JoeWallack

JW:
Snapp is more experienced here than you and knows he will have major problems with the Manuscript evidence. I've already shown in this Thread that every significant language tradition here, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic and Armenian, shows a change from AE to LE. Similarly, the major text types show change from AE to LE. Even the proto-Byzantine has evidence of this which puts pressure on the Byzantine majority. You need to deal with specific observations which are conveniently located in this Thread.

Wallace thinks the Manuscript evidence is decisive by itself. I don't.

JW:
Patristic is the only category of evidence that has quality criteria support for LE (Age and Confirmation). Snapp recognizes this and so did Farmer, the former Champion of LE (by the way, the position is now open, a telling fact by itself, so you may want to apply).

JW:
I can forgive you for not understanding what Snapp's position is here because it is so convoluted:

Introduction, Part Two - Related Points (1 of 2)

So his position is that Mark wrote LE but not as part of the Gospel. Snapp's scholarship is good enough to concede that the Internal evidence is clear that the LE is not original to "Mark". His "solution" is to assert that it was still written by Mark obviously so he still has supposed known witness to the LE. I think you'll agree with me that his explanation is nonsense so I don't have to demonstrate that to you, do I?



Joseph

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

bacht

I don't see how the long ending of Mark has much doctrinal leverage anyway. The other three canonical gospels all have post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus. I'm not up on the mss families but as I understand it the variations between the Texus Receptus and others generally don't impinge on core Christian teachings (?)

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

a) the skeptics very properly argue from no Markan ending to no resurrection. Their redaction nonsense finally can get some shoe leather.

b) There are a number of doctrinal and apologetic issues that fulcrumize on the twelve verses, such as believers baptism (note that they also attack Acts 8:37 the other major believer's baptism verse)

c) The #1 doctrinal assault on the Christian faith is the attempt to try to take away the pure Bible from the faith, to have Messianic belief now as a wisp belief without the recognizable, tangible and pure book from God, to be read by the ploughman, and even the scholar. Historically this hinged primarily around the heavenly witnesses, the resurrection account of Mark has been the auxiliary battleground since Dean John Burgon demolished the Westcott-Hort feeble assault on the verses. The battleground is mostly in the minds of cornfused textcrits, who like to sound very scholarly, plus occasionally a truly duped 'evangelical' like Daniel Wallace becomes their cheerleader.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

KJV comments split off

bacht

If Mark was the only Christian document preserved by the church then the ending would have doctrinal significance. But the other gospels and the epistles all confirm the resurrection of Christ.

The basic article of Christian faith is simple: Christ died that all who believe will live forever. The rest is window dressing. Your fixation with a pure text is irrelevant to the fundamental Christian message.

The #1 "doctrinal assault" on Christianity has to do with supernaturalism: there is no life after death, no spirit world, and no miracles. Take these out of the NT and what's left? There's no Jewish messiah that's for sure.

Toto

Codex Bezae split

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

JOE WALLACK STUDY OF IRENAEUS CITATIONS !

After bumbling around Codex Bezae, now split to its own thread, Joe Wallack actually continues with his amazing Irenaeus review above by referencing as support his own vague, unpublished and invisible and ethereal study. No methodology, no quotes, no examples, no nuttin .. here we go ..

This sounds like a great study. Joe, would you please include the 16 quotes, and especially indicate which ones are specifically said to be from Scripture or a Gospel account. e.g. "it is written" "in the Gospel"

Also with the quotes we can tell the "degree of difficulty". Whether the distance is only a word or, a turn of phrase (as a Targum or a paraphrase) or whether Irenaeus is actually citing a totally different text as scripture.

Surely you understand that the information we have so far from you is not anything substantive, since it can mean almost anything.

Thanks, Joe !

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

JOE WALLACK WANTS IRENAEUS TO GIVE A "DETERING ANALYSIS"

This next is truly an amazing line of argument. Since Irenaeus actually has sensible ideas about the NT authorship, and does not write about the authors like a modern cornfusenik, a skeptic, higher critic or mythicist ... Joe tries to attack Irenaeus !!!!!

Uhhh.. Joe, could you tell us what Ireneaus could have written about these that would not be "seriously disputed". You want a Detering treatise ?

And surely you realize the incredible circularity of appealing to "modern scholarship" to try to impugn Irenaeus (they would do better to learn from his closeness to the time). And even worse to use recent confused late dating theories that the Bible believer rejects (after he is done laughing) to try to attack Irenaeus who lived in those times.

Are you coming down with skeptic-sickness? Assume as true just about everything you can from the supposed "scholarship consensus" out of left-field to fabricate arguments of desperation.

Irenaeus actually seemed to have a very solid understanding of the NT authorship.

While we are still waiting for you, JW, to give your dating and authorship of Mark. See the posts above.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

This is not a Detering analysis.

These points against Irenaeus' interpretations are the modern consensus of scholars, including many Christians. (Detering goes well beyond these positions.) You can hardly expect Joe to repeat the volumes of analysis that have gone into these conclusions on this thread.

Please make sure that you connect what you post on this thread to the topic of this thread, the the original ending of Mark.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Toto - It is Joe who is claiming there is something disingenuous in Irenaeus giving an early church history that is right in the mainstream of the early church writers.

And it is a hilarious scholarly anachronism for Ireneaus to be criticized for not matching the ultra-dubious nouveau scholarship analysis that arose literally 1700+ years later.

This was a rather significant part of the JW Irenaeus presentation on the ending of Mark, taking up a good chunk of his writing. JW is the one who picked this strange battleground. I thought at one time that skeptics try to use logic in their presentation or that other skeptics would notice when an argument goes south.

Shalom,
Steven Avery