JoeWallack

JW:
This Thread is a continuation of my award winning Thread:

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

which is itself based on the following article at ErrancyWiki:

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

This article is already the best article and than some on the Textual Criticism issue of the Ending of "Mark". This Thread will interpolate on the original.

The significance of the Thread is as follows:

Mythpso Facto, there is no historical witness to the supposed resurrection (surprise).

Contra Dr. Carrier, the most Reverend James Snapp is the foremost authority the world has ever known advocating Long Ending. After The Great Skeptical Victory at CARM (my debate with him) he was educated into knowing that Evil retreats when forcibly confronted by good

He has now retreated to the position of only discussing the issue with fellow believers. One current effort of his is disputing that there are no/almost no Manuscripts with Markings at 16:8 indicating that what follows (mostly the LE) has some doubt as to originality.

A relatively new resource for inspection of Manuscripts is:

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts [CSNTM]

Skeptical Buyer beware, this is very much a Believer's sight, so do not automatically accept anything other than Manuscript evidence you see with your own eyes. Everything else needs to be Skepvetted.

Continuing on to the Manuscripts:

Gennadius 259

relevant description

94b



Note that 16:9 starts on the far left, third line from the top. Contra the description above, there are very special Markings exactly at the start of 16:9. The only such special Marking on the page. Without looking at the rest of the Manuscript, the marking here could be just a marking of the Eusebian Canons, which of course ended at 16:8 and/or identification of a popular Lectionary reading starting at 16:9. In general, there is often good evidence that this is what is intended. The problem though is usually only some Eusebian Canon/Lectionary sections are marked and the identification varies. On the other side, only some Textual Variation is marked in the margins and the identification varies. So regarding special scribal notations at 16:9 you can not be sure what was intended (on rare occasion it is spelled out, so to speak).

Let's assume that here the Eusebian Canon is at least one intended reference. Apologists will than spin that this is no evidence whatsoever against LE and can be ignored to conclusion. When properly considered though:

1) This scribe felt it necessary to indicate that 16:9-20 was not in the Eusebian Canon.

2) Presumably the exemplar did the same indicating an existing tradition.

3) 1) and 2) represent respect for the age and value of Eusebius as a Textual Critic which elevates his related witness as evidence.

As I have emphasized here, a related key criterion is the direction of the change in evidence, which here is clearly to Long Ending.

Word.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki