The End of the book of Mark?

[Michael The Disciple]

Is RDP Roger Perkins?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by rdp

(BTW, I would be very curious to know if Steven Avery or James Snapp actually knows how to read the Greek MSS?)

James yes, myself no.

Originally Posted by rdp

*Simply, KJVO's represent fringe scholarship & is not even taken seriously in academia-proper (ask Ehrman).

Why would you ask an atheist whose loss of faith was connected tp textual criticsm errors and confusions where he places the acceptance of the AV as the pure word of God?

Originally Posted by rdp

*Mr. Avery - I will apologize for my curt responses to you. As you can see we are poles apart on this topic, but I do appreciate your labor in this area regardless of our vehement differences. God bless.

Accepted. Thanks.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

*If interested:

https://apostolicacademics.com/2015/...g-of-mark-lem/

Snapp is a smart guy. He has a kindle book on this topic

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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

And, noting that you were skeptical about those sections from James contradicting the Daniel Wallace claim, I found a bit of the supporting detail which I had placed on my PureBibleForum a while back.

Pure Bible Forum
Sinaiticus - authentic antiquity or modern?
Tischendorf Palaeography Attempts
circularity - Sinaiticus is early, misses Mark ending --> Mark ending autographic, note early Sinaiticus ms corroboration
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...&p=536#post536

============================

Mark 16:9-20 - Sorting Out Some Common Mistakes
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2...me-common.html

Facebook discussion
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2120...3564521841693/

> James E. Snapp, Jr.
"Three of these manuscripts (20, 215, and 300) even share a note which says, regarding the end of 16:8,

"The text from here to the end is not in some copies. But in the ancient ones, it all appears intact."

Thus instead of conveying scribal doubt, this note emphasizes the presence of the passage in ancient copies. "

Five manuscripts (1, 205, 205abs, 209, and 1582) share a note which says, before 16:9,

"In some of the copies, the Gospel concludes here, and Eusebius Pamphilus Canons also stop here. But in many, this [i.e., verses 9-20] also appears."

Again, the intention of the note-writer appears to have been to defend the acceptance of these 12 verses, rather than to draw them into doubt. Another group of five manuscripts (15, 22, 1110, 1192, and 1210) shares the same note, but without the reference to the Eusebian Canons. The wording of the note is so similar that these ten manuscripts cannot constitute independent witnesses; these notes descend from a common source, and after the Eusebian Sections were expanded, the part about the Eusebian Canons was removed. Lastly, a note in minuscule 199 (from the 1100's) states succinctly, "In some of the copies, this [i.e., verses 9-20] is not present, but the text stops here" (that is, at the end of 16:8).

============================

This is a continuation from:

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."

And the most recent listing of many of the main Daniel Wallace NETBible Mark ending errors might be here:

The NET and the Ending of Mark (Updated!)
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2...g-of-mark.html

The NET’s note at Mark 16:9 is untrustworthy. The NET’s note contains some statements which are obvious mistakes, some statements which are probably erroneous, and some imprecise statements which give false impressions. The note also puts blinders over its readers' eyes by failing to mention some important evidence.

Remember, though, while James does an excellent job in articles such as this one, his position on the Mark ending is extremely problematic.

1) the James Snapp's theory of creation and attachment of the 12 verses (floating pericope) is essentially that of non-authenticity. He has to posit absurd conjectural scenarios to try to morph it into authenticity.

2) He misses emphasizing some of the simplest and clearest arguments, such as

99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mss having the traditional ending, the

sense and imperative of Bible preservation, the

ease of omission and the difficulty of addition

the absurd tie-in with "Markan priority" and theories of the short ending and late dating that deny the resurrection (the bottom line for many)

the proper early dating of Mark in the 40s

Mark did write the full Gospel, as in our traditional ending today

==========================

So, you have to use his material with believer's caution.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by rdp

Wallace ... has well established himself as one of the premier text-critics & Greek grammarians in the world today. All one has to do is look on the Munster website to verify this http://egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/index_en.shtml ..

Precisely where does Muenster list their top text critics and grammarians? What do they say? I did a web-site English search for Wallace and nothing showed up.

While I consider textual criticism a science of sand, I would still be curious as to where are the Muenster accolades.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Precisely where does Muenster list their top text critics and grammarians? What do they say? I did a web-site English search for Wallace and nothing showed up.

While I consider textual criticism a science of sand, I would still be curious as to where are the Muenster accolades.

Steven

Steve, have you ever had to translate anything before?

Also how would you describe textual criticism in your own words?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by rdp

I will be contacting Wallace about these alleged errors. He always responds to me & we have actually discussed the ECF quotes of the Byzantine platform text...

Why don’t you see if you understand what is shared in the statistical illiteracy paper? It is my contention that elementary math blunders (that should be very easy to understand at the level of high school math) have been used in his paper for decades as a major part of his Critical Text apologia.

It would be quite easy to make corrections in that paper. Although it might viscerate his argument.

By ignoring the errors, the Daniel Wallace Critical Text scholarship becomes essentially worthless.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Steve, have you ever had to translate anything before?

Anything substantial I farm out, like we did with the Uspensky Sinaiticus material. I have Bar Mitzvah Hebrew and high-school and college French and German, which goes back some years.

When I want to know something about a foreign language, I would hope that the person sharing is a fluent speaker of the language. e.g I would prefer one truly fluent bilingual Spanish-English person, with decent vocabulary, to explain a translation issue than anyone fluent in one language but grammar-book school-learned in the other.

Oh, that became a factor in the Jehovah discussions, versus the yahweh-pushers like Twelve Tribes, various Yahweh assemblies, and Homestead Heritage (where I saw first-hand the doctrinal dissolution and the scriptural losses, and where they hope to put out their own corrupted version real soon now, by which they could claim that ”Yahweh-worship” .. their compound word, is in the “Bible”. Caveat emptor.)

Nehemia Gordon, despite his New Testament weaknesses, is very solid with his Biblical and cultural Hebrew background. And with Hebrew University background under Emanuel Tov, he knows how to do research. Although Jehovah (or Yehovah) as in the pure AV 1611 was 100% correct before he came onto the scene, his scholarship, new studies in mss. and Hebraic sources and easy-going presentation changed the public understanding.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Also how would you describe textual criticism in your own words?

That is a bit like asking me to describe the false sciences of evolution.

While some component elements may be sound (e.g. natural selection in evolution) the theory as a whole, as commonly used, is false and built on false paradigms.

The Bible texual criticism (an outgrowth from “sacred criticism”) is a unique branch, a pseudo-science that became popular in the 1800s, since it could be juggled around to try to support a corruption ultra-minority Greek text as a competitor to the pure Reformation Bibles. By the time of the Westcott-Hort recension, it was so stilted that the alternate text was built on a Reader’s Digest abbreviated and corrupt ms. (Vaticanus) supported principally by a wildly-corrupt Sinaiticus. Wildly corrupt scribally, in addition to textually. A ms. which itself had been crafted, created and discovered 30 years earlier.

Virtually every element of the Hortian theory was wrong, and many elements were absurd. Over the years the errors were laughed at and discarded, but the recension text itself remained, Potemkin Village style.

Changes to the corruption versions of today are minimal, mostly face-mask. The text is supported because of certain book publishing and seminary and “scholarship” industries, which put out enough agitprop to keep many Christians today confused and uncertain as to what is truly the pure and perfect word of God. As a cover, they try to teach you that God’s words do not matter so much, just get the “message.”

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Anything substantial I farm out, like we did with the Uspensky Sinaiticus material. I have Bar Mitzvah Hebrew and high-school and college French and German, which goes back some years.

When I want to know something about a foreign language, I would hope that the person sharing is a fluent speaker of the language. e.g I would prefer one truly fluent bilingual Spanish-English person, with decent vocabulary, to explain a translation issue than anyone fluent in one language but grammar-book school-learned in the other.

OK, well a Bar Mitzvah student really just memorizes his words to be repeated on the day of his Bar Mitzvah. So, that isn't what I was looking for, also High School German doesn't answer my question. But, what I was asking is that if you had ever translated anything., Which you haven't. If you have you would know that translation is criticism and a lot of private interpretation. Just like the KJV translators did when they took the English Bibles which came before them, and redefined words, and verses. Translation is you taking a word or even a phrase and giving it your own interpretation.
It is that simple.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

That is a bit like asking me to describe the false sciences of evolution.

While you and I may not believe in evolution we could give a proper definition of evolution. One without any bias involved. Not a definition salted with weasel words to coax the reader in the direction we want the reader to go. You see Steve, not everyone is agreeing therefore the use of too many harsh adjectives cause people to not buy the story. Especially since you have had no background other than your Bar Mitzvah and High School education during your teens. Some would say that your arguments aren't really a search for truth but actually an agenda motivated campaign for one certain translation of English Bible.

Now, don't get me wrong, but I use a King James, and I believe the ending of Mark to be original. But, I can't see the logic in coming against all textual criticism. Because obviously, we have come a long way since the 1600s in what we know about ancient history, and languages used in the first century A.D.

[Steven Avery]

Above, I was a little too soft on textual criticism, so I added a bit while you were responding. You asked me a question, it is my responsibility to reply honestly.

============

As to your thinking that translation and textual criticism are interlinked disciplines scholastically, you are simply wrong. Textual criticism does not care how a word is translated, and translators work with whatever source (usually Greek in the NT) text they are given. It could be the pure Reformation Bible text, or one from the corrupt Westcott-Hort recension, which origination I described above. They do not even have to support the text they are given, as with many of the NKJV translators.

Where they ally is in corroborative corruption of the modern versions. That is, a "Bible" like the NIV or the ESV or the Message is built on a specific Greek text that differs from the Reformation Bible (Received text) in thousands of places, including missing 45 full verses. This is the fundamental weakness of the modern versions.

Then, they add inferior translation, to magnify the corruption of the resulting versions. So, in that sense, translation and textual criticism are allies.

Steven