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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Giuseppe »

I find a clue supporting the ending of original Mark in 16:8 in the following words of the Mythicist Prosper Alfaric:
The two Maries and Salome, having seen with their eyes and heard from their ears an angel who
had told them that Christ was risen, ''did not say anything to anyone, for they had fear". Such a mutism of three women, in such a case, is very invariable. It also brings a wise reader to ask where can all information come from. The narrator does not worry about that. Rather, he seeks to explain why the facts he recounts were ignored so far, why he is the first to tell them.
This allows him to establish a contrast very clear between the end of his narrative and the beginning.
The Gospel began with a cry, it ends by a silence.
(Prosper Alfaric, examen critique de l'Evangile selon Marc, my translation and my bold)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by davidbrainerd »

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.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by robert j »

davidbrainerd wrote: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?)
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by davidbrainerd »

robert j wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote: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?)
I think it rather implies Pauline priority. Mark could be trying to clear the 12 away after reading Paul. Do I need to provide arguments for Pauline priority over Mark too?
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by robert j »

davidbrainerd wrote:
robert j wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote: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?)
I think it rather implies Pauline priority. Mark could be trying to clear the 12 away after reading Paul. Do I need to provide arguments for Pauline priority over Mark too?
No need, of course. I read your statement too quickly, sorry about that.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Steven Avery »

JoeWallack wrote: James [Oh] Snapp, Jr. is probably the foremost defender of the LE (Long Ending) that the world has ever known

While James Snapp has done a good job researching and documenting the overwhelming manuscript and early church writer evidences for the longer ending, he is not really a defender of the traditional ending. This is something you pointed out, quite correctly. And seem to forget, when convenient. James has to play convoluted and transparent games to try to make his position one of authenticity. In a sense, he is the trojan horse or fifth column of Mark ending defense.

Currently, Maurice Robinson stands as the foremost defender of the traditional text as Mark's ending.

Historically, John William Burgon is likely the most significant.

Steven
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Apologists Now! God I Love the Sound of Psalms in the Mornin

Post by JoeWallack »

Steven Avery wrote:
JoeWallack wrote: James [Oh] Snapp, Jr. is probably the foremost defender of the LE (Long Ending) that the world has ever known

While James Snapp has done a good job researching and documenting the overwhelming manuscript and early church writer evidences for the longer ending, he is not really a defender of the traditional ending. This is something you pointed out, quite correctly. And seem to forget, when convenient. James has to play convoluted and transparent games to try to make his position one of authenticity. In a sense, he is the trojan horse or fifth column of Mark ending defense.

Currently, Maurice Robinson stands as the foremost defender of the traditional text as Mark's ending.

Historically, John William Burgon is likely the most significant.

Steven
JW:
Each is not outstanding in their own way. The Internal evidence is not intellectually interesting to me because every category of Internal evidence is against LE and The Difficult Reading Principle by itself would make Internal Evidence against LE. So the question here is not who's defense of the LE is better but who's defense of the LE is worse.

Robinson has the traditional defense against the Internal evidence, lowering the standard for comparison of all categories of Internal evidence in order to find/posit examples in GMark that he (mis)claims are comparable, thus concluding that there is no individual category of Internal evidence that is against LE. Pure/textbook Apologetics.

Snapp has the more sophisticated defense in that he will go so far as to concede that there are Internal evidence issues with the LE, stop short of making a related definite conclusion and then change the Textual Criticism standard from what the original author wrote to what the Church distributed for use.

From a Technical standpoint then, Robinson's defense is better, as if I ever argue the LE with Snapp in court I have faith that it would end like this:
  • Judge: (after Snapp has called Vladimar Putin, Daniel Wallace, Ted Nugent, Kid Rock, Stephen Baldwin, Jon Voight, Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, Sean Spicer and Alex Jones as witnesses). Your witness Mr. Wallack.

    JW: Thank you your Honor. I call Mr. James Snapp to the witness stand. Mr. Snapp, did the author of GMark write the LE with the intent that it would be the finish to GMark?

    Snapp: No.

    JW: What more evidence do we need? No more questions your Honor. The prosecution rests its case.
From a Practical standpoint, Snapp's defense is better. Snapp is the superior Textual Critic in that he recognizes that the Internal evidence is against the LE, so he avoids it. He has let slip on occasion that he is conclusion driven on the subject (he knows the Internal evidence is against LE). Snapp is smarter but that is not necessarily a good thing in Textual Criticism where Objectivity is more important than Ability.


Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Steven Avery »

Hi BCHF,

You like Snapp's "defense" because he is really against authenticity. (As you have pointed out in more lucid posts.)

So you dance around, in your convoluted and circular manner, where spin is the name of the game.

The actual evidence for the ending is simply massive, involving 99.9%+ of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mss. That is more than 999 out of every 1,000.
Plus early and often early church writer.

Plus the simple internal sense and consistency. Your spin is actually rather boring.

Steven
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Peter Kirby »

Steven Avery wrote: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.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Steven Avery »

Hi Peter,

I'm asserting and declaring (not "admitting") something that is clearly true.
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. Which is true even if you mistakenly consider Sinaiticus as an antiquity manuscript.

Steven
Post Reply