 was initially written as a short freestanding text. The internal evidence does not come remotely close to showing that Mark could not have written that freestanding text, and Farmer has shown that it has several qualities consistent with Marcan authorship. And the internal evidence is more consistent with the hypothesis that a short freestanding Marcan text about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances was attached to the rest of the book during the production-stage, than with any other hypothesis. Not only is this hypothesis consistent with the evidence, but compared to other attempts to explain all facets of the internal evidence, it is relatively simple; it is much more elegant, and it interlocks with the external evidence.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

JoeWallack · 08-08-2010, 01:09 PM

JW:
Regarding the Internal Evidence phase of the debate let’s go back to the original debate question. My opponent wrote:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...ll=1#post99698

Quote:

I am defending the view that Mark 16:9-20 was part of the Gospel of Mark when the Gospel of Mark was initially disseminated for church-use.

On the other hand, I am arguing that Mark 16:9-20 (LE) is not original to “Mark”. I have never seen or heard of anyone else using my opponent’s question as a substitute for the issue of what was the original ending of “Mark”. My opponent qualifies his question that he accepts that the LE was not an original part of “Mark”. Well in the words of my ancestor Joseph (Caiphais), “What more evidence do we need?”. As the question to the ending of “Mark” is presented everywhere except in my opponent’s mind, he confesses agreement at the beginning that my conclusion that the LE is not original is correct. I feel like the sex expert who is invited to give a talk on sex and goes to the microphone and says, “It gives me great pleasure.” And than sits down.

I gave Mr. Snapp Jr. the choice of going first on the Internal Evidence category and was surprised that he decided to go first since I foresaw that in this category he would be totally or almost totally on the defensive and therefore logically I should go first, on the offensive, and he would try to defend. Looking through his opening posts here it is difficult to find any positive argument that the Internal evidence favors the LE as original, either inside or outside of my opponent’s mind:

I find two such arguments, first, the specific one:

Quote:

(1) Forms of the word EKEINOS are used absolutely, that is, as pronouns, in verses 10, 11, 13, and 20. It is unique to have this occur so often in such closely related passages, so this poses a problem for those who claim that Mark wrote 16:9-20 as the ending to his Gospel. It does not post a problem for my view, though, since the same author who wrote Mark 12:4-5 (where the same word is used the same way, twice) would be capable of the same usage in a short summary of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.

And the offending verses:

Mark 16

16:10 ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλεν τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις πενθοῦσιν καὶ κλαίουσιν

She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

16:11 κἀκεῖνοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ζῇ καὶ ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἠπίστησαν

But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.

16:13 κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς λοιποῖς οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν

And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.

16:20 ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ τοῦ κυρίου συνεργοῦντος καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων Ἀμήν

And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.

12:4 καὶ πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἄλλον δοῦλον κἀκεῖνον λιθοβολήσαντες ἐκεφαλαίωσαν καὶ ἀπέστειλαν ἠτίμωμένον

Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully.

12:5 καὶ πάλιν ἄλλον ἀπέστειλεν κἀκεῖνον ἀπέκτειναν καὶ πολλοὺς ἄλλους τοὓς μὲν δέροντες τοὺς δὲ ἀποκτείνοντες

And he sent another, and him they killed; and so with many others, some they beat and some they killed.

My opponent cites the common problem noted with the LE, the use of ἐκεῖνοι (EKEINOS). In laymen’s terms words with a root of ἐκεῖνοι are used as a pronoun five times in the LE and twice in the rest of “Mark”. My opponent takes the two uses next to each other and outside of the LE as a parallel to the LE usage. What he fails to note though is that the usage is different in verse 12. In laymen’s terms the usage of verse 12 is in the context of a parable and the use refers to a predecessor noun:

“Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him”

“And he sent another, and him”

Dr. Carrier explains the difference in non-Laymen’s terms:

“(1.) In the LE (a mere 12 verses), the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos is used five times
as a simple substantive (“she,” “they,” “them”). But Mark never uses ekeinos that way
(not once in 666 verses), he always uses it adjectively, or with a definite article, or as a
simple demonstrative (altogether 22 times), always using autos as his simple substantive
pronoun instead (hundreds of times).[19]

[19] The kakeinon used twice in Mark 12:4-5 is still a demonstrative, i.e. it references preceding nouns in each case: “he sent another slave, and that one they bashed in the head...he sent another [slave], and that one they killed” (contrast Mark 14:2-3, where “he sent a servant...and him they beat up,” using auton instead of ekeinon). The author of the LE uses ekeinos (by itself) as a synonym of autos. Mark never does.”

My opponent’s second positive argument for the LE is a general one:

Quote:

Farmer has shown that it [LE] has several qualities consistent with Marcan authorship.

Mr. Snapp, you really need to explain to us what these are. Amazingly my opponent’s conclusion here is:

Quote:

And the internal evidence is more consistent with the hypothesis that a short freestanding Marcan text about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances was attached to the rest of the book during the production-stage, than with any other hypothesis. Not only is this hypothesis consistent with the evidence, but compared to other attempts to explain all facets of the internal evidence, it is relatively
simple; it is much more elegant, and it interlocks with the external evidence.

My opponent has not presented any Internal evidence, none what-so-ever, that the LE was a freestanding text attached during the “production stage”. His related argument is:

Quote:

To review the working hypothesis: Mark served as an assistant to Peter in the 50’s and 60’s, recording and compiling Peter’s remembrances about Jesus. In the mid-60’s, after Peter’s martyrdom, Mark endeavored to produce a definitive form of Peter’s remembrances. But as Mark was almost finished, he was forced to suddenly leave the city (and go to Alexandria, where he was later martyred), and his work was left in the hands of his colleagues. They realized that the text was unfinished, and were unwilling to distribute the book in its unfinished state, but at the same time they were uneager to add their own words to it, so they supplemented it by attaching another Marcan composition: a short report of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. In this thus-completed form the Gospel of Mark was first transmitted to the church, and in this form it remained, until, in one transmission-stream, the supplemental attachment was removed by someone who considered John 21 to be a better sequel to Mark 1:1-16:8.

All speculation. Speculation based on the External, and not the Internal. So this “argument” does not even belong in the Internal evidence category and the sole purpose for (mis)including it here looks like filling a vacuum. I already addressed this speculation in External portion of this debate and noted that in the presented Categories of evidence:

1) Patristic

2) Manuscript

3) Scribal

4) Authority

It has no evidence to support it. -0-.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 08-15-2010, 10:18 AM

JW:
In my previous post I noted that my opponent has not presented any positive Internal evidence that the LE is original to “Mark”. In order to demonstrate than for purposes of this debate that the Internal evidence is against the LE I only need to present more than no evidence. For now, I will only use as evidence against the LE, what my opponent identified in his last post to make a point of just how easy it is to show that the Internal evidence is against LE. Later on I will present the complete evidence so that this debate may be used as a reference guide for the issue. My opponent does not mention the best Internal evidence against LE, which most commentators do not mention also, that “Mark’s” major, if not primary theme, of Jesus’ Disciple ‘s failure, goes against the LE being original.

Looking to my opponent’s post than for evidence against LE he rightly divides three main categories:

1) Continuity
Mr. Snapp confesses to us that there is a lack of continuity between 16:8 and the LE. He than goes on to explain why:

Quote:

Several commentators, repeating sentiments expressed by Hort (and, later, by Streeter), have noticed that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear to have been written by an individual who was consciously attempting to supply an ending for the Gospel of Mark. A person attempting to finish the account would continue the scene from where it left off; there would be no thought of restating the time and day; Mary Magdalene’s companions would not be inexplicably absent; Mary Magdalene would not be re-introduced as the woman from whom Jesus cast out seven demons. A person composing a conclusion to Mark’s account would be strongly motivated to specify that the disciples went to Galilee, and to mention, if not narrate, that Peter was specially forgiven and restored by Jesus.

This is great. How often do you not only have your opponent agree with you but even write your argument for you.

2) Language

A) Vocabulary

My opponent observes a “high number of once-used words” in the LE. He defends by noting:

Quote:

an even higher number of once-used words occurs in another 12-verse section of Mark: in 15:40-16:4, there are 20-22 once-used words (the exact number varies depending on textual variants); therefore the 17 once-used words in Mark 16:9-20 (some of which are common words, such as the Greek word for “eleven,” which would be in Mark’s vocabulary because it was in everyone’s vocabulary) do not necessarily indicate a non-Marcan origin.

So per my opponent, the LE has the second largest one time use of words, for any 12 verse section in “Mark”. My opponent is correct that by itself it does not prove that the LE is not original, but it is evidence against LE. Dr. Carrier adds what my opponent left out:

Quote:

In all, of 163 words in the LE, around 20 are un-Markan, which by itself is not unusual. What is unusual is how common most of these words normally are, or how distinctive they are of later NT writers or narratives, hence the concentration of so many of these words in the LE is already suspicious. But more damning are all the ways words are used contrary to Markan style, using different words than Mark uses or using Markan words in a way Mark never does. We also find 9 whole expressions in the LE that are un-Markan, which in just 12 verses is something of a record.

My opponent also points out words peculiar to “Mark” and not the LE:

Quote:

Dr. Terry also answered the objection that two words – the Greek words for “immediately” and “again” – which frequently occur in Mark 1:1-16:8 do not occur in 16:9-20. He simply arranged the entire text in multiple 12-verse sets, so that 1:1-1:12 = set #1, 1:2-1:13 = set #2, and so forth, until 16:9-20 = set #650. (Only undisputed verses in 1:1-16:8 were used for this calculation.) He noticed that 373 12-verse sets do not contain “immediately,” and 399 sets do not contain “again,” and 229 sets do not contain “immediately” or “again.” So his conclusion is quite justified: “It is hardly an objection to say that the last twelve verses are in the same category with more than one-third of the sets of twelve consecutive verses in the rest of the book.

The Greek word for “immediately” communicates speed of action and the word for “again” indicates repetition. Neither speed of action or repetition can be found in the LE. How many other stories in “Mark” can you find with neither? Again, not proof that LE is not original, just evidence.

B) Grammar

Again my opponent writes an argument (an abbreviated one) for me:

Quote:

Forms of the word EKEINOS are used absolutely, that is, as pronouns, in verses 10, 11, 13, and 20. It is unique to have this occur so often in such closely related passages, so this poses a problem for those who claim that Mark wrote 16:9-20 as the ending to his Gospel. It does not post a problem for my view, though, since the same author who wrote Mark 12:4-5 (where the same word is used the same way, twice) would be capable of the same usage in a short summary of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.

I demonstrated in my previous post though that the second sentence is incorrect. Mark 12:4-5 uses the word differently.

C) Style

Yet again, I’ll just let my opponent speak:

Quote:

Jesus is referred to as “the Lord” by the narrator nowhere in 1:1-16:8, but He is called “the Lord” or “the Lord Jesus” in 16:19.

Thank you. Mr. Snapp adds:

Quote:

This objection is extremely feathery from the start, since Jesus is identified as Lord in 1:3 (in a quotation from Isaiah), in 2:28 (where Jesus refers to Himself as “the Lord of the Sabbath”), in 7:28 (where the Syro-Phoenician woman addresses him), and in 12:36-37 (in a quotation from Psalm 110:1). It practically floats away when we simply ask if an author who declined to refer to Jesus as “the Lord” in one lengthy narrative could refer to Jesus as “the Lord” in another more summarized and more formally worded narrative.

The point here is not if “Mark” uses “Lord” to refer to Jesus but how “Mark” uses “Lord” to refer to Jesus. In 16:19:

“So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.” (ASV)

“the Lord” Jesus is an editorial reference to Jesus within narrative. The same type reference is probably in 16:20:

“And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.” (ASV)

“Lord” here may refer to God but “Lord Jesus” and “God” were in the previous verse so “Lord” here probably refers to Jesus. Note that none of the uses of “Lord” referring to Jesus in the rest of “Mark” are editorial:

1:3 = quote from Isaiah

2:28 = Jesus’ words

7:28 = character’s words

12:36-37 = quote from Psalms

3) Parallels to other parts of the Christian Bible

My opponent notes that the LE has good parallels with other parts of the Christian Bible. Per Dr. Carrier these parallels are as follows:

16:9b Jesus appears (a) to Mary Magdalene (b) alone (c) on the first day of the

week (John 20:1, 14-18)

16:9c from whom he had cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2)

16:10a she goes to tell the men (Luke 24:9-10; John 20:18)

16:10b as they are mourning and weeping (John 16:20; Matthew 9:15)

16:11 the men refuse to believe her (Luke 24:11)

16:12 Jesus appears (a) in a different form (b) to two of them (c) on a road

(Luke 24:13–32)

16:13a those two return and tell the others (Luke 24:34-35)

16:13b who still don’t believe them (fr. John 20:24-25; Luke 24:36-41)

16:14a Jesus appears (a) to the Eleven (b) indoors (c) in a context of taking food

(Luke 24:33-43; and combining John 20:19-29 and 21:5-14)

16:14b and remarks on their unbelief (Luke 24:38-39; John 20:26-29)

16:15 delivers the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19; Acts 1:8; Mark 6:12;

with direct verbal similarities in Mark 14:9; Matthew 24:14, 26:13)

16:16 emphasizes salvation and judgment (Acts 2:38, 16:31-33; John 3:18-21)

16:16 and the necessity of baptism (Acts 2:38-43; Matthew 28:19; John 3:5)

16:17a their powers will be a sign (Acts 2:43, 4:30, 5:12, 14:13)

16:17a casting out demons in his name (Mark 6:7, 6:13, 9:38-40; Luke 9:1,

10:17; Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:18, 19:12-17; Matthew 7:22)

16:17b speaking with new tongues (Acts 2:4, 10:45-46, 19:6; 1 Cor. 14)

16:18a picking up serpents (Luke 10:19; Acts 28:2-6)

16:18c laying hands on the sick (Mark 5:23, 6:5; Luke 9:1-2; Acts 5:16, 6:6,

8:7, 9:17, 14:13, 19:11-12, 28:8; James 5:14-15)

16:19a Jesus ascends to heaven (Luke 24:51; John 20:17; Acts 1:2, 1:9-11)

16:19b sits down at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56, 5:31, 2:33; Rom. 8:34;

Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:1; Col. 3:1; Mark 12:35-37, 14:62)

16:20a the disciples go out and preach everywhere (Mark 6:12; Luke 9:6,

24:47; Acts 1:4, 1:8, 2ff.)

16:20b and Jesus confirms the word by the signs that followed (Acts 14:3; Heb.

2:2-4)

The bulk of “Mark” can be found in very similar stories in “Matthew” and “Luke”. In the LE though the parallels change by verse and within verse. Where the hell is Bruce Terry when you really need him to find for us another 12 verse section of “Mark” that switches parallels so much?

In summary, my opponent has not presented any positive Internal evidence that the LE is original, in any way, to “Mark”, and has himself presented more than enough Internal evidence against LE, to conclude that the LE is not original. I especially look forward to my opponent’s response here since these posts are only based on evidence that he brought into the discussion so in order to dispute them he will have to argue with himself.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 11-17-2010, 06:39 AM

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

Quote:

Internal Evidence - Racing Hypotheses (1 of 2)

My opponent’s statement near the end of his latest reply is worth repeating: when I stated that the internal evidence “does not come remotely close” to showing that Mark could not have written 16:9-20 as a freestanding text, he replied, “Hey, no argument there. Is it possible that ‘Mark’ wrote the LE? Of course. The proper question though is which conclusion does the evidence support?”

Obviously if the internal evidence does not come remotely close to showing that Mark could not have composed 16:9-20 as a freestanding text, then “the proper question” is answered: the evidence does not support the premise that Mark could not have written 16:9-20 as a freestanding text. This frank admission by my opponent cannot be lightly set aside. It completely undermines the objections he has attempted to draw from internal evidence.

My opponent has spent many words – somewhat more than the 3,000-word limit, complete with a coarse jest and profanity – targeting a hypothesis that is not the hypothesis that I am advocating: his objections hit hard against the idea that Mark wrote 16:9-20 as the ending to his account, writing 16:1-20 without any sort of interruption. But it should be very clear (since I have stated this again and again) that such is not my hypothesis.

He has also misrepresented my position, claiming that I accept “that the LE was not an original part of “Mark”.” On the contrary, I affirm that 16:9-20 was in the original text of Mark, using the ordinary definition of what constitutes the “original text” of any Biblical book: the state of the text when it was initially disseminated for church-use. This does not mean that John Mark necessarily wrote 16:9-20; a book may have one, two, or multiple authors, and a lengthy production-stage; none of that precludes the existence of an “original” form of the text, when creative production ceased and the transmission-stage began.

Now we turn to his specific arguments against the possibility of Marcan authorship of 16:9-20. I note, again, that Marcan authorship of 16:9-20 is not an integral part of my hypothesis; it is, however, a reasonable view in and of itself. My opponent, depending on Richard Carrier’s claims, first examined the use of EKEINOS in 16:10, 11, 13, and 20, after I had mentioned that this feature does not pose a problem for Marcan authorship, since Mark used this term the same way in 12:4-5.

He wrote: “In laymen’s terms the usage of chapter 12 is in the context of a parable and the use refers to a predecessor noun.” Yes, in 12:4-5 the term is used in a parable, but that is a non sequitur. As for noticing that it refers to a predecessor noun, well, look at how it is used in 16:9-20 the same way: the identification of Mary Magdalene precedes the use of EKEINH to refer to her; those who were with Jesus are mentioned prior to the use of KAKEINOI to refer to them; the two travelers are described previous to the use of KAKEINOI to refer to them; the others are mentioned before the use of EKEINOIS to refer to them. And the eleven are named in v. 14 prior to the use of EKEINOI in v. 20 to refer to them.

Dr. Carrier observed that “the KAKEINON used twice in Mark 12:4-5 is still a demonstrative, i.e., it references preceding nouns in each case.” Which is what we see in 16:9-20 also: every use of some form of EKEINOS is preceded by an identification. Apparently Carrier simply overlooked the text.

Moving along: when I mentioned that William Farmer has shown that 16:9-20 has several qualities consistent with Marcan authorship, my opponent invited me to explain what these are. Of course I recommend the reading of Farmer’s 1974 book “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark” to get the details. But to satisfy my opponent’s curiosity, here, summarized, are 24 features which Farmer identified as favorable to Marcan authorship:

(1) Mark characteristically uses LOGOS absolutely, and it is used that way in 16:9-20.
(2) Mark characteristically uses EUANGELION absolutely, and it is used that way in 16:9-20.
(3) AUTOS is “used in 16:9-20 with a frequency reasonably compatible with the rest of that Gospel.”
(4) It is consistent with Marcan style to not re-introduce Jesus’ name unnecessarily. (Notice that Jesus’ name is not provided anywhere in 16:9-20, unless we adopt the variant with “Lord Jesus” in 16:19. Would a patchwork-maker in the mid-100’s decline to identify Jesus explicitly in the opening scenes?)
(5) Mark uses forms of ANASTAS to refer to resurrection seven times.
(6) Mark favors the word PRWI (using it in 1:35, 11:20, 13:35, 15:1, and 16:2).
(7) Mark uses PARA with a genitive (as in 16:9) repeatedly.
(8) Mark uses EKBALLW to refer to exorcisms, as opposed to Luke’s EXELHLUTHEI; the more Marcan term in used in 16:9.
(9) APHNGEILEN is “in accord with Marcan usage,” being used in 5:14, 5:19, and 6:30.
(10) The phrase “TOIS MET’ AUTOU” is found in 1:36, 2:25, and 5:40. Matthew used it four times and Luke used it twice. Pound for pound, it is more natural to Mark than to the other NT writers.
(11) In 12:4-5 and in 16:11, KAKEINON is distinctly used “in a combination of the subordinate half of each sentence,” yielding the conclusion that “this is a syntactical peculiarity of Mark,” not found elsewhere in the New Testament.
(12) The use of ZAW in 16: 11 is “altogether commensurate” with the uses in 5:23 and 12:27.
(13) Mark’s emphasis on the unbelief of the apostles is displayed in 16:14.
(14) MORFH is a common word, unique to 16:9-20 merely because Mark did not have an occasion for using it in 1:1-16:8.
(15) The phrase POREUOMENOIS EIS AGRON has a stronger affinity to Mark 15:21 than to any other passage; this favors a linguistic kinship.
(16) APELTHONTES appears in 6:36-37 and 4:12; it is consistent with Marcan authorship.
(17) APANTA is used in 16:15 in a way typical of Mark.
(18) The call to “preach the gospel to all creation” is more consistent with Mark than with any other Evangelist. It does not seem dependent upon Luke 24:47.
(19) PARAKOLOUTHESEI occurs only in 16:17, but likewise it appears only once in Luke (Lk. 1:3).
(20) A later patchwork-maker would have no impetus to refer to “new” tongues, rather than simply to speaking in tongues.
(21) The construction in 16:18 with OU MH, resembling that in 13:2, 13:19, and 13:30, supports common authorship.
(22) The emphasis on the laying on of healing hands in 16:18 is a typical Marcan motif.
(23) ARRWSTOUS in 16:18 is a typically Marcan term; 6:5 indicates a connection.
(24) The use of EKEINOI DE in 16:20 is matched in 12:7, but not by the parallels in Mt. and Lk.

Now, I do not set crucial weight upon those features, for two reasons: first, because it is not integral to my case that the author of Mark 1:1-16:8 is the same person who composed 16:9-20. And, second, because some objectors have a convenient answer to Farmer’s analysis: they assert that the author of 16:9-20 was consciously imitating Mark, and that is why there are these Marcan-looking features in 16:9-20! (My opponent apparently does not subscribe to such a view, but it is worth mentioning it nonetheless.) This sort of approach puts 16:9-20 in a no-win situation: if something looks non-Marcan, it must mean that Mark didn’t write the passage, but if something looks Marcan, that, too, is twisted and spun to mean that Mark didn’t write the passage. Such tactics demonstrate cleverness, but they don’t demonstrate the non-Marcanness of 16:9-20 – indeed, as my opponent affirms, they do not come remotely close to doing so.

(Continued in Part 2)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

07-04-2010, 02:55 PM	#243
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Authority JW: Authority We turn now to the final category of External evidence which is Authority. When I say “Authority” I mean modern authority such as professional Bible scholars. I have divided Authority into the following sub-categories: 1) Critical apparatus 2) Leading textual critics 3) Professional consensus Critical apparatus 1) Per Wikipedia Novum_Testamentum_Graece Nestle-Aland is “used as the basis of most contemporary New Testament translations, as well as being the standard for academic work in New Testament studies." Per Nestle-Aland the LE is not original. 2) I have faith that the other major critical apparatus likewise say the LE is not original. Leading textual critics 1) Bruce Metzger is generally considered the leading textual critic of all time and he thought the LE was not original. 2) Bart Ehrman, Bruce Metzger’s protégé, while not having the consensus of Metzger, is likely considered the current leading textual critic and also thinks the LE is not original. 3) I likewise have faith that while after Ehrman, there are no clear leading textual critics, the majority of recognized textual critics think the LE is not original. Professional consensus 1) Per Wikipedia Gospel_of_Mark#Ending there is a consensus that the LE is not original “Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was a later addition to the gospel.” 2) My opponent will readily confess to us that there is such a consensus. Since every reasonable sub-category of Authority is against LE it’s clear that Authority is against LE and my opponent will readily confess to this. My opponent and I would agree that Authority is the weakest category of evidence. Now to convert Authority into criterion. Some related observations by criteria: 1) Credibility - Generally Authority is much more credible than any other Category here as we know exponentially more about the qualifications of Authority. 2) Applicability – Applicability is also much higher for authority as we know the issue and rules for deciding the issue are the same as this debate’s. 3) Age – The great weakness of Authority. The nature of evidence is that it gets weaker with age. 4) Confirmation – A strength of Authority as there is a clear consensus. 5) Direction – Clearly a change from LE 6) Consistency – Agrees with every other category against LE. Joseph ErrancyWiki

07-10-2010, 07:24 PM	#244
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Weighting of Evidence for External Category JW: We will now weight the evidence for the External Category, which consists of the sub-categories of Patristic, Manuscript, Scribal and Authority. We have already seen that all of these Categories individually are against LE so the Conclusion here will be no surprise. Regarding the importance of the following formal methodology for determining a conclusion, every article I saw in the research of this debate, for or against, would have been summarily rejected by any peer reviewed publication in any other major profession due to lack of organization, including lack of a formal methodology. The attempt at a methodology here is intended to move the profession of religion towards standards employed by other professions. For purposes of comparing evidence for and against LE the weighting will be as follows: High advantage = 3 Medium advantage = 2 Low advantage = 1 Criteria ranked in order of relative weight to each other: Qualitative: 1 - Credibility of source. Patristic The 3 outstanding scholars and textual critics of the early Church, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome, all witness against LE. Compare to the sole star witness for LE, Irenaeus, who's scholarship in general is exponentially worse and lacks the evidence of those against here, that he even was any type of textual critic. 3 against. Manuscript N/A Scribal We've seen that the Scribal evidence is relatively light compared to the other categories. Scribes would have more credibility in general than Patristic or Manuscript as they are not limited to what their specific text says. They are specifically reacting to what the text says, presumably based on what the evidence says. 2 against. Authority The leading modern authority is against and it is generally accepted that modern authority is more credible than ancient authority. 3 against. Credibility of source than is 3 against. 2- Common sense. Was it more likely that LE would be added or deleted: Patristic What would a Patristic prefer if there was evidence for both? Clearly the LE. 3 against. Manuscript The LE always follows the SE. Evidence that the LE was recognized to be later. 1 against. Scribal N/A Authority N/A Common sense is 2 against. 3 - Direction (of change). Helps explain the relationship. Patristic Big advantage to against as there is a definite movement from against to for. We not only have the earliest Patristic evidence against LE but the Patristic evidence for LE gradually becomes stronger. 3 to against. Manuscript Big advantage to against as there is a definite movement from against to for in every significant language. 3 to against. Scribal N/A Authority Clearly a change from for to against. 3 against. Direction of change is 3 against. 4 - Applicability (general vs. specific). Does the source refer to the issue or just a reference to a text? Patristic Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus all identify the issue and are against. Victor is the only one for who identifies the issue. Note especially that Eusebius is the first to identify the issue and the lone father for here, Victor, is contradicted by near contemporary Severus. 3 against. Manuscript N/A Scribal The Scribal comments, which tend to be against are based on the Scribes general knowledge. 3 against. Authority Authority is looking at this from a general viewpoint. 3 against. Applicability is 3 against. 5 – Age. Patristic The oldest Patristic evidence is “Matthew”, Gospel of Peter, “Luke”, “John”, The Epistula Apostolorum and Justin which are all against. Irenaeus, is the oldest evidence for. I no longer think Tatian is evidence for. 2 against. Manuscript The oldest Manuscript evidence against is Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sinaitic Syriac and Bobbiensis which are 4th century. The oldest evidence for is Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and Codex Bezae which are 5th century. 2 against. Scribal Relatively late. 1 against. Authority N/A Age is 2 against. 6 - Confirmation – width. The context is geographical. Patristic Advantage to for as there is a concentration of against in the East., specifically Alexandria and Ceasarea. 2 to for. Manuscript Big advantage to for as there is a concentration of against in the East combined with relatively few manuscripts in total. 3 to for. Scribal Relatively few with many of these Armenian. 1 to against. Authority Every branch of authority is against. 3 against. Confirmation - width is 1 to for. 7 - External force. Patristic Big edge to against as all Patristic believe in a resurrection sighting creating an expectation of one in related narrative. 3 against. Manuscript N/A Scribal For same reason as Patristic, 3 against. Authority For same reason as Patristic, 3 against. External force is 3 against. 8 – Consistency. Does the evidence for the category coordinate with the evidence for other categories? The evidence for all four sub-categories here is against. 3 to against. Quantitative: 1 - Confirmation – quantity. Patristic Advantage to for as it has a few more supporters. 1 to for. Manuscript Huge advantage to for based on numbers. 3 to for. Scribal Almost all are against. 3 to against. Authority Consensus against. 3 to against. Confirmation - quantity, how to weigh, 3s for and against? Giving Patristic and Manuscript more weight here, 1 to for. 2 – Variation. What is the quantity of variation in the category? Patristic Advantage to against as the Patristic is unanimous that without any resurrection sighting the ending is always 16:8. With a resurrection sighting it is usually LE but not always and there are several alternatives. 2 to against. Manuscript Big advantage to against as the ending of "Mark" after 16:8 probably has more variation than any other section of the Christian Bible. 3 to against. Scribal N/A Authority N/A Variation is 2 to against 3 – Directness. Patristic Against has clarity of often being described with the specific words that end 16:8. For has more uncertainty because a partial/limited referral to has doubt as to the total. 2 against. Manuscript N/A Scribal Same as Patristic. 2 against. Authority N/A Directness is 1 against. Summary of Patristic evidence separated by Qualitative and Quantitative and in order of weight: Qualitative: 1 - Credibility of source. Against = 3 2- Common sense. Against = 2 3 - Direction (of change). Against = 3 4 - Applicability. Against = 3 5 - Age. Against = 2 6 - Confirmation – width. For = 1 7 - External force. Against = 3 8 – Consistency. Against = 3. Quantitative: 1 - Confirmation – quantity. For = 1 2 – Variation. Against = 2 3 – Directness. Against = 1 Totals: Against 3 = 5 criterion Against 2 = 3 criterion For 1 = 3 criterion Conclusion = The Patristic category of evidence is strongly against LE due to: 1 - 8 of 11 criteria favoring Against. 2 - 5 of these 9 criteria being 3 3 - 3 of the top 4 qualitative criteria all being 3 Against. Note that at this point in the debate my opponent still has no formal methodology to support his conclusion. Therefore, his conclusion has no significant weight. In contrast I have provided my methodology above which my opponent is welcome to critique. One advantage of a formal methodology is that conclusions can be measured relative to each other based on differences in accepted evidence. Even though I think that Irenaeus did not refer to LE, I think the extant evidence supports that he did. For someone though who did not accept Irenaeus as evidence for LE, or especially reduced its weight because of doubt, the overall conclusion based on my methodology would not change much. Similarly, I am now convinced by the extant evidence that Tatian did not refer to the LE, but even if I accepted him as evidence for LE it probably would not change the weight of my overall conclusion at all. Unlike the supposed resurrection of Jesus I think it entirely possible that my opponent could raise a formal and professional methodology and based on accepting evidence much different than I did, support a radically different conclusion from me. But I need to see it first in order to properly critique it. Alas, I fear there is no such hope for my opponent regarding the category of Internal evidence which we shall look at next as the careful and careless reader will note that here my opponent will be totally defensive. Joseph ErrancyWiki

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.