tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post3498450089422388708..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: Ending Inaccurate Comments about the Ending of MarkJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-85502936023740370632016-05-16T17:31:12.899-04:002016-05-16T17:31:12.899-04:00Archepoimenfollower,
>> You believe that yo...Archepoimenfollower,<br /><br />>> You believe that your views have not been shown to be inaccurate. <<<br /><br />Most definitely! <br /><br />>> Evidence to the contrary," -- <br /><br />Eh? If you think there is some misrepresentation of the evidence in my book, please point it out, instead of just asserting its existence in this way.<br /><br />>> "you are going to just try to shout louder and longer then anyone else and proclaim victory!" <<<br /><br />And what would you suggest instead? Quietly allow the facts to be ignored? Stand idly by while the "peer review" among evangelicals where textual criticism is concerned continues to monstrously fail? Wait until the NASB removes Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 from the text? I'm not proclaiming victory here as much as I am crying "Foul!".<br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-75500927020625655802016-05-14T18:24:45.156-04:002016-05-14T18:24:45.156-04:00James,
Of course, you believe that your views have...James,<br />Of course, you believe that your views have not been shown to be inaccurate. Evidence to the contrary, you are going to just try to shout louder and longer then anyone else and proclaim victory! The result is often that even your valid arguments get overlooked. There are other textual critics who are equally committed to the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 and the PA who are being heard on their views because they do not resort to the tactics demonstrated here and on LH's blog.<br />I am not convinced by your evidence but have read it all here. I like to believe that had I encountered you before reading the material I would have still read it.<br />As a fellow Christ-follower and Hoosier, I encourage you to let the evidence speak even when others disagree.<br /><br />I hope someday we can ge a coffee in Curtisville and discuss these issues as brothers!<br />TimArchepoimenfollowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539020156250047772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-35298620001270808732016-05-11T17:23:40.071-04:002016-05-11T17:23:40.071-04:00Peter M Head,
I do not agree with your first poi...Peter M Head, <br /><br />I do not agree with your first point. If you think that the statement, "Some manuscripts add the Freer Logion" is true, then show them to me. We both know you can't, because Codex W is the only manuscript known to have the Freer Logion. Thus the NLT's footnote is erroneous. It could be changed and adjusted into something else that would be a true statement. But then it would not be the note that is there now, would it. No it would not. The note that is in the NLT is false, and we both know it.<br /><br />PMH: "On the second point you don't disagree that Eusebius and Jerome say such things, but you downplay/dispute the significance of the statements. I happen to disagree with your reading of Eusebius."<br /><br />Well, you're incorrect. And, burdened by such a view, you must believe that Eusebius, even though the overwhelming majority of his copies of Mark ended at 16:8, and even though the copies he regarded as accurate ended at 16:8, nevertheless recommended to Marinus that verses 9-20 should be kept in the text, going even so far as to explain how the opening words of verse 9 should be read aloud. You must also believe that further along in Ad Marinum, he utilized Mark 16:9 twice, even though he only rarely found the verse in his manuscripts, and thought that it was not in the accurate manuscripts. Does that not strike you as rather unlikely? Does it not make a lot more sense if one accepts Eusebius' statements about "the accurate copies," etc., as things that one might say -- that is, in the framework in which Eusebius explicitly frames them? <br /><br />It is not "one-sided" to consider the evidence in focus instead of out-of-focus. Just because a different interpretation can be conceived does not make it equally valid.<br /> James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-49626904493859209832016-05-11T16:49:56.240-04:002016-05-11T16:49:56.240-04:00James, I was trying to demonstrate an approach tha...James, I was trying to demonstrate an approach that was not one-sided, that credited evidence on both sides and came up with statements that were true. All you have done is come over all one-sided!<br /><br />On the first point you agree with me, so what is the problem? On the second point you don't disagree that Eusebius and Jerome say such things, but you downplay/dispute the significance of the statements. I happen to disagree with your reading of Eusebius.<br /><br />Anyway, I tried. Have a great day. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-26271775559209945972016-05-11T12:44:41.502-04:002016-05-11T12:44:41.502-04:00Peter M Head,
No; the NLT is not correct -- not ...Peter M Head, <br /><br />No; the NLT is not correct -- not broadly or in any other way. Jerome (as I state in the book) mentioned that he had seen the Freer Logion "especially in Greek codices" in Against the Pelagians, indeed -- probably recollecting codices he had seen in Egypt in the late 380's when he visited Didymus there. But none of those manuscripts have survived (unless Codex W is one of them). <br /><br />Are you seriously suggesting that if we can deduce, from a remark in a patristic composition written in, say, the 100's, that a manuscript existed with a particular reading, then it is legitimate to add a heading which is phrased as if the patristic writer's manuscripts still exist? In that case let's add a heading and footnote in Mark 16 that says, "Three manuscripts from the 100's include verses 9-20," as if the manuscripts used by Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus still exist. (I'll set aside Epistula Apostolorum for the moment, just to maintain focus.) We should expect no one to object, since the statement is "broadly correct, depending on the tense," right? <br /><br />PMH: "It would be more accurate to say 'some early manuscripts had this reading, but it is now known only from one manuscript and one church Father (who refers to other Greek manuscripts)'."<br /><br />Correct. But the NLT's footnote does not say that, does it. No it does not. Instead it says that "Some early manuscripts add," and that is false. Only one manuscript adds the Freer Logion. If it's "broadly correct" to refer to non-extant manuscripts as if they are extant, well, think of the fun we can have using that approach! <br /> <br />PWH: "BWIII . . . is in error."<br /><br />Indeed he is. <br /><br />PWH: "Nevertheless Eusebius does refer to 'nearly all the copies' as ending at Mark 16.8; and Jerome says (echoing Eusebius) that 'almost all books in Greek do not have this pericope at the end'."<br /><br />No; Eusebius says that someone who rejected vv. 9-20 could do so using that claim (and other claims) as his reason for doing so. When Eusebius is not framing his statements in that way, Eusebius simply says that "some copies" of Mark refer to Mary Magdalene as the woman whom Jesus exorcised seven demons out of. (Have you read the section about Ad Marinum in the book? You can get Pearse's definitive edition of Ad Marinum as a free download now, so there's no reason/excuse for anyone to keep perpetuating Metzger's mischaracterization of Eusebius' and Jerome's comments.) <br /><br />And Jerome is just summarizing part of Ad Marinum in Ad Hedibiam -- and, like Eusebius, Jerome recommends that verses 9-20 should be retained, and read with a comma in verse 9 so as to relieve the superficial discrepancy with Matthew 28:1-2. (And can anyone imagine, seeing how widespread Mk. 16:9-20 was by 400, that Jerome would seriously say, as his own observation, that it was in only a few Greek copies?? No no no. He's just abridging Ad Marinum, adding the word "Greek" because he knows that Eusebius' hypothetical remarks referred to Greek copies. <br /><br />PMH: >>> "So it would be more accurate to say that 'Eusebius and Jerome stated that most of the manuscripts did not contain Mark 16.9-20'." <<<<br /><br />The situation is not that simple, contrary to the impression one may get from reading Metzger. I won't go further into the details of the case -- that is, after all, part of the reason why I wrote a book, so I wouldn't have to keep writing the same things over and over. But at the very least we can see that Witherington (and others, such as Geisler) badly misrepresents the evidence. <br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-58270603721725447622016-05-11T04:53:20.330-04:002016-05-11T04:53:20.330-04:00Thanks James,
It is difficult. People make errors...Thanks James,<br /><br />It is difficult. People make errors, but most people don't like to be called out on their errors. Scholars make errors because they are careless, don't check the evidence for themselves, or make incorrect deductions from the evidence they have, and/or are in a deadline rush for whatever reason. <br /><br />My guess is as well that there are different perceptions of the significance of these (type of) errors. Scholars writing brief notes are trying to summarise and compress, not right long dissertations on the state of the evidence. This leads to simplification (which is not necessarily an error). <br /><br />In the first case, NLT is broadly correct, depending on the tense. Jerome stated that he knew this reading from some Greek manuscripts (c. Pelag. II.15), so it must at that point have been present in 'some early manuscripts'; but in fact we know this reading only from one single manuscript. So it would be more accurate to say 'some early manuscripts had this reading, but it is now known only from one manuscript and one church Father (who refers to other Greek manuscripts)'. Of course Jerome was quite old when he wrote Against the Pelagians, but I don't see that as particularly crucial. So what is the problem again?<br /><br />In the second place, BWIII has mis- or over-stated the evidence. He is in error. Nevertheless Eusebius does refer to 'nearly all the copies' as ending at Mark 16.8; and Jerome says (echoing Eusebius) that 'almost all books in Greek do not have this pericope at the end'. So it would be more accurate to say that 'Eusebius and Jerome stated that most of the manuscripts did not contain Mark 16.9-20'. <br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Pete<br />Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-62092916003370089012016-05-10T14:40:02.568-04:002016-05-10T14:40:02.568-04:00Peter M. Head,
Since I am so dedicated to one-si...Peter M. Head, <br /><br />Since I am so dedicated to one-sidedness, I shall delete your comment.<br /><br />Just kidding. Help me, Peter: a footnote in the NLT says that "Some early manuscripts" have the Freer Logion. Ben Witherington III says that Eusebius and Jerome stated that they had no manuscripts that contained Mark 16:9-20. How would you frame a response to those claims that is not "one-sided"? <br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-16987851683134351692016-05-10T12:20:52.750-04:002016-05-10T12:20:52.750-04:00I think you are right that other NT scholars gener...I think you are right that other NT scholars generally think consulting Metzger's commentary is as much homework as they need to do on most passages. That is a bit of an issue for their scholarship. <br /><br />I also don't really like "one-sided defensive arguments which very frequently minimize, misrepresent, or simply ignore important evidence and strong arguments" (although I don't think that is what Metzger was trying to do [nor do I accept that he is wrong on the issues you claim]). But I doubt if the answer to such arguments, and the way to get a hearing, is more of the same from the other side. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.com