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

[Steven Avery]

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

"Two other authors in the book argue that 16:20 is the original ending."

Please name a second author there, after Maurice Robinson, who takes that excellent position.

I think you would do well to read the book first.

Steven

[iskander]

...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....

Jesus was raised in Mk 16:6.
kind regards
Harvey Dubish

[JoeWallack]

JW:
The second leg of my review of Daniel Wallace's contribution to Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel:

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

REPUTATION -
Wallace notes the following qualitative advantages of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus based on reputation:

• 1) Alexandrian Text-type which Bible scholarship generally thinks is the highest quality Text-type.
  
  2) Earlier papyri support the Alexandrian Text-type over other Text-types.

Wallace does spend too much time in general trying to establish the Sinaiticus/Vaticanus text as a second century text. The lack of quality evidence to support makes his arguments speculative. Likewise speculative is his attempt to make P75, an early papyri, some type of witness to SE, because even though it lacks the end of GMark it supports Vaticanus in general. He also spends too much effort trying to defend against the spaces after the SE in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The related scribes may very well have not only been aware of endings to GMark other than the SE since Eusebius famously identified the LE long before and a few Patristics before also appear to have quoted it, but actually intended the blank spaces to be an invitation to add an ending. This is even better evidence against the LE than no space as it is evidence of attitude. An acknowledgement that the exemplars/tradition is SE but it would be acceptable to add an ending. Same as with the Age attribute, Wallace should have spent more time trying to measure the relative advantage of the witness for SE as to Reputation.

Nestle-Aland (NA) is the most popular critical apparatus for Textual Criticism. NA rates Sinaticus and Vaticanus as Category 1 witnesses in general, the highest rating. No other witness to the end of GMark has a Category 1 rating. For other witness to the end of GMark, the next highest rated witness is Codex Regius, c. 700, with a Category 2 rating. Codex Regius has a separation after 16:8 and indicates that most earlier manuscripts ended at 16:8. It then provides an Intermediate ending followed by the Long Ending. Because of this Text Critical commentary it not only provides better witness for the SE than the LE but since it is referring to multiple known Manuscripts and not just a decision relating to one Manuscript, it is a witness with scope. No other witness to the end of GMark has a Category 2 rating. Thus the top 3 witnesses by reputation all support the SE.

The next highest rated witness, at Category 3, is Codex Washingtonianus, which as previously mentioned, has an expanded version of the LE. The only other Category 3 witness here is Codex Alexandrinus which is the highest rated witness to have absolute support for the LE. There is only 1 witness to the LE with a Category 4 rating and only 3 with a category 5 rating. In summary, the top 4 rated witnesses by reputation all either support SE or lack absolute support for the LE and of the thousands of Manuscripts with the LE only 5 have absolute support and at least a Category 5 rating. So the qualitative advantage for SE by Reputation is even larger than the qualitative advantage for SE by Age.

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)

[iskander]

...Everyone is welcome to comment except Harvey Dubish.

The title of you sermon is offensive to reason, Why should anyone be afraid, be very afraid?


PS Political slogans are also offensive to reason.

PS Advertising your blog is in bad taste

[Steven Avery]

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

"Two other authors in the book argue that 16:20 is the original ending."
Please name a second author there, after Maurice Robinson, who takes that excellent position.
I think you would do well to read the book first.

So Joe, have you read the book yet?
Are you ready to correct the error above?

Steven

[JoeWallack]

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

"Two other authors in the book argue that 16:20 is the original ending."

Please name a second author there, after Maurice Robinson, who takes that excellent position.

I think you would do well to read the book first.

Steven

JW:

Back End In Black

P.122 [Black]

As for the Longer Ending of Mark, we need not doubt that it is part of Holy Scripture, even if it is Mark's supplement to Peter's account of the life of Jesus.

Uhm, let's not kid ourselves Steven, Wallace should be reading this Thread and not verse-vices.


Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - Who is Easier to Demonize as Naziish?

[JoeWallack]

JW:
The third leg of my review of Daniel Wallace's contribution to Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel:

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

INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION -
The primary criticism by proponents of the LE against the quality Manuscript evidence for SE is that the Sinaticus and Vaticanus witness lacks independent confirmation because both are the same text-type and similar time period indicating a geographical relationship. While not directly noting that it is a criticism Wallace defends against at the larger Category level by demonstrating that among the Manuscript Versions and Patristic categories there is support for the SE among all text-types.

Again, Wallace does not directly defend, but does provide a defense even at the Greek manuscript level, without noting as such, by pointing out that some later Greek Manuscripts indicate varying levels of evidential support for the SE by either an explicit note or likely text critical symbol at/by 16:8. Most of these Manuscripts are Byzantine text-type, the bulk of the thousands of Manuscripts with the LE.

Everyone is welcome to comment except Harvey Dubish.


Joseph

PS = Note that I've changed my article link based on iskammer's recommendation

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - Who is Easier to Demonize as Naziish?

[iskander]

..Note that I've changed my article link based on iskammer's recommendation

You are an obliging preacher. Thank you Wallack

[Steven Avery]

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

"Two other authors in the book argue that 16:20 is the original ending."
Please name a second author there, after Maurice Robinson, who takes that excellent position.
I think you would do well to read the book first.
Steven

As for the Longer Ending of Mark, we need not doubt that it is part of Holy Scripture, even if it is Mark's supplement to Peter's account of the life of Jesus.

So you are agreeing that your original claim was simply wrong:

"Two other authors in the book argue that 16:20 is the original ending."

Since David Alan Black does not consider it the original Markan writing:
"How, then, does one explain how the last twelve verses (Mark 16:9-20), which describe the Resurrection, were added to the Gospel?" p. 120

The explanation of David Alan Black is almost as convoluted and absurd as that of James Snapp.

There was one defender of Markan authenticity in that book, Maurice Robinson.

Steven

[iskander]

..
The Israeli/Arab Conflict - Who is Easier to Demonize as Naziish?

" UN says Israel is primary cause of Palestinian suffering
Annual report by Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs highlights occupation, Gaza blockade, settler violence "
http://www.timesofisrael.com/un-says-is ... suffering/