Steven Avery

Clearly my conclusion is different. However I came to my conclusion AFTER, and largely because of, learning about the manuscript conditions (up to that point I was using an alexandrian version, the NIV) so there is nothing circular in my logic. (Starting with a book by Daniel Segraves that discussed the textual theories that elevated those manuscripts.)

False accusations of convenience of circularity are rather common here.

Now, is there any factual problem with what I shared ?

Do you think there are dozens of these manuscripts ?
Do you think they have a wide geographical swath ?
Do you even think they have predominant early church writer support ?
Do you think they are not scribally corrupt ?

(If so, read the Dean John Burgon discussion of their scribal condition, and check it with others .. so as not to be a 'fool and knave' )

Shabbat Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Iasion

Greetings,

This subject has been done to death here. In short, the resurrection accounts cannot be reconciled. If YOU think they can, then please complete the Dan Barker Easter Challenge and get back to us.


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Fascinating.

Mention of the Word,
mention of God.
But,
NO mention of the Holy Spirit.
NO mention of "trinity" or ANY concept of three.

Can you explain WHY you think this passage has anything to do with the trinity?


No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Mention of God.
But,
NO mention of the Son.
NO mention of the Holy Spirit.
NO mention of "trinity" or ANY concept of three.

Do you seriously believe this passage is about the Trinity?
Why?


Iasion

Sven

I see that praxeus was busy posting here - maybe this is why he had no time to get back to my dismanteling of his fantasies about a non-constant speed of light?

<The tangent subsequent to this post has been split from this thread and merged into the one identified above.>

JoeWallack

JW:
Once upon a time the Legendary Vorkosigan provided us with the Gift of the following freely available link to Real Textual Critics & Mark 16:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

Note especially the manuscript evidence per Bruce Metzger (subsequently superceded by one Bart Ehrman, a non-Christian!, as the World's protes Textual Criticism authority. A sign of the end of Satan's 1,000 year reign?)

"1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document."

..."Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi. 9-20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious."


JW:
In the same post The Vorkosigan provided the following parallel to Christian
Harmonization attempts:

"Dunkin's argument follows the same logic as if he and a friend had chanced upon an auto accident.

FRIEND: Look! Two cars had a smashup!
DUNKIN: Nonsense. They merely had dented front ends, and have parked touching each other.
FRIEND: But what about the broken glass in the road?
DUNKIN: People have car windows shattered all the time. Last year over 50 cars on this road had windows broken by stones kicked up by trucks.
FRIEND: And what about the fluid leaking all over the highway?
DUNKIN: Puh-lease! Vehicles overheat and leak all the time. Odds are sooner or later two parked vehicles will experience simultaneous overheating.
FRIEND: But what about the two drivers with their heads through the windshield?
DUNKIN: I have it on good authority that people in these parts are especially prone to attempt suicide by sticking their heads through windows.

Once again, it is the concatenation of evidence that precludes the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20."


JW:
Ah, what ever happened to that young man? He didn't leave any body. Now that I think about it, I don't remember The Vorkosigan ever mentioning a Father. Anyone else here ever remember Vorkosigan mentioning a human father?

Lord, that Vorkosigan Rules!



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

gregor

prax

While slightly off topic (but related to the purported logical construct from above) - did you come to any conclusions about the accuracy of evolution and whether the age of the universe being older than 6,000 years after looking at any physical evidence?

Iasion

Greetings all,

Rubbish.

The two oldest manuscripts of Mark's gospel, the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (roughly 350CE), end Mark's gospel at 16:8.

In addition to this, 19:9-20 is absent from the Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about 100 Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian translations.

In many of the witnesses that include 16:9-20, scribal notes have been left indicating that the passage was absent from the older Greek manuscripts.

In many other witnesses to 16:9, the copyist has included the passage in brackets or obeli, a convention used to indicate doubt as to the authenticity of the bracketed passage.

Origin and Clement of Alexandria, both of whom knew Mark's gospel and quoted it frequently in their writings, show no knowledge of the long ending of Mark. Eusebius, in the early fourth century, noted that in nearly all the manuscripts of Mark, at least, in the accurate ones (schedon en apasi tois antigraphois . . . ta goun akribe), the Gospel ends with 16:8. St. Jerome, compiler of the Vulgate, also said around 400CE ("Ad. Hedib.") that the passage was wanting in nearly all Greek manuscripts (omnibus libris poene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus). Victor of Antioch, the first commentator on Mark, regarded 16:8 as the conclusion. The most commonly cited early patristic witness to the Marcan appendix is Iraneaus.

Richard Carrier notes:
"Outside the mauscript evidence, which is decisive, the addition seems to be first partly quoted in the late 2nd century, in a passage of Irenaeus (Against All Heresies 3.5), but that text is also a late manuscript (and a Latin translation, not the original Greek) that could have been redacted to match the Gospel that was in circulation at the time. There is evidence of that very fact in the same passage, with regard to his quotation of the first verse of Mark: the words "son of God" are recognized as not being original to that Gospel (cf. ibid. apparatus; also, Bart Ehrman's <The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament 1993, pp. 72-5), and in fact those words appear in only two of three surviving Latin translations and do not exist in the one surviving fragment of that passage in the original Greek."

In addition to this, internal and stylistic indications also argue for the non-Marcan origin of 16:9-20. Metzger, for example, notes that the long ending uses several Greek words not used in the rest of Mark's gospel (p 104). These include apisteo for 'unbelieving,' blapto for 'hurt' or 'injure,' bebaioo for 'confirm' or 'establish,' epakoloutheo for 'accompany,' theaomai for 'look closely' or 'behold,' and several others. 16:9-20 also use two phrases [ tois met anton genomenois & tanasiuon] to designate the disciples which are not only not absent from the rest of Mark, but from the whole New Testament.

Zondervan's NIV Bible Commentary, Vol II, notes of the longer Marcan ending:

"Vocabulary: Of the 75 significant words in vv. 9-20, 15 do not appear elsewhere in Mark and 11 others have a different meaning. The marked difference in vocabulary between 16:9-20 and the rest of Mark's gospel makes it difficult to believe that both came from the same author."

"Style: The connection between v.8 and vv, 9-20 is abrupt and awkward. Verse 9 begins with the masculine nominative participle anastas, which demands for its antecedent 'he,' i.e., Jesus; but the subject of the last sentence of v.8 is the women, not Jesus" (p 204)."


(from http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html)

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Well,
I claimed 16:9-20 was added. What exactly was incorrect?

(Edit: Ah, my statement "the resurrection was added" goes too far. Should be : "the resurrection passage in 9:20 was added - there MAY have been no resurrection at all in the original")


Indeed. Did I say we did?


Iasion

Iasion

Ah.

So,
the MSS which omit 16:9-20 are not the "good" ones?

So,
you can ignore them?

Ok then,
please cite some "good" early MSS that DO include 16:9-20.


Iasion

Iasion

Oh,
NOW I see....

The entire field is rigged, and wrong about everything.

But praxeus knows the Truth (TM)


Iasion

Steven Avery

Iasion, have you studied the Jim Snapp site ? He really has the fullest exposition on the verses (including the blank space in Vaticanus). If you haven't carefully looked over his site to see all the evidences then you are simply parroting without full research.

And have you even looked over the references that Peter Kirby gives in e-catena?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...na/mark16.html
Are you even aware that many of his (limited) references are before the earliest extant manuscripts you mention ? Would you like to give your explanation of why the ending of Mark was referenced as scripture so frequently in the early centuries ? And your comparison of that evidence with its omission from a few uncial manuscripts quite a bit later ?

Or why your sources omitted those references ?

Iasion, how sensible is it to make definitive statements about evidence when you simply are ignorant of or ignore much of the most salient evidence ?

I simply said that the evidence for the ending of Mark is very strong (to which you reply 'rubbish') and anybody who looks over the Jim Snapp site should be able to see that, whatever their textual perspective. Even if they do not have anything like a "Received Text" or "Byzantine Text" perspective (afaik Jim Snapp does not) that considers the hundreds of Greek manuscripts as very significant evidence. In this case the Greek line preponderance even dovetails with the major non-Greek lines, Latin and Aramaic, where the great majority of manuscripts also have the ending of Mark, and this is further augmented by the wide-scale referencing in the early church writers.

Shalom,
Steven Avery