Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 11-22-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

....To me, the pause for reflection by a scribe, or his supervisor, 17 centuries earlier, suggests that smarter folks than I, had concluded there was reasonable doubt, at that time, regarding the validity, or lack thereof, of the excluded verses, so, unless new manuscript evidence has now emerged, to repudiate the doubts of the scribes 1700 years ago, I am disinclined to give the benefit of the doubt to any argument which ostensibly supersedes those impressions of long ago.

avi

I find the claim that the information in the Extant Codices are the direct result and responsibility of scribes to be not logical at all.

Scribes are NOT responsible for DOCTRINE.

Scribes make hand written copies of documents.

Once it is understood that it was the LEADER or leaders of a cult that determined what was TAUGHT then it is EXTREMELY unlikely that a Scribal error could have cause a DOCTRINAL change.

All the so-called Christian cults of antiquity had their LEADERS and they INTRODUCED their peculiar DOCTRINE which could NOT be altered by Scribal error.

For example, Marcion's Phantom Teachings is NOT expected to be changed by Scribal error while Marcion or the leader of the Marcionites had ALREADY established the Marcionite Doctrine.

The Scribal errors would be EASILY IDENTIFIED and changed as soon as it was noticed.

Scribes made hand-written copies of documents and were NOT responsible for the Doctrine of the Church or Christian cults.

I concur. The Books followed the establishment of, and the Doctrinal teachings of the cult.
The Books being latter composed as a repository and a reference resource for "those things which are most surely believed among us," (Lu 1:1)

First came the beliefs in Ha'Sooce, then came such books as recorded, supported, supplemented and propagated that belief.
It is always necessary to keep 'The Horse' ahead of 'the chariot'. It is 'The Horse' pulls the 'chariot', and not the 'chariot', The Horse.

For those that not aware of it, the ancient Semitic letter 'H' (heh) became the letter 'E' of the Greko-Roman alphabets, and 'the horse' (ha'sooce or Ea'sus) and 'chariot' ('rechab' sing. or rechab'eem plu. = 'that which follows' or 'rides'> 'riders', the retinue) is an ancient Hebraic/Jewish, Hellenic religion mocking word play that is employed throughout these OT texts.

It is not any literal 'horse'(s) or its 'rider'(s) that is being repeitively mocked, scorned, and prophecied to be tripped up and tossed, but the god 'sus' -'sooce'- the zeus of the Hellenistic religious system, along with all who would ever think to place trust in it or 'ride upon' or 'follow' it.
see Gen 49:17, Jer 8:6 & 51:21, Psa 33:17 & 76:6, Isa 43:17, Zech 12 :4, Pro 21:31, Amos 2:15 and many many more, in all of which the Hebrew writers were protecting their own culture, in the face of being overrun by 'the horses and chariots' of their bigger more powerful adversaries.
"In the latter days you shall understand this." and "The Gentiles shall come to You From the ends of the earth and say, "Truely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit!"

ששבצר _ העברי
Sheshbazzar _ The Hebrew

Sheshbazzar · 11-22-2011, 10:05 AM

It may not get through. But as long as I live, I will keep trying.

JoeWallack · 11-27-2011, 10:56 AM

JW:
Regarding the best evidence for the original ending of "Mark" being 16:8 I think it is the Textual Criticism observations of Eusebius/Jerome. Sinaiticus/Vaticanus are also quality evidence, just not the best evidence. Regarding Sinaiticus/Vaticanus as evidence for 16:8, commentators tend to take for granted their superior attribute of Alexandrian Text-Type without explicit identification. Dr. Carrier's related writing is:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...ends2#In_Greek

Quote:

In Greek

The oldest and most authoritative manuscripts of Mark are found in the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B), both of which lack the LE and the SE. There are a few older papyrus fragments of Mark, but none contain any part of chapter 16 and thus are of no help in determining the state of Mark's ending.26 Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus date to the mid-4th century and bear signs of having been treated as authoritative texts within the Church. Many of their readings agree with numerous other early mss. Both do leave a blank space at the ending of Mark, which some scholars believe may indicate awareness of a missing ending (although, of course, a lost ending may have simply been assumed). But the Vaticanus usually indicates known textual variants with a scribal mark, which is absent here, arguing against awareness of any lost ending; the space left is only large enough for the SE, which argues against awareness of the LE; and the Vaticanus leaves blank spaces after other books, demonstrating that such does not in fact indicate awareness of a lost ending.27 Likewise, the Sinaiticus also leaves a blank space after Acts, thus such does not entail awareness of a lost ending to Mark, either.28 And experts have determined the original form of Codex Sinaiticus also lacked enough room for the LE, which also argues against knowledge of the LE.29

J.K. Elliott asserts that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were produced by the same scribe (in Black, PEM, pp. 85-86), but as he adduces no arguments or evidence in support of that claim, I'm compelled to reject it as spurious. Even if they derive from the same scriptorium (a more plausible claim, although it's widely debated), Elliott himself admits such mss. can still derive from different exemplars (ibid., p. 83 n. 4), and we know for a fact these two must have, as their texts frequently do not agree. For example, Mark 1:40, 2:22, 10:26, and 15:44, all differ between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and I just flipped to four random pages of the Aland text. Such disagreements between them number in the thousands.30 Moreover, expensive projects like these would not have relied on a single exemplar but been checked against several (e.g. the Vaticanus frequently indicates the existence of variant readings, and shows influence from both major text types, the Western and Alexandrian). Apologists like to denigrate the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as aberrant texts, 'exceptions to the rule' (combining the fallacies of special pleading and poisoning the well) when in fact all early NT mss. are at least as deviant and flawed as they are (so cannot claim any greater authority over them on grounds of 'accuracy'), and yet these two were clearly very authoritative texts, expensively produced by the church, based on multiple exemplars, and of the earliest date among all known mss. (some scholars estimate their exemplars dated as early as the late 2nd century; and no extant mss. date earlier than these mss. themselves). They are therefore far more authoritative than deniers would have it.

Sinaiticus/Vaticanus individual characteristics already make them the best Textual witness but their general attribute of being Alexandrian Text-type should also be identified in these discussions. The related Wikipedia article is a good start:

Alexandrian text-type

Quote:

Evaluations of text-types

Most textual critics of the New Testament favor the Alexandrian text-type as the closest representative of the autographs for many reasons. One reason is that Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest we have found, and some of the earliest church fathers used readings found in the Alexandrian text. Another is that the Alexandrian readings are adjudged more often to be the ones that can best explain the origin of all the variant readings found in other text-types.

The Wikipedia article identifies the following reasons supporting the superiority of the Alexandrian text-type:

1) Oldest extant text type

2) Favored by Textual Critics

3) Agreement with even earlier fragments

4) Text is generally shorter (forgery is more likely to be an addition than subtraction)

5) Extant editing to other text types

6) Tend to agree with early Patristics

7) Supported by difficult reading principle

Other reasons are:

8) The 3 great textual critics of the early Church, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome, were all near the Alexandrian text-type.

9) Alexandria had a reputation for Scribal quality (Ehrman).

Translating the above reasons into criteria for evidence that are Qualitative:

1) Credibility of Source

The Alexandrian text-type has the best underlying Scribal reputation and the outstanding early Patristic Textual Critics.

2) Direction of Change

Every reason above supports a Movement from Alexandrian text-type to other text types.

3) Age

Every reason above supports the Alexandrian text-type as the oldest.

4) External Force

In general, orthodox Christianity would prefer other text-types.

5) Consistency

Having an earlier Alexandrian text-type that was gradually replaced by other text-types around the 6th century coordinates with every other category of External evidence, Authority, Patristic, Scribal and Manuscript.

The only Qualitative criteria for evidence that goes against the Alexandrian text-type is Confirmation - Width (geographical).

Proponents of 16:8 as original tend to take these criteria for granted, in part I think because there is no significant authority for the LE these days. But they should still be explicit in any related argument. I'll ask Dr. Carrier to include them.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 11-30-2011, 11:36 AM

JW:
The Wikipedia article on

Mark 16 points out that

Theodore of Mopsuestia c. 375 Antioch was either unaware of the LE or did not think it original:

Quote:

But Theodore of Mopsuestia seems to have no knowledge of the longer ending, and considering he died in the first half of V century, his testimony is interesting. He says: "All the evangelists narrated to us His resurrection from the dead... The blessed Luke, however, who is also the writer of a Gospel, added that He ascended into heaven so that we should know where He is after His resurrection."(Commentary on Nicene Creed)

From the horse's asses mouth:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Nicene Creed (1932) pp.18-116

Quote:

Chapter VII.

...

It is with justice, therefore, that in accordance with the words of the Apostle our blessed Fathers first mentioned the principal benefit of the Economy of Christ in saying: And rose from the dead, and then added the sentence: And ascended into heaven. It was necessary that after having known that He rose from the dead we should also know where He is after His resurrection. As the Sacred Book, after saying that God made Adam, added how, from what, and also in which locality He placed him to lead his earthly life, so also in the case of Christ our Lord who was assumed from us and was according to our nature, because after (our blessed Fathers) said that He rose from the dead they rightly added that He ascended into heaven so that we should learn that He moved into an immortal nature and ascended into heaven, as it was necessary for Him to be high above all. All the evangelists narrated to us His resurrection from the dead and with it they ended their respective Gospels, because they knew that it was sufficient for us to learn that He rose from the dead, moved to an immortal and immutable life and gave us the hope of participating with Him in the future good things. The blessed Luke, however, who is also the writer of a Gospel, added that He ascended into heaven 199 so that we should know where He is after His resurrection. It is also known that he taught us this at the beginning of his teaching when he wrote the Acts of the Apostles,200 where he further added the rest of the facts, one after another, as it fitted the sequence of the narration.

Note that the LE also says Jesus ascended into heaven:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

Quote:

Mark 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.

The implication is that Theodore did not think "Mark" said it.

Regarding that all important quality criterion Coordination, note how Theodore fits in with his fellow Antioch witness:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=197

Quote:

3) Victor of Antioch c. 450 -

Quote:

But even if the [words]: And having arisen early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, as well as the things that are extant in the following in the gospel according to Mark, do not stand alongside most copies, so that certain ones reckon them to be illegitimate, but we, finding them as in most of those from the accurate copies in accordance with the Palestinian gospel of Mark, have placed them together [with the rest of the gospel] as the truth holds.

Victor still confirms that quantity favors AE but has the first known assertion based on textual criticism that the quality favors LE. Note especially that Victor confesses he and others are actively adding the LE to existing manuscripts.

4) Severus of Antioch c. 500 –

Quote:

In the more accurate copies, therefore, the gospel according to Mark has the end until the [statement]: For they were afraid. But in some these things too stand in addition: And having arisen early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

Severus confirms Eusebius/Jerome that quality and quantity favor AE. Note that Severus is in the same location as Victor and that they agree on the more objective quantitative measurement. The disagreement is the more subjective qualitative measurement. Note here that unlike Eusebius/Jerome who have no known contemporary disagree with their assessment, Severus, not long after Victor and in the same city, presumably looking at mostly the same evidence, disagrees with Victor’s qualitative conclusion for LE.

JW:
Thus we have an Antioch chronology of Theodore c. 400, implies 16:8 is the original ending. Victor c. 450, confirms that quantity is against LE but asserts that quality supports it. Severus, c. 500, disputes Victor and says that quality and quantity still favor 16:8 as original. All before the bulk of the manuscript evidence.

Bonus material for Solo. The earliest Syriac also has 16:8 as the original ending so it's safe to say that the extant evidence shows 16:8 as the earliest ending for Antioch. Confessors of LE generally confess to us that Alexandria was the source of 16:8 as original. That makes two of the three great Roman cities as favoring 16:8 as original and you know what Meatloaf says about that:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/dmusic/medi...SIN=B00136JRJ0

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

sotto voce · 11-30-2011, 02:10 PM

'In fact, this is one of the clearest examples of Christians meddling with the manuscripts of the canonical Bible, inserting what they wanted their books to have said'

Dr Carrier does not say what was added that these people wanted to be said. Can anyone help?

Toto · 11-30-2011, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

'In fact, this is one of the clearest examples of Christians meddling with the manuscripts of the canonical Bible, inserting what they wanted their books to have said'

Dr Carrier does not say what was added that these people wanted to be said. Can anyone help?

Mark 16:9-20 was added. Without that addition, the women ran away and did not tell anyone that Jesus had risen, because they were afraid, so no one knew that Jesus had risen. The early Christians who doctored the text wanted to claim that Jesus had appeared to others, and told his followers to go preach the gospel.

sotto voce · 12-01-2011, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

'In fact, this is one of the clearest examples of Christians meddling with the manuscripts of the canonical Bible, inserting what they wanted their books to have said'

Dr Carrier does not say what was added that these people wanted to be said. Can anyone help?

Mark 16:9-20 was added. Without that addition, the women ran away and did not tell anyone that Jesus had risen, because they were afraid, so no one knew that Jesus had risen. The early Christians who doctored the text wanted to claim that Jesus had appeared to others, and told his followers to go preach the gospel.

Why, then, was this book written?

gurugeorge · 12-01-2011, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

'In fact, this is one of the clearest examples of Christians meddling with the manuscripts of the canonical Bible, inserting what they wanted their books to have said'

Dr Carrier does not say what was added that these people wanted to be said. Can anyone help?

Mark 16:9-20 was added. Without that addition, the women ran away and did not tell anyone that Jesus had risen, because they were afraid, so no one knew that Jesus had risen. The early Christians who doctored the text wanted to claim that Jesus had appeared to others, and told his followers to go preach the gospel.

Why, then, was this book written?

Ha, that's the question. Take your pick.

From my gleanings on this board and elsewhere, from what knowledgeable people have said, it seems to me like it's written in imitation of a Stoic "exemplary biography" (i.e. a biography in which the lead character demonstrates given virtues in the course of his life), about an entity who the author(s) probably thought actually lived (many decades before the author's life) but of whose supposed life the author had very little knowledge (IOW it's the author's stab at some kind of historical truth, but pretty much made up on the basis of what must have been, in his or her view).

It's written in a style that has some Jewish literary tropes and forms of construction (e.g. it has a "chiastic" structure), but its knowledge of the home country is sketchy, so it was probably written by a cosmopolitan post-Diaspora Jew.

Its main theme seems to be that the central hero was misunderstood during his life, that his "disciples", probably standing in for the Jews as a whole, were ignorant and stupid in not acknowledging him for what he really was, and that this is what led to the great disaster of 70 CE (or possibly 125 CE).

There may also be a gnostic element to the text (this may be connected to the "exemplary biography" aspect - i.e. the hero exemplifies a certain attitude that's meant to inspire newbies and get them to behave nicely in life, so as to prepare them emotionally and mentally for deeper revelations).

aa5874 · 12-01-2011, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mark 16:9-20 was added. Without that addition, the women ran away and did not tell anyone that Jesus had risen, because they were afraid, so no one knew that Jesus had risen. The early Christians who doctored the text wanted to claim that Jesus had appeared to others, and told his followers to go preach the gospel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Why, then, was this book written?

gMark, WITHOUT the 12 additional verses, was written to FULFILL presumed prophecy in Hebrew Scripture and to explain the Calamities of Jews when the Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.

The gMark story is about a character called Jesus recognised as the Son of God in the "Spirit World" who after doing MIRACLES after MIRACLES, feeding thousands of Jews, healing them of many many diseases that one else could have healed and raising the dead yet the very Jews were so EVIL that they caused him to be crucified when Pilate found NO fault with him.

The Short-ending gMark is NOT about Salvation, Jesus in gMark did NOT want the Jews to be conveterd, it is that Jesus came to FULFILL Prophecy.

The Temple did Fall, tens of thousands of Jews were Killed or Starved to death, and it was the Jews who brought the Calamities upon themselves when they Rejected Jesus, the Son of God in gMark.

Ironically, the 12 additional verses, has completely destroyed the original gMark story line. The Jews were NOT ever supposed to know who Jesus was UNTIL AFTER the Cities be wasted and the land be desolate.

Isaiah 6:11 -

Quote:

Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate...

sotto voce · 12-01-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

gMark, WITHOUT the 12 additional verses, was written to FULFILL presumed prophecy in Hebrew Scripture and to explain the Calamities of Jews when the Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.'

The opening words are:

'Beginning the gospel about Jesus Christ'

'Gospel' means 'good message', like euphony. Not 'calamities', like cacophony. 'Good news' is mentioned twice more, soon after. It's a book about good news for all, and it's not about the private affairs of the Jews. The fall of the Temple can be taken to signify the end of the old, pre-figurative system of obtaining 'forgiveness' by animal sacrifice; not punishment for Jews.

'"I baptise you with water, but he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit."'

That seems to promise a new start, fulfilment of Israel's purpose, not disaster.

'"Your sins are forgiven."' Mk 2:5

Now what does that have to do with the Temple falling? Surely, here is what it is really about; the thin red line of penal substitutionary atonement, as the whole Christian project, from Abram onwards, reveals:

'He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.' Mk 8:31 NIV

'"Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Because whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."' Mk 8:34-38

That's the whole Christian message in a nutshell. The author needed to add no more to his account, and it gains from its economy, through reliance on the reader's good memory and common sense. How it can be widely supposed that Mark's allegedly sudden ending makes his gospel one whit less comprehensive than the other gospels is not easy to understand.

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

11-22-2011, 10:05 AM	#82
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	It may not get through. But as long as I live, I will keep trying.

11-30-2011, 02:10 PM	#85
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	'In fact, this is one of the clearest examples of Christians meddling with the manuscripts of the canonical Bible, inserting what they wanted their books to have said' Dr Carrier does not say what was added that these people wanted to be said. Can anyone help?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.