Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 03-12-2011, 07:31 PM

Thanks for the heads-up, I ducked in time.

So, I'm an apologist, eh?

I know, you're upset that I pointed out that protagonists of tragedies always have a tragic flaw, and then prehaps ever so subtly suggested that your endless posts on Mark as a tragic play was the result of your own tragic flaw, hubris (pride)?

I call 'em as I see 'em. Hi ho!

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Dr. Richard Carrier's complete article has now been posted at ErrancyWiki

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

I have faith that it is immediately the best article ever written on the subject. This is because the consequences of the original ending at 16:8 and subsequent forgery/fabrication attempts are so devastating to the Assertians of Christians that no one other than Textual Critics and Apologists (DCH, look out!) have written significantly on the subject.

JoeWallack · 03-13-2011, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Thanks for the heads-up, I ducked in time.

JW:
Quack, quack. Awfluck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

So, I'm an apologist, eh?

JW:
Jesus, I hate forced seriousness. Normally in this situation I ignore but you have contributed some good research on these unholy Boards so, it is currently 1:04 PM on my time. On the other hand, I've never interacted with you in detail. For the record I've known JP Holding, I've worked with JP Holding and I've worked over JP Holding. Son of man, you are no JP Holding. As near as I can tell you are one of the most objective correspondents here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

I know, you're upset that I pointed out that protagonists of tragedies always have a tragic flaw,

JW:
Upset? Assuming that I was upset, maybe it's because you are wrong. The offending Greek word means "missing the Mark". Here is where Aristotle is prescriptive. The best Greek Tragedy has a protagonist with a tragic flaw. Aristotle explains though that it could just be bad/wrong choice. Bilezikian points out that by Roman times (you know, the time when "Mark" was written) Tragedy includes protagonists who simply have bad luck.

I continue to accept that the biggest difference "Mark" has with classical Greek Tragedy is that Jesus is presented as the ultimate positive role model which goes against failure being caused by the hero. See how easy that was? That's just one parallel though. Understand dear Reader? It also fits "Mark's" pervasive ironic theme. Jesus played his part perfectly but his Disciples' lack of faith was greater than his ability to give them faith (just like all the Prophets before him). Now that's tragedy.

I find it interesting here that the Hebrew word for "sin" also means "missing the Mark".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

and then prehaps ever so subtly suggested that your endless posts on Mark as a tragic play was the result of your own tragic flaw, hubris (pride)?

JW:
You missed an opportunity here. "endless posts on Mark's ending" would have been funny. Again, the purpose of this Thread is to inventory evidence that "Mark" is Greek Tragedy. No matter what the result, I could hardly conclude that "Mark" is Greek Tragedy without also considering evidence that "Mark" has elements of other genre. Than I would sound like Burridge.

Arguments that "Mark" is Bios have been done to death. Threads exploring "Mark's" parallels to Greek Tragedy are rarer than Gordon Gecko's interest in Annacott Steel. Think of this Thread like the rape of Mary by someone possessed of spirits. If it is inevitable than why not just sit back and enjoy it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

I call 'em as I see 'em. Hi ho!

JW:
Not that easy to be funny, is it.

If you proof-text that "Mark" can not be Greek Tragedy because the hero lacks a tragic flaw than you do sound like an Apologist/Burridge. I have faith that you can do better than that and consider to what extent "Mark" has elements of Greek Tragedy.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

DCHindley · 03-13-2011, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

So, I'm an apologist, eh?

JW:
Jesus, I hate forced seriousness. Normally in this situation I ignore but you have contributed some good research on these unholy Boards so, it is currently 1:04 PM on my time. On the other hand, I've never interacted with you in detail.

Whaaat? Don't care about apologetics and never have. Also don't care for those who practice it. You are mystifying me with your obtuseness.

Quote:

For the record I've known JP Holding, I've worked with JP Holding and I've worked over JP Holding. Son of man, you are no JP Holding. As near as I can tell you are one of the most objective correspondents here.

So, you're saying, you prepared his taxes once. Personal or 990?

DCH

JoeWallack · 05-13-2011, 09:16 AM

JW:
Dr. Carrier has now introduced the article:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

at his blog:

Mark 16:9-20

Now is the time to try and improve the article with constructive criticism. As always, I Am more interested in comments regarding specific evidence rather than general conclusions.

For starters, I think the star witness against LE is Eusebius. Here is Dr. Carrier's related excerpt:

Quote:

Eusebius

So that leaves us with the 4th century and later. The next relevant author is therefore Eusebius (c. 320 A.D.). In his Letter to Marinus (a.k.a. Ad Marinum) Eusebius specifically addresses the authenticity of the LE. He says "it is not current in all the copies," and in fact not only do "the accurate copies" end at verse 16:8, but "nearly all the copies" do, the LE only "being rarely found in some copies." Eusebius was a renowned publisher of Bibles and had charge of the most extensive Christian library then in the world. So the fact that he observed the LE to be rare, and not present at all in the most trusted manuscripts, proves that the later mss. tradition, in which most copies contain the LE, is a later medieval development. This supports the conclusion that the LE is not original to Mark, but was interpolated in only a few mss. sometime before the 4th century. The Eusebian Canons also exclude the LE, so Eusebius himself considered it non-canonical.70 Eusebius shows no knowledge at all of the SE.

Eusebius' testimony alone is clear and authoritative, at least establishing the existence of the LE as of c. 300 A.D. Had it originated any later, Eusebius would have been aware of its recent appearance, but he shows no certainty as to its origin, so it can't have been composed and inserted later than the 3rd century. Accordingly, I find none of the later patristic attestations of any relevance. They merely repeat what we already know from Eusebius. Some even appear to have been using Eusebius as their source on the matter.71 Kelhoffer even shows how a remark attributed (possibly pseudonymously) to the 6th century author Victor of Antioch deviously rewrites the same argument from Ad Marinum into an argument for exactly the opposite conclusion, thus betraying knowledge of the Ad Marinum in the very effort to gainsay it. This very same passage from (Ps.?-)Victor then confesses to having added the LE to manuscripts that lacked it! We can thus see how the LE came to proliferate in copies of Mark and the OE eclipsed.72

JW:
Eusebius is a star witness because:

1) He identifies the textual criticism issue.

2) He provides his evidence.

The related weakness in Dr. Carrier's article is that the discussion of Eusebius is relatively small compared to the article as a whole considering Eusebius' importance to the conclusion. Note for example how much more Dr. Carrier writes about Irenaeus in an attempt to eliminate/reduce his witness for LE.

I think the discussion of Eusebius needs to be expanded and specifically address two issues:

1) Intentional bias - Did Eusebius have a reason to overstate the evidence against? The context of the offending letter (Marinus) is that the LE creates a contradiction with "Matthew". Eusebius explains that if the LE is not original, there is no contradiction. Further, Eusebius may be overstating the evidence against to stay within the context of a private letter (providing a reason to avoid a contradiction) and not intend a public textual criticism position.

Related to this is Eusebius' credibility in general. Skeptics generally accept that Eusebius has a credibility problem, Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected so if you accept that Eusebius was truth-challenged at times, how much credibility can you give him here?

2) Unintentional bias - Was Eusebius qualified to make a textual criticism conclusion? Considering the general difficulty in travel at the time and specifically the East/West split, the question is what was the extent (geographical) of Eusebius' knowledge here? Our friend, Ben Smith, has laid out the related split between the East and West:

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html

Quote:

Table of witnesses for and against Mark 16.9-20.

The following table divides the external evidence in the broadest terms, east and west. For my purposes, the east includes Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia, and Greece. The west includes Italy, Gaul, Spain, and northern Africa.

A plus sign + marks each witness for the longer ending. A minus sign – marks each witness against the longer ending. I do not list those witnesses that in my opinion are of dubious merit in arguments either for or against the longer ending. A question mark follows each witness for whom certainty as to relevance is impossible.

...

The split between eastern and western witnesses is deep. There is no evidence that Mark 16.9-20 was ever missing in the west, and there is no evidence that Mark 16.9-20 was ever extant in the east until the fourth century, after which the longer ending took hold in all geographical and textual branches.

Furthermore, four of the earliest western witnesses (Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus) share a very specific geographical trait: They are all known to have walked the streets of Rome at some point or other. The only two eastern witnesses spanning the gap between the canonical gospels and the fourth century (Clement and Origen) also share a very specific geographical trait: They lived in Alexandria.

Was Eusebius qualified to make a textual criticism conclusion regarding the state of Western texts?

I think these two questions, possible Intentional and Unintentional bias on the part of Eusebius deserve some discussion before weight can properly be applied to Eusebius' testimony.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Horatio Parker · 05-13-2011, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Only the most convoluted and implausible system of excuses for God can escape this conclusion, and any faith that requires such a dubious monstrosity is surely proven bankrupt by that very fact.

Where's the rule that says God-inspired texts must be completed in one pass by one person? If the deity-inspired author bumps his nose with his pen hand while writing, is that a divine act? And why cannot revealed texts evolve? That would suggest that God is limited, since he could be fully contained in intelligibility.

So little evidence of any kind survives, unequivocal statements are impossible. Yes, the ending of Mark was most likely added. But this is not proven. In the end, we can only speak of arguments and likelihoods.

It suggests to me that atheists are just capable of projection as believers.

I would also be curious to know what "system of God", assuming one is necessary, would avoid all of this folderol?

JoeWallack · 06-18-2011, 03:07 PM

JW:
As I've mentioned in this Thread, Eusebius is a star witness against LE. I'm now going to build an inventory of Eusebius' (E) qualifications as a Textual Critic. From

Eusebius of Caesarea [Divisions mine]:

Textual Criticism Expertise

1)

Quote:

The library's biblical and theological contents were more impressive: Origen's Hexapla and Tetrapla, a copy of (it was claimed) the original Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, and many of Origen's own writings.[19

2)

Quote:

Marginal comments in extant manuscripts note that Pamphilus and his friends and pupils, including Eusebius, corrected and revised much of the biblical text in their library.[19

3)

Quote:

Pamphilus and Eusebius occupied themselves with the textual criticism of the Septuagint text of the Old Testament and especially of the New Testament. An edition of the Septuagint seems to have been already prepared by Origen, which, according to Jerome, was revised and circulated by Eusebius and Pamphilus.

Writings

1) Demonstrations of the Gospel

2) Preparations for the Gospel

3) On Discrepancies between the Gospels

4) Ecclesiastical History

5)Onomasticon

6)

Quote:

For an easier survey of the material of the four Evangelists, Eusebius divided his edition of the New Testament into paragraphs and provided it with a synoptical table so that it might be easier to find the pericopes that belong together. These canon tables or "Eusebian canons" remained in use throughout the Middle Ages, and illuminated manuscript versions are important for the study of early medieval art. Eusebius detailed in Epistula ad Carpianum how to use his canons.

Resources

1)

Quote:

Together with the books of his patron Ambrosius, Origen's library (including the original manuscripts of his works[12][notes 1]) formed the core of the collection that Pamphilus established.

2)

Quote:

Pamphilus also managed a school that was similar to (or perhaps a re-establishment of[15]) that of Origen.[16] Pamphilus was compared to Demetrius of Phalerum and Pisistratus, for he had gathered Bibles "from all parts of the world".[17]

3)

Quote:

Soon after joining Pamphilus' school, Eusebius started helping his master expand the library's collections and broaden access to its resources.

Predecessors

1)

Quote:

Through the activities of the theologian Origen (185/6–254)

2)

Quote:

and the school of his follower Pamphilus (later 3rd century – 309), Caesarea became a center of Christian learning

International Reputation

1)

Quote:

played a prominent role at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Eusebius, a learned man and famous author, enjoyed the favour of the Emperor Constantine.

Position

1)

Quote:

Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine about the year 314

Objectivity

1)

Quote:

Eusebius was an early and vocal supporter of Arius

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 06-18-2011, 03:51 PM

JW:
James Snapp, Jr., whom I consider to be the foremost authority the world has ever known regarding evidence for LE, has claimed that Dr. Carrier's article has dozens of errors. I'll start posting Mr. Snapp's claims here at FRDB as I find them for analysis:

http://www.makingmyway.org/?p=572

Quote:

(1) He states that the Freer Logion replaces verse 15. However, verse 15 is still in the text after the Freer Logion, which follows verse 14 in Codex W. Only the opening phrase is missing. Anyone who has consulted pictures of Codex W could plainly see this. Carrier apparently has not read Codex W’s text at all, neither in a facsimile nor in a collation nor in even a textual apparatus.

and invite Mr. Snapp to post directly here at FRDB.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JonA · 06-18-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

If Mark did not write verses 16:9-20, but some anonymous person(s) later added those verses, pretending (or erroneously believing) that Mark wrote them (as in fact they must have), then this Gospel, and thus the Bible as a whole, cannot be regarded as inerrant, or even consistently reliable. Were those words intended by God, he would have inspired Mark to write them in the first place. That he didn’t entails those words were not inspired by God, and therefore the Bible we have is flawed, tainted by sinful human forgery or fallibility. Even the astonishing attempt to claim the forger was inspired by God cannot gain credit. For it is so inherently probable as to be effectively certain that a real God would have inspired Mark in the first place and not waited to inspire a later forger. The alternative is simply unbelievable. And in any case, a lie cannot be inspired, nor can a manifest error,
yet this material is presented as among that which is “according to Mark,” which is either a lie or an error.[1]

The arguments for inspiration are just dancing games. They involve no amount of logic, reasoning, or reality.

I find there to be little reason arguing with folk who are determined to hold their position in the face of any argument against it.

Jon

avi · 06-19-2011, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

James Snapp, Jr., whom I consider to be the foremost authority the world has ever known regarding evidence for LE, has claimed that Dr. Carrier's article has dozens of errors. I'll start posting Mr. Snapp's claims here at FRDB as I find them for analysis:

http://www.makingmyway.org/?p=572

Quote:

Originally Posted by a blog published on 10 June 2011, by James Snapp Jr.

....
Here are just a few mistakes made by Carrier:
(1) He states that the Freer Logion replaces verse 15. However, verse 15 is still in the text after the Freer Logion, which follows verse 14 in Codex W. Only the opening phrase is missing. Anyone who has consulted pictures of Codex W could plainly see this. Carrier apparently has not read Codex W’s text at all, neither in a facsimile nor in a collation nor in even a textual apparatus.
(2) He states that “the general view is that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not originate from the same scriptorium.” However, the consensus, upheld by Tischendorf, Kirsopp Lake, and Milne & Skeat, has been that they do originate from the same scriptorium.
(3) He stated that copies “like uncial 274″ have Mark “end with 16:8, and then append the LE, and then the SE is written in the margins.” This is problematic in three ways. First, 274 is the only Greek manuscript that has the SE in the margin. Second, in 274, the text of Mark does not end at the end of 16:8. 274 is a manuscript prepared for public use and it has an abundance of lectionary equipment, rubrics, etc. and after 16:8 there is an abbreviated lectionary-related note, followed by the beginning of 16:9, all in the same line. Third – and this is a very revealing error, it seems to me – 274 is not an uncial. It is a minuscule. Ordinarily, when a numeral is used to refer to an uncial, the first digit is a zero. When Carrier refers to 274 as an uncial, it is a bit grimacing, like watching someone who, aspiring to teach his readers an important chemistry lesson, writes an element’s chemical symbol using three letters.

(4) He does not grasp the implications of the scholium that mentions Irenaeus’ quotation of Mark 16:19. In fact he does not seem to understand why Codex 1582 is especially significant at all. 1582 was made by Ephraim the Scribe, who replicated his exemplars; this scholium was not added later; copyists tended to include scholia up to and including the most recent generation of commentators, but the youngest commentators cited in the scholia in 1582 are from the 400′s. When it is also observed that the same scholium appears in 72, the implication is that the scholium is an echo of the ancestral copy of the family-1 manuscripts. Carrier’s claim that the scholium (which is alongside 16:19) does not cite Irenaeus’ statement in the third book of Against Heresies is simply ridiculous, and if he ever understands the evidence he will freely admit this to be the case.

(5) He states that the evidence from Origen and Clement is “most telling,” inasmuch they each left us “a huge corpus erudite with discussions and quotations of the Gospels.” As far as the Gospel of Mark is concerned, Clement scarcely used it except for chapter 10, and Origen did not use most of the 12-verse sections of Mark; Carrier’s claim is unrealistic. (The blame probably does not rest exclusively with Carrier, but with his sources, for this kind of casual and vague reference to Clement and Origen is not uncommon.)

There are many more errors but this should be enough to justify reading Carrier’s work cautiously.
....
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.

Thanks for the link, Joe.

"dozens of errors" ?

I would prefer to read a proper rebuttal for the five points mentioned by Snapp.
a. Codex W --- ? yes or no? error by Carrier, or not?
b. Vaticanus & Sinaiticus from the same or different scriptoria--consensus opinion today?
c. 274 is Uncial or minuscule?
d. "Irenaeus" quote of Mark 16:19 -- source? how do we know anything about what "Irenaeus" wrote? how do we verify that the extant Latin text corresponds to a non-extant Greek original?
e. vagueness in reference to Origen and Clement (of Alexandria, presumably)??

Most importantly, Joe, what would be most helpful, is context...
How do Snapp's criticisms, whether valid or bogus, relate to the central issue, i.e. whether or not Mark 16 is corrupted?

For example, so what if Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do (or do not) come from different scriptoria? How would that (supposed fact) relate to the question of what the ink drying on "Mark's" first papyrus looked like?

avi

JoeWallack · 06-25-2011, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
James Snapp, Jr., whom I consider to be the foremost authority the world has ever known regarding evidence for LE, has claimed that Dr. Carrier's article has dozens of errors. I'll start posting Mr. Snapp's claims here at FRDB as I find them for analysis:

http://www.makingmyway.org/?p=572

Quote:

(1) He states that the Freer Logion replaces verse 15. However, verse 15 is still in the text after the Freer Logion, which follows verse 14 in Codex W. Only the opening phrase is missing. Anyone who has consulted pictures of Codex W could plainly see this. Carrier apparently has not read Codex W’s text at all, neither in a facsimile nor in a collation nor in even a textual apparatus.

and invite Mr. Snapp to post directly here at FRDB.

JW:
Dr. Carrier points out that what follows in his article after stating that the Freer Logion replaces verse 15 is exactly what Codex W has instead of verse 15:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...gends2#The_VLE

Quote:

[15] And they defended themselves saying, "This world of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the unclean things that are under the spirits to comprehend God's true power.7 Because of this, reveal your righteousness now." They said these things to Christ, and Christ replied to them, "The term of years of the authority of Satan has been fulfilled, but other dreadful things are drawing near, even to those for whose sake as sinners I was delivered up to death so they might return to the truth and no longer sin, and might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven. But go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

I've changed the related wording to say "expanding verse 15 into" instead of "replacing" to help clarify. Snapp's accusation at the end of his comment looks like the error here so he is getting off to a bad start.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.