Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

[Peter Kirby]

involving 99.9%+ of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mss. That is more than 999 out of every 1,000.

What you're admitting here is that you aren't really thinking about it. You're convinced by the number of manuscripts. If an addition made its way into 99.9%+ of the mss, you'd never know, because you'd already be persuaded by its presence in 99.9%+ of the mss.

When all the major language lines fully agree on a text, that is an extremely powerful evidence. In this case, even most of the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts agree.

It takes a very high Hortian dupe quotient not to acknowledge this truth.

This is what I mean. The flip side of this argument is so far removed from what you consider an acceptable opinion, that you are extremely confident that the argument isn't even really worth having. But this also makes your opinion not really very interesting. You're not against the idea that the Longer Ending is inauthentic so much as you are very confident that 99%+ of manuscripts can't be wrong. Ever.

[Steven Avery]

You're not against the idea that the Longer Ending is inauthentic so much as you are very confident that 99%+ of manuscripts can't be wrong. Ever.

It would be very difficult, a very high bar, for a text that is in 99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts to be an insertion and non-authentic.

Why? Simply because the overwhelming manuscript preponderance is an extremely powerful evidence.

The fact that you find this truth uninteresting is really not my problem, it is yours.
If you accepted it as truth, it would limit your ability to play with the Bible text to your whims.

Steven

[Peter Kirby]

You're not against the idea that the Longer Ending is inauthentic so much as you are very confident that 99%+ of manuscripts can't be wrong. Ever.

It would be very difficult, a very high bar, for a text that is in 99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts to be an insertion and non-authentic.

The fact that you find this truth uninteresting is really not my problem, it is yours. If you accepted it as truth, it would limit your ability to play with the Bible text to your whims.

99%+ of manuscripts of any ancient text can easily be wrong about the original. Homer, Bible, Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita. Any and all of the above. This is a fact. The agreement of 99%+ of manuscripts is extremely powerful evidence for the text of their common ancestor. Establishing the original is more difficult, more complicated, and is where the other 0.00001% (or whatever it is) can be the most important manuscript evidence available.

[iskander]

If 16:8 is the original ending, it may be intended to clean the 12 off the table for Paul to replace them all by receiving direct revelation from the risen XS IS.

Yes, The ending of the gospel of Mark is of no importance to the Christian faith.

[iskander]

If 16:8 is the original ending, it may be intended to clean the 12 off the table for Paul to replace them all by receiving direct revelation from the risen XS IS.

This apparently assumes Marcan priority over Paul. I think I'm being quite generous to even call this a minority view.

Have you provided on this Forum a succinct presentation (meaning reasonably short in keeping with the norms of the Forum) with your strongest arguments and evidence outlining your opinion on this priority? I'm not likely to get involved in a debate on the issue, but it seems to me you should provide a reasonable basis for this opinion, if you have not already done so. (perhaps in a new thread?)

The ending of Mark is the triumphant death of Jesus. It ends 16 :6
6But he said to them, ‘Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised;


There is no need for more,

[Steven Avery]

99%+ of manuscripts of any ancient text can easily be wrong about the original. Homer, Bible, Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita. Any and all of the above. This is a fact.

No, it is your fiat declaration.

Plus the Bible has multiple text-lines and languages early to its creation. Making its textual understanding distinct. Plus it has additional commentators that support the ending in the period before any negative evidences. You are welcome to try to make analogies.

The agreement of 99%+ of manuscripts is extremely powerful evidence for the text of their common ancestor. Establishing the original is more difficult, more complicated, and is where the other 0.00001% (or whatever it is) can be the most important manuscript evidence available.

The Greek, Latin and Syriac text-lines involved have diverse histories and locales. Thus, if you talk of a singular common ancestor, the best approximation becomes the autotraphic text of Mark. By any sensible genealogical reckoning.

You are nicely demonstrating an absurdist modern position that 999 out of 1,000 mss is not an extremely powerful evidence. Thanks!

Steven

[Peter Kirby]

Thus, if you talk of a singular common ancestor, the best approximation becomes the autotraphic text of Mark.

Would be nice if it were true. Too bad it's only an assumption.

You are nicely demonstrating an absurdist modern position that 999 out of 1,000 mss is not an extremely powerful evidence.

Anyway, my point is proven: you reject modern scholarship and modern text criticism. That's your issue. Your opinion on the longer ending of Mark is just a consequence of your overall beliefs regarding text criticism and how it should be conducted (answer: take a poll and prefer quantity).

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Sure, the basis paradigms of what is falsely called modern scientific textual criticism are demonstrably false, to the extent that there is any purported science. In fact, it is well known that Hort rigged his textual criticism analysis to reach a specific result. That his supposed genealogical system was simply a charade.

Take lectio brevior, as a simple example of a fundamental piece that is now known to be more false than true.

And, even a dyed-in-the-wool modern textual critic has to pretty dumb to discount as minor 99.9% preponderance of the ms. evidences in the multiple major and early languages.
In such a case, there simply is no there there.

Steven

[iskander]

Be Happy. Be Very Happy For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

Genesis 3:15. And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true


Mark 16:6, It required that the champion of mankind himself be a man who would do battle with Adam's conqueror and vanquish it, ... The woman's seed , the conquering Christ, destroyed death; man was set free, and " his salvation is death's destruction" .


From The emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)
Jaroslav Pelikan
ISBN 139780226653716
pages 149and 150

[JoeWallack]

JW:
At my Skeptical Textual Criticism Blog I've started a review of Daniel Wallace's contribution to:



Review of Daniel Wallace Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel - Greek Manuscript Evidence

AGE -
Wallace points out that the two oldest extant manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, c. 350, both end at 16:8 (SE). This identifies the advantage of the SE here in absolute terms but Wallace does not go on to measure the advantage in relative terms. GMark was relatively unpopular in the early Church so there are fewer extant early Manuscripts. While Sinaticus and Vaticanus are c. 350, the next earliest relevant Manuscript here is Codex Washingtonianus (W), c. 400. W has an expanded version of the LE so while it does support the LE over the SE it is not absolute support. Next is Codex Alexandrinus, c. 425, Codex Bezae, c. 450 and 3 Codexes c. 550. The next Codex is c. 700. All of these have the LE.

In comparison then, there are only 2 Manuscripts with the LE that are within 100 years of Sinaticus and Vaticanus and 3 more within 200 years. No others are closer than 350 years. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were written approximately 250 years after GMark was written while the 3 Codexes written c. 550 were written approximately 450 years after GMark or close to twice as long after compared to Sinaticus and Vaticanus. So while there are thousands of Greek Manuscripts with the LE, there are only 2 of these that compare with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as to age and only 5 total that are within 350 years. So in terms of Age only, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are a significant percent of the early Greek Manuscripts here.

JW:
My complaint is while Apologists are hiding arguments behind thousands of Mid Evil Manuscripts Wallace (and Skeptical scolarship) does not bother to identify the d-i-s-t-a-n-c-e between the attributes of Sinaiticus/Vaticanus and The Others.

Everyone is welcome to comment except Harvey Dubish.


Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)