JoeWallack

JW:
The Prophet Mike Night has a great page on proof-texting Jesus as the bad guy from the Jewish Bible ("Why do you call me good?"):

Who Fulfills the Prophecy of Satan?

Of course this is relatively easy to do as Christianity is in many important ways, the opposite of Judaism (human sacrifice, justice, the Law).

The proof-text I love is:

:devil1:

It is interesting that without the forged ending I believe most translations of "Mark" have 666 verses. Combine this with the observation that the forged ending would be the most important verses in the Christian Bible as it would contain resurrection witness for the original Gospel narrative. Without it, there is none.

In my related debate with Snapp, I'm also going to point out that the ending of "Mark" has more textual variation than any other section of the Christian Bible.

And now you know, the rest of "Mark's" story.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

Mr. Snapp writes:
Ben Smith has the relevant information here:

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcan....html#eusebius

[Eusebius:]
Eusebius is clear that most manuscripts end at 16:8. Likewise, authority is clear that Eusebius is clear that most manuscripts end at 16:8. The seldom claimed argument that Eusebius is not clear only seems to come from defenders of LE. Actually, if Mr. Snapp can not tell by the above that Eusebius thought that most manuscripts were AE his level of doubt regarding Patristic witness should prevent him from making any such conclusions. On the contrary he keeps making amazing conclusions based on little or even no implication.

My opponent writes:
Well sure Codex W is better evidence for LE than AE but that is not the subject of the debate. The subject of this debate is whether the LE is original:
Codex W is evidence of the EE and not LE. Therefore it is evidence against LE as is AE and SE.

My opponent writes:
Eusebius (and Jerome) are clear that AE was dominos. As I said, Eusebius was the outstanding textual critic of his time as was Jerome in his. Both were considered international authorities. Eusebius especially was the authority of choice for Constantine, based in Rome, and was considered an authority by the West and had ecumenical conferences with textual critics of the entire Church. It’s likely than that his awareness of texts extended far beyond the East. The objective student should also note the scholarly superiority of the East in general (Origen, Eusebius, Jerome) over the West (Irenaeus).
Victor and Severus both testify that the AE was still dominant in the 6th century. This further supports Eusebius and Jerome.

My opponent writes:
Again, referring to Ben Smith’s page:

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcan....html#eusebius

Jerome does look like he is paraphrasing Eusebius on the issue but is clear that this is also his opinion. Note especially that Jerome qualifies with Greek copies making it clear that it is his opinion also. Again, the level of doubt required here not to accept that this is Jerome’s opinion would prevent one from making any Patristic conclusions.

Mr. Snapp wrote:
Well this is why I wrote “copy of an original” to limit to the Greek. Translations are much weaker evidence as they force a use of different words. Regarding Tatian, this is why I wrote “by itself”. Regarding Augustine, this is the Manuscript category, isn’t it.

Mr. Snapp wrote:
Since my opponent belabors the point I’ll go beyond my original point. I believe that the ending of “Mark” has more variation than any other area of the Christian Bible. If we go to Wieland Willker’s online textual criticism:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

we see that the ending of “Mark” has its own section:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf

Regarding minor variation, a word or a few words, my opponent already confesses that the LE has more. In the context of possibly creating text that was not in the exemplar though, minor variation can be explained by editing, or trying to improve what’s there. Large variation though, such as a verse or verses, is much better evidence that the variation is significantly adding to the exemplars and not just editing.
As far as significant variation for the LE we have:

1) The entire LE (compared to the AE). This by itself would create significantly more variation post AE than pre AE but would be similar to a few other variants in the Christian Bible.

2) The SE. Probably two verses (compared to the 12 of the LE)

3) The EE. About 5 more verses than the LE.

4) The SE and the LE.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

Weighting of Evidence for Manuscript Category

Now to weigh the evidence for the category of Manuscript by individual criterion and in total. Again, the Manuscript sources:

Against LE:

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sinaitic Syriac, Most of one hundred Armenian,
Two oldest Georgian, Sahidic, L Ψ 099 0112, Several Bohairic, Some Ethiopic, Bobbiensis, It(a), Codex Washingtonianus

For LE:

Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Bezae, most of the other 1,700 Greek manuscripts and most of the other translations

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 – Age. Older = more weight. The most commonly identified criterion and an important one.

The oldest Manuscript evidence against is Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sinaitic Syriact and Bobbiensis which are 4th century. The oldest evidence for is Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Bezae which are 5th century. I give against a rating here of 2.

2 - Direction (of change). Away from = more weight. What is the direction of change over time for the category. Importance depends on the existence. If it exists it is one of the most important as it helps explain the relationship.

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

3 - Confirmation – width. Wider = more weight. The context is geographical. Confirmation is an important quality as it helps reduce sampling bias.

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

4- Common sense. Potentially one of the most important criteria if there is a common sense issue. Here there is. Why is the LE always placed after the SE? The logical explanation is because it was thought to be later. This is a deduction though so only 1 to against.

5 – Consistency. Greater = more weight. Does the evidence for the category coordinate with the evidence for other categories?

The evidence here for Manuscript points to against LE. This coordinates well with the Manuscript and Scribal categories which all not only show support against LE but the same development of change in evidence from against LE to for LE. 3 against.

Quantitative:

1 - Confirmation – quantity. Larger = more weight.

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

2 – Variation. Lesser = more weight. What is the quantity of variation in the category?

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.

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

Qualitative:

1 - Age. Against = 2

2- Direction (of change). Against = 3

3 - Confirmation – width. For = 3

4 – Common sense. Against = 1

5 - Consistency. Against = 3

Quantitative:

1 - Confirmation – quantity. For = 3

2 – Variation. Against = 3


Totals:

Against 3 = 3 criterion

Against 2 = 1 criterion

Against 1 = 1 criterion

For 3 = 2 criterion


Conclusion = The Manuscript category of evidence is clearly against LE due to:

1 - 5 of 7 criteria favoring Against.

2 - 3 of these 5 criteria being 3

3 - The top 2 qualitative criteria being Against.

And so, the Manuscript category falls to Against, as did the Patristic before it. Now on to the Categories I think my opponent will readily confess are even worse for his conclusion than the Patristic and Manuscript, namely Scribal and Authority.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Dr. Richard Carrier has just finished his first draft of:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication

I hope to have it posted here @ FRDB shortly in a dedicated Thread for commentary and enjoyment.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

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

JoeWallack

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

JoeWallack

JW:
My opponent writes:
Of course my opponent rejects Hort’s conclusion, based on evidence, that LE is not original but accepts Hort’s assertion, based on nothing, that Eusebius’ only refers here to specific manuscripts rather than making a general and broad statement. Mr. Snapp than is in no position to use Hort as an authority since he does not accept Hort’s authority on the issue. Eusebius is an important witness against LE since his testimony is qualitative so I’ll repeat the reasons to think he is making a general and broad statement that the evidence is against LE:

1) He does not qualify the scope of his statement.

2) It can be assumed that a Bishop would be a textual critic as their
interests would consist of Christian reading and writing and they would
not have been distracted by TV, Internet, wives and children.

3) Eusebius was considered the outstanding Church Father of his time and
and an authority regarding Christian writings in general. He is
considered the official Church historian of his time.

4) Eusebius’ predecessor at Caesarea, had an Egyptian background, and
Caesarea is next to Syria. Egypt and Syria were the two big centers
of the Eastern Roman empire, so at a minimum, Eusebius was
probably familiar with the Egyptian and Syrian Greek textual
tradition.

5) Jerome, clearly a textual critic, considered Eusebius a textual critic.

6) Eusebius had an international reputation. Certainly more so than any of
the other Patristic witness. If his scope is qualified, all of the other
Patristic scope is more qualified. All of Christianity, East and West,
considered his canons authoritative. He was the Christian
Emperor’s favored Church Father, an Emperor from Rome (West).
Constantine sent Eusebius to Bishop conferences consisting of
representatives from all major Christian areas to resolve theological
disputes. Sure these Fathers main criteria in these disputes was
trying to argue based on what they wanted to believe, but I have
faith that the issue of what the text said in
different manuscript traditions also came up and to be an authority
Eusebius would have to be familiar with traditions outside his
geographical area.

7) Constantine, the Western Christian emperor, selects Eusebius to
manufacture authoritative Christian bibles for him indicating
Constantine not only considered Eusebius a textual critic but the
textual critic.

To summarize the reasons to think Eusebius statement regarding
evidence against LE is very broad:

1) No qualification of his scope.

2) Qualifications of a Bishop.

3) Reputation of Eusebius in general.

4) Eusebius’ location between Egypt and Syria.

5) Jerome, a textual critic, endorsement of Eusebius as textual critic.

6) Eusebius’ international experience.

7) Recognition by Constantine as textual critic.

My opponent concludes with:

Another strawman, what a surprise. No one is saying that Eusebius was familiar with all textual traditions, only that he was probably familiar with a broad tradition and that his scope was probably relatively high by Church father standards.

My opponent writes:
Again, if you can not see from Ad Marinum that Eusebius is making a qualitative and quantitative statement against LE, than your level of doubt regarding Patristic witness should prevent you from making any conclusion on the issue.

My opponent writes:

The Patristic value of Victor/Severus against the LE is secondary only to Eusebius/Jerome. Eusebius/Jerome testify that to c. 400, the LE is the exception.
Victor/Severus testify of the conversion to LE in the 5th century. Victor confesses that the LE is still the exception in the 5th century but that he is actively adding the LE at that time. This coordinates with every category of evidence. No LE manuscript before the 5th century. Patristic references to the LE increase exponentially in the 5th century and there is extant manuscript evidence for the LE starting here. By the sixth century most evidence flips to LE.

My opponent writes:
The dilemma for my opponent here, which I need to point out to him, is that if you think Jerome is simply relying on Eusebius here for textual criticism than you have to conclude that Jerome considered Eusebius a textual critic in general and that Jerome considered Eusebius clear on the subject since he largely repeats Eusebius.
Regarding Jerome using the LE for the Vulgate I fear that my opponent may never be able to tell the difference between what a Patrician’s evidence is and what their conclusion is. Jerome’s evidence here, like Eusebius’ before him, is that LE is not original. Unlike Eusebius though, Jerome uses it as Canon. Did Jerome think it original? Maybe, maybe not. But Jerome’s use here of the LE is evidence against its originality. Jerome knows the evidence is against the LE being original but still uses it. This coincides with the time period when the LE is starting to move from the exception to the dominant text. Thus Jerome, just like Victor after him, helps explain the conversion to LE. He prefers it and uses it and as a textual authority provides authority for its subsequent use. Again, Jerome uses the LE not because the evidence shows it is original but because he prefers it which coordinates with the difficult reading principle/common sense criterion.

My opponent writes:

A false dichotomy. Again, this debate is not about choosing between LE and AE, it’s whether LE is original. W is not LE and is even referred to as EE, because it is not LE. It is evidence that EE is original. Maybe it will make my opponent feel better if I say that it is better evidence for LE than AE.

Mr. Snapp writes:

Apparently there is no end to the Strawmen. “Dismiss”?

As my statement indicates, my observation is a weakness of scope.

My opponent needs to learn the difference between commentary and copying.

“

This is where Mr. Snapp has a point. A significant portion of the manuscript evidence against LE is translation evidence which makes an individual translated manuscript weaker evidence than a copy. This weakness is offset though by the scope of the translated manuscripts. Every significant translated language shows evidence of a change from AE to LE. The translation evidence also has strength of scope within its textual tradition. The Armenian for example shows a clear transition from AE to LE through a study of 200 + manuscripts. Manuscripts before the 13th century generally show AE and thirty something mid-range manuscripts show the LE but doubt its originality. As a minority language the Armenian likely had a higher respect for its own textual tradition than did the Greek. One of the Armenian textual traditions likely came from the Byzantine which is evidence that the Byzantine textual tradition was originally AE.
My opponent writes:

It(a) lacks sufficient space at the end for the LE (unless the scribe used the same size fonts as my opponent in his last several posts) so it is evidence against LE and is accepted as such by almost all authorities.

My opponent writes:
My opponent has a tendency to date manuscripts somewhat early but I think the above is a reasonable presentation of support for LE except for W. Codeveat exemptor though (W, L. Lambda). I wonder what the textual variation for LE is in the above?

I accept that the criterion of confirmation here greatly favors LE. I think a weakness of my initial criteria rating system is an insufficient range of 1-3. Certainly, if I expanded the range, the LE would receive the highest rating for confirmation. I concede that on the other side, lack of confirmation, against the LE is a serious weakness. There are only two Greek witnesses against the LE and they are definitely related to some extent. It is certainly possible that they are the exceptions as we are a long way from having a representative sample of manuscripts at their time. Traditional commentators, such as Metzger, tend to give the Manuscript category more weight, and declare the External evidence inconclusive. Newer commentators, such as Wallace and Carrier, give the Manuscript category less weight and declare the External evidence aganst LE.

Nonetheless, confirmation is only one criterion of the Manuscript category and when I go through all of my criteria, Against LE is clearly the result. I once again invite my opponent to come out of The Dark Age of subjective selection of conclusions and use a methodology with criteria by category of evidence. We largely agree on what the evidence is but have completely different conclusions. So the difference must be methodology. Either create one for me to critique or show me what is wrong with mine. The only think more certain to me right now than the LE not being original, is that we can improve each other’s methodology.

Mr. Snapp ended his last post by referring to Scribal evidence. I rate Scribal as sufficiently important, to deserve its own category of evidence, as it is primarily qualitative in nature and often directly related to the key criterion of change. So my next posts will deal with it as a separate category of evidence.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

"God I love the sound of Psalms in the morning!"


JW:
Our own Stephen Carlson is at it again:

Hypotyposeis The Function of Mark 16:8

So according to Stephen, when "Mark" wrote that the women did not tell anyone, he meant that they told everyone (why do I feel like Stephen Carr when I write this?). Note the slip above, "they did tell anyone". Interpolations, look out! Why doesn't Stephen just get a room with JP Holding to discuss the mysteries of Secret Mark.

Actually it's progress that Christian Bible scholarship has gone beyond accepting that 16:8 is the ending to appreciating what a problem this is for Christian Assertian. The most important Christian Assertian is that there was historical witness to Jesus' supposed resurrection and the original Gospel not only has no resurrection sighting but had resurrection sightings forged to it.

From an Internal evidence standpoint the reaction of the women at 16:8 of fear and silence fits well with such a theme in "Mark". "Mark" skillfully foreshadows Jesus' resurrection with:

Mark 5

JW:
Note that the two different underlying Greek words (amazed/amazement) have a strong meaning of crazy/out of one's mind. An ironic contrast between Jesus' healing that puts the recipient in their right mind and the negative reaction to it that puts one out of their mind. These words also have a meaning of fear. Note than that the reaction of the three here is fear and silence. The same reaction to news of the resurrection at 16:8. Themes are quality evidence as they are broad and consistent which gives scope.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Solo

In my reading of the Markan idiom, Jesus' 'cures' are allegorical assertion of the actual, palpable beneficial effects of the arrival of the spirit (ie. the mood conversion from depression to manic state). People whose deep depression totally immobilized them (like the paralytic in 2:3, or like Jairus' daughter here) are suddenly alive and well, with the arrival of manic excitation, which brings a sense of purpose, empowerment and grandeur. Others, who in their depression suffered assorted maladies suddenly seem cured of them. Partially, some of Mark's testimonies are references to the actual imrovement in health due to much greater mobility in the excited state(and hence much improved cardio, and if manic behaviour included compulsion to travel (fugue), the freeing of the subject from 'local' bacterial flora which often causes illness). Some others allude to known effects of mood conversions. E.g. the 'lepros' who Jesus cures in 1:40-42, does not really suffer from leprosy proper, but any of number of skin diseases such as dermatitis or eczema which were subsumed under the label 'lepra'. Some of these conditions clear spontaneously in the temporary relief of depression. Mark likely also used 'lepra' as a cure example because of the real leprosy (Hansen's disease, which required sequestration since Egypt) was considered a 'spiritual ailment' among the Jews ('tzaraat'). This afforded Mark the same 'semantic bending' of terms as he uses in the cures of the (spiritually) blind, or the (unrepenting) deaf or the (spiritless) dumb.

As for the 'fear', Mark uses 'fear' or 'amazement' to denote the lack of faith in the reality of saving effects of Jesus (ie., the manic excitement of the spirit). Again, those who knew the 'mysteries' would clue in to this because they had been through the trip, and lived through the 'passion'. There is real (and profound) fear and panic which engulf the florid subjects of mania in the latter stages of the episodes when they their brain confronts the new, phantasmagoric order imposed by the unbalanced chemistry. The horrible suffering (not a few manics kill themselves in this phase) causes many to 'run away from the experience (i.e. trying to shed it, or forget it when it is over) which in the Markan Sitz is portrayed as the denial of their witness of "Jesus".

Jiri

ETA : too bad that Mark did not leave behind a verse which directly pointed to "mood conversion" as the root of the mystery. We find it in Luke and iMatthew though: Mt 11:17 unequivocally alludes to it : 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.' Luke has Jesus give it out plainly as a beatitude in 6:21 'Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh'.

JoeWallack

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