The End of the book of Mark?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Beware of that deception.

Beware of the "higher criticism".

[Steven Avery]

Rdp, you said “early manuscripts.” The Armenian mss are not early. That leaves a total of 3 or 4 early mss (I can explain the Bobsiensis situation later), not 12. This is a major difference, and a major error, especially as we are including all the early Greek, Latin and Syriac mss.

Why the silly rhetoric? This is an important correction.

You include superfluous stuff unrelated to the surprising error, or the correction. This is known as a diversion tactic.

Sidenote:
Metzger and Wallace will always distort the evidences due to their desire to support the corruption text of the Westcott-Hort recension.

Originally Posted by rdp

*Actually, it is you who has your facts mixed up (just as you do about Sinaiticus, the TR & the KJV). Honestly, I have seen you make so many unreal assertions that it is very difficult to take you seriously. And, you just did it again.

*Actually, you're correct in one thing. I was wrong in stating that only about a dozen MSS omit these passages...

If you are going to call 900 AD and later Armenian and Georgian mss “early MSS”, and then accuse others based on your error, you should not write on Bible text matters.

Again, your original errant claim.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

While Roger Perkins is probably good overall, he starts off with a major factual error.

"the omission of these passages from roughly a dozen early manuscripts (MSS)"

Steven

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Rdp, you said “early manuscripts.” The Armenian mss are not early. That leaves a total of 3 or 4 early mss (I can explain the Bobsiensis situation later), not 12. This is a major difference, and a major error, especially as we are including all the early Greek, Latin and Syriac mss.

Why the silly rhetoric, it is an important correction.

You include superfluous stuff unrelated to the surprising error, or the correction. This is known as a diversion tactic.

Steven

*Save your Freudian analysis for novices. Been at this far too long now to fall for this. Apparently you overlooked the compliment I actually gave you regarding I Tim. 3.16. I simply don’t believe that KJVO even merits serious analysis. It’s just too far-fetched & every-single KJVO I have ever encountered is the same. It is simply a cult-think paradigm based on a staggering amount of willful ignorance.

*There really is no “error” nor correction” needed since, (i) you only partially quote me above (note that I specifically said “roughly” a dozen early MSS), (ii) you completely ignored Dr. Wallace (who actually handles the ancient papyri regularly) who stated that “Several MSS have marginal comments noting that *EARLIER* Greek MSS [did you catch the plurality of MSS & the term ‘earlier’?] lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious).”

*Of course, true to KJVO form I’m certain you will somehow disagree w. all of these hands-on text-critics. BTW, what do you call “early” (considering your comment on the Armenian MSS)? And, you have dished out “superfluous” polemics & “silly rhetoric” plenty of times on here. I simply don’t tolerate KJVO very well since it is very nettlesome to the church.

*Respectfully, I would highly suggest Elder J.R. Ensey’s recent voluminous work (his magnum opus) on this very topic entitled “Searching the Scriptures” available on-line. It places KJVO in its coffin where it belongs. God bless.

[Steven Avery]

“the conclusion of this earliest Gospel (Matthew and Luke used Mark as their template)” - from Roger’s article

This is accepting the modernist error of Markan priority. Since Luke wrote the Gospel to the high priest Theophilus c. 40 AD it is quite unlikely (and has its own set of problems, since Mark essentially is based on familiarity with Luke, especially in the looking forward to the Galilee resurrection appearances.)

======

And I would caution you on the James Snapp writings. His “floating pericope” theory of the Mark ending is absurd, hyper-conjectural, illogical and unnecessary. And is de facto an argument against authenticity. Maurice Robinson and, earlier, John William Burgon, are examples of scholars who have this right.

However, James has been helpful in researching and collating external evidences.

And you should not trust Wallace on those claims without specific mss, with texts and dates. However, since they are irrelevant to your error, I am not going back to the details at this time. James Snapp likely does a good job on your other irrelevant references from Wallace, such as his asterisk claims.

=====

3 or 4 is not a dozen, nor is it roughly a dozen, quite obviously.

Steven

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Rdp, you said “early manuscripts.” The Armenian mss are not early. That leaves a total of 3 or 4 early mss (I can explain the Bobsiensis situation later), not 12. This is a major difference, and a major error, especially as we are including all the early Greek, Latin and Syriac mss.

Why the silly rhetoric? This is an important correction.

You include superfluous stuff unrelated to the surprising error, or the correction. This is known as a diversion tactic.

Sidenote:
Metzger and Wallace will always distort the evidences due to their desire to support the corruption text of the Westcott-Hort recension.

If you are going to call 900 AD and later Armenian and Georgian mss “early MSS”, and then accuse others based on your error, you should not write on Bible text matters.

Again, your original errant claim.



Steven

*Yes, carefully read my supposed “errant” claim where I intentionally said “roughly” a dozen early MSS. I am very careful in my wordings & use such terms for a reason.

*You do understand that the Armenian MSS are drawn from “earlier” exemplars don’t you? What does this mean to you?

*Next, your farcical claim about Metzger & Wallace is the very reason I rarely engage KJVO’s. I just cannot even take such outlandish claims seriously. Almost no one in serious academia holds to KJVO (which version of the KJV do you claim to be “pure” BTW?). It is YOU who should not write on text-critic disciplines w. such fanciful claims. No one can hardly take you seriously. Why don’t you email Wallace - he always responds? Metzger & Wallace are considered among the world’s leading authorities in this arena (how many papyri have you handled under fluorescent lighting again ?).

*Believe what you whatever you wish on this topic. I will both believe & teach the text-critical facts. This is just too silly for me to waste time with. Blessings anyway.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

“the conclusion of this earliest Gospel (Matthew and Luke used Mark as their template)” - from Roger’s article

This is accepting the modernist error of Markan priority. Since Luke wrote the Gospel to the high priest Theophilus c. 40 AD it is quite unlikely (and has its own set of problems, since Mark essentially is based on familiarity with Luke, especially in the looking forward to the Galilee resurrection appearances.)

======

And I would caution you on the James Snapp writings. His “floating pericope” theory of the Mark ending is absurd, hyper-conjectural, illogical and unnecessary. And is de facto an argument against authenticity. Maurice Robinson and, earlier, John William Burgon, are examples of scholars who have this right.

However, James has been helpful in researching and collating external evidences. And you should not trust Wallace on those claims without specific mss, with texts and dates. However, since they are irrelevant to your error, I am not going back to the details at this time.

=====

3 or 4 is not a dozen, nor is it roughly a dozen, quite obviously.

James Snapp does a good job on your other irrelevant references from Wallace, such as his asterisk claims.

Steven

*Ummm, okay. If you say so. You’re flat wrong in several of these assertions, but it is an exercise in futility to show you your error (I caught several just glossing over this).

*There was no “error” in my blog piece - the “error” is in your outlandish claims. I note you still do not interact w. Wallace’s text-critic MS points about scribal habits...other than to pull the usual KJVO mantra of “corrupt text” (all the while opting for the exceedingly late & inferior TR). Mere denial is not evidence - and never will be.

*Again, Dr. Wallace’s factual statement (again, coming from the man who actually handles the papyri under fluorescent lighting): “Several MSS have marginal comments noting that *EARLIER* Greek MSS [did you catch the plurality of MSS & the term ‘earlier’?] lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious).”

*Silly. Have wasted enough time w. this. Believe what you will .

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by rdp

Apparently you overlooked the compliment I actually have you regarding I Tim. 3.16.

It seemed strange. I have not written much about Alexandrinus. And your Wallace and Metzger sources are fierce critics of the pure Bible reading "God was manifest in the flesh ..". (Plus I was on the iPad at the time, and thus writing less completely than now.)

If I remember right, I did give you a helpful idea or two in prep for a James White debate.

Originally Posted by rdp

cult-think paradigm

Thanks for the psycho-babble

Originally Posted by rdp

(i) you only partially quote me above (note that I specifically said “roughly” a dozen early MSS),

3 or 4 is not a dozen, nor is it roughly a dozen, quite obviously.

Originally Posted by rdp

(ii) you completely ignored Dr. Wallace... who stated that “Several MSS have marginal comments noting that *EARLIER* Greek MSS ... lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious).”

Here is James Snapp on the asterisks and obeli:

Even more misleading is Dr. Metzger's claim – repeated by many commentators – that verses 9-20 are marked off with asterisks or obeli to warn readers that these verses are spurious. I have investigated as many of the manuscripts in question as I could, and in every case, no such asterisks or obeli exist in manuscripts without annotations. Some manuscripts have marks which draw the reader's attention to marginal notes (just as asterisks do nowadays), and some manuscripts have lectionary-related symbols which were added to signify the beginning and ending of Scripture-selections for reading during the church-services. But as far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a non-annotated Greek manuscript of Mark in which 16:9-20 is accompanied by asterisks or obeli.

Mark 16:9-20: A Scholarly Consensus?
by James Snapp, Jr.
February 2012
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ns/topics/4966

This should be enough to show you that Wallace is not playing with a full deck, but I'll see if I can parse the other claim later. It would help if Wallace had named at least one ms. with its date and specific note.

what do you call “early” (considering your comment on the Armenian MSS)?

Texual writers will use early for up to about 500, sometimes 600 or 700 AD (a bit depends on language context.)

*Respectfully, I would highly suggest Elder J.R. Ensey’s recent voluminous work (his magnum opus) on this very topic entitled “Searching the Scriptures” available on-line. It places KJVO in its coffin where it belongs. God bless.

If you think Ensey offers some special insight, you are welcome to share specifics. I doubt that I will be very impressed with someone who makes this dumb comment on 1 Timothy 3:16:

As the context shows, the use of “He” does not change the meaning of the passage at all.

Ok, here is James correcting another Daniel Wallace agitprop blunder:

NET: "Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses."

James Snapp
Error! No Greek manuscript has a note that says "The early Greek MSS lack these verses." The most that can be said is that the notes imply that mss earlier than the mss in which the note is written lack the verses. If one actually views the contents of the notes in f-1 and related copies, one will see that they typically say something like, "Some MSS lack these verses but most MSS contain them," or, "Some MSS lack these copies but the early ones contain them."

http://credohouse.org/blog/my-favori...t-in-the-bible
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Ad1HQ7lsIB-oyk

Originally Posted by rdp

your farcical claim about Metzger & Wallace is the very reason I rarely engage KJVO’s. I just cannot even take such outlandish claims seriously.

You notice, I hope, that in our discussion it is James Snapp (whose work you specifically recommend) who rips to shreds bogus and deceptive writing from Metzger and Wallace. This makes your whole straddling position a sticky wicket.

Steven

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by rdp

The argument against the inclusion of the LEM is largely based on the omission of these passages from roughly a dozen early manuscripts

Which manuscripts?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

It seemed strange. I have not written much about Alexandrinus. And your Wallace and Metzger sources are fierce critics of the pure Bible reading "God was manifest in the flesh ..".

*Do you think that just because I reference their quotes I agree w. everything they say? For ex., do you agree w. all of Snapp's theological conclusions? Me-thinks not.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Thanks for the psycho-babble

*Really simple, if ye' can dish it out be prepared to take it. Hey, I even used your "pure" translation for that one .

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

3 or 4 is not a dozen, nor is it roughly a dozen, quite obviously.

*Let's all count together shall we? You have conceded that at least "3 or 4" early MSS omit the passages, Wallace points out that "several MSS have marginal comments noting that *EARLIER* Greek MSS [did you catch the plurality of MSS & the term ‘earlier’?] lacked the verses," the Armenian MSS are taken from earlier parent MSS - and they omit these passages as well.

*See here the NA28 critical apparatus for more info. on this variant (which, again, being a KJVO you will dismiss ): 〚2 16,9-20〛: ⸆ Εστιν δε και ταυτα φερομενα μετα το εφοβουντο γαρ L Ψ 083. (099. l 1602 samss bobo) ¦ • 9 ⸂ αναστας C* l ¦ αναστας δε (- ƒ13) ο Iησους ƒ13 28 . 1241 pm aur c ff2 vgs | ⸄ εφανη W ¦ εφανερωσεν πρωτοις D | ⸀ Μαριαμ C | ⸁ αφ A C3 K Γ Δ Θ Ψ 099 ƒ1.13 28 . 274 . 565 . 700 . 1241 . 1424 . 2542 s. l 844. l 2211

*Since I only partially quoted Metzger, here's the remainder of his quotation:

The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (and), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913).

Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”

*So, again, my approximation of "roughly" (apparently y'all don't know what that term means?) a dozen early MSS was a conservative number - esp. when you consider that the Armenian MSS are drawn from even earlier MSS (it's not like they just started writing new MSS w. no earlier exemplars to draw from).

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Here is James Snapp on the asterisks and obeli:

*Do you think that just because I recommend Snapp's work regarding the LEM this means I accept his assertions everywhere? Umm, you are aware that Snapp is a Trinitarian aren't you (oh, also, see here: https://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/...-bibliology/)? Have ye' now converted also ?

*For ex., do you think that because I reference Wallace's grammar I endorse his theology? In fact, I have an article on my blog on the errors of KJVO in which I post the video clips of James White's work on KJVO - do you think that means I agree w. everything he says? Typical silliness of KJVO's.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This should be enough to show you that Wallace is not playing with a full deck, but I'll see if I can parse the other claim later. It would help if Wallace had named at least one ms. with its date and specific note.

*Silly. Does Snapp travel the globe digitizing ancient Greek papyri while reading them under fluorescent lighting? Is Snapp considered one of the world's leading Greek scholars? It is you - and every other KJVO - who is not playing w. a full deck.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Texual writers will use early for up to about 500, sometimes 600 or 700 AD (a bit depends on language context.)

*I fully understand this, but, again, these MSS are drawn from earlier parent MSS. How much "earlier" is not exactly known, but we do know that early scribes copied to preserve ancient MSS (much like what Wallace is doing currently w. the MSS). Thus, my point remains untouched.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

If you think Ensey offers some special insight, you are welcome to share specifics. I doubt that I will be very impressed with someone who makes this dumb comment on 1 Timothy 3:16:

*Another silly assertion. Do you understand how Greek pronouns work? Ensey is correct to emphasize how nothing is changed in meaning if the Greek text reads "who" or "He" (incidentally, I argue for "God" in this passage based upon ECF & early testimony about Alexandrinus).

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Ok, here is James correcting another Daniel Wallace agitprop blunder:

*Only problem is, the world's foremost text-critics & Greek scholars - who actually studied these MSS under fluorescent lighting - say the polar opposite of Snapp. Not a hard decision.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

You notice, I hope, that in our discussion it is James Snapp (whose work you specifically recommend) who rips to shreds bogus and deceptive writing from Metzger and Wallace. This makes your whole straddling position a sticky wicket.

*You notice, I hope, that in our discussion you're merely parroting anything Snapp says that you agree with to support your "pure" transmission stream. I agree w. Snapp at the LEM & think his work is excellent on that variant alone (did you catch that?) - but he has not "ripped to shreds" the men who actually hold & study the ancient MSS. This does not mean that I agree w. their every assertion (an equivocation fallacy). Indeed, I disagree w. them on this variant, but, they are correct that numerous early MSS lack these verses (however, the ECF quote the LEM).


*Oh, and no "straddling" necessary - my original assertion was absolutely correct as demonstrated by the world's leading text-critics above. I declare, it si the same w. every-single KJVO I have ever encountered. About like dealing w. the Yeshua fella's. All mixed up & thoroughly set.

[Steven Avery]

Roger, with your post above, I have lost all respect for your scholarship and similarly lost interest in any more discussion.

Maybe if I had more time, I would go into a point or two bit more, but I have learned enough from our discussion to know that other research and discussion is far more important. There is a spiritual principality at play.

Steven