The Long Ending of Mark and The Woman Caught in Adultery According To The Byzantine Text

[Van]

Okay, that settles it. Our college freshmen are more careful about sources than Van. Hands down! And he is an unrepentant plagiarizer.

Dude, your primary reaction against rebuke is to attack the rebuker. Why is that, I wonder?

Once again, an against the person fallacious argumentation, complete with false charges, "unrepentant plagiarizer."

 

[Conan]

Here JOJ falsely claims that others are not "allowed" to question the arguments made from "internet quotes." Ludicrous

He pointed out your source was from a unbeliever. Someone that did not believe in the Gospels or Gospel anyway. That's important to know. I realize you didn't know that or you would not have used that source.

 

[Conan]

Another book by Richard carrier. He is not a believer and says so in the title of his book

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1456588850/ref=mes-dp?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=sRv4i&content-id=amzn1.sym.2657d2a1-18d5-4d8a-b4db-57aa113fa636&pf_rd_p=2657d2a1-18d5-4d8a-b4db-57aa113fa636&pf_rd_r=657QSFXFB9S8A7HQZ671&pd_rd_wg=CyN0b&pd_rd_r=ffba4a75-b7a4-4f9e-964e-bf7690eb6e90

 

[Van]

He pointed out your source was from a unbeliever. Someone that did not believe in the Gospels or Gospel anyway. That's important to know. I realize you didn't know that or you would not have used that source.

Again, you are addressing my behavior, and ignoring the topic.

Why all the name calling and change of subject context by those claiming the long ending of Mark is not questionable? Because they cannot refute the evidence calling into question the long ending of Mark.

1) The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). Here several early manuscripts in Greek, plus early translations into other languages all end at verse 8. The rebuttal, a lot of later copies have it included.

2) The style and vocabulary are similar to Luke. I do not recall any rebuttal.

3) Several witnesses have a different shorter ending, either at the end or inserted earlier in the text, indicating interpolation by scribes. I do not recall any rebuttal.

4) The long ending uses the same phrase as in the writings of Luke which was written later than Mark. Again suggesting the possibility of interpolation. Again, I recall no rebuttal.

5) The Mary Magdalene narrative does not mesh with the other gospels. Again, I have no recall of a rebuttal.

I could go on, but you get the idea. One early church historian supports the long ending, while several oppose the long ending.

Rather than attacking my behavior, let them address the well supported and sourced (NET footnote) argument questioning the endings after verse 8.

Lets close with a comparison of Mark 16:9 and Luke 8:2.

Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene,​

from whom He had cast out seven demons. (Mark 16:9)

and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, (Luke 8:2) ​

Here we have a similar identification phrase, being used by Mark here but not at Mark 15:40, 47, and 16:1. If Mark was written circa 52 AD, but Luke written years later, the reason might be the ending was added after Luke was written.

 

[Van]

One of our modern day myths is that credentialism supports competency. It does not. Just because someone holds a "PhD" does not mean they are right or wrong about the long ending of Mark. I am pretty sure the person who did not put the bolts in the Boeing door insert had credentials indicating he knew his stuff. An Atheist can be right and a Christian can be wrong.

Just because a person is an Asian, does not mean he is a wiz at math. Probably, but not always.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I always question any non-Christian writer when they purport to explain what the Bible means and how to interpret data. But then, I always question Christian writers too.

Just because a person is an atheist does not mean all of his mind is non-functioning. Just the most important part.

 

[Van]

There is a difference from accepting a non-believer's teachings on Biblical doctrine, and accepting the validity of their questions concerning the validity of biblical doctrine. We all should try to be ready to give a defense for what we believe.

I am defending what I believe about the long ending of Mark, and another holding a different view has pointed out that my belief that the earliest extant copy of Against Heresies, quoting part of the long ending, dated to the 16th century, seems to be in error.

 

[John of Japan]

There he goes again! My source was posted, and JOJ reviewed it. But then he falsely claims I did not reveal my source.

No, I revealed your source, you didn't.

Next, predictably, he claims my source is no good. How many times is he going to run this silly play?

Your source was an atheist ancient history scholar, not a Bible scholar and certainly not any authority in the area of textual criticism.

He seems to think he is the final judge, first Dr. Wallace is no good because he disagrees, now Dr. Carrier is not good too.

Dr. Wallace is far, far better than this Carrier atheist.

Did I say the internet is authoritative? Nope, but there he goes again, misrepresenting others.

Finally, not JOJ is still addressing my behavior, rather than the topic, thus once again use fallacious argumentation on a Christian board.

Admonishing plagiarism is not "fallacious argumentation." The BB could be sued due to your plagiarism.

Finally, he seeks to disqualify Richards argument, because other arguments of Richard are nonsense. That is the old, since he was wrong on "A" he must be wrong on "B." Illogical nonsense again.

I reject arguments by ignorant people.

 

[John of Japan]

Once again, an against the person fallacious argumentation, complete with false charges, "unrepentant plagiarizer."

I informed you of your plagiarism, then you refused to correct it, and attacked me personally ahead. That is unrepentant plagiarism. This act actually puts the BB in danger. Quite often, people are sued because of plagiarism. It is a crime.

 

[John of Japan]

One of our modern day myths is that credentialism supports competency. It does not. Just because someone holds a "PhD" does not mean they are right or wrong about the long ending of Mark. I am pretty sure the person who did not put the bolts in the Boeing door insert had credentials indicating he knew his stuff. An Atheist can be right and a Christian can be wrong.

I agree with this.

Just because a person is an Asian, does not mean he is a wiz at math. Probably, but not always.

Japanese teachers teach the actual SAT test to their students. So the idea of Asian superiority in some areas is a myth.

 

[John of Japan]

Again, you are addressing my behavior, and ignoring the topic.

I fully addressed the topic.

 

[Van]

No, I revealed your source, you didn't.

Your source was an atheist ancient history scholar, not a Bible scholar and certainly not any authority in the area of textual criticism.

Dr. Wallace is far, far better than this Carrier atheist.

Admonishing plagiarism is not "fallacious argumentation." The BB could be sued due to your plagiarism.

I reject arguments by ignorant people.

Logically, if JOJ found the article by searching the internet, then "from the internet" provides the source, through available search engines. Thus, to require outdated word salads in today, is outdated.

Next, rather than addressing the argument, he questions the validity of the source. This is fallacious argumentation.

Next, he does not address his pattern of attacking source qualifications, rather than addressing the topic. This is fallacious argumentation.

The claim I am an Unrepentant plagiarist, is an against the person argument, a fallacious argument.

Next, the claim is made that common usage such as indicating another source, such as the internet, might draw a lawsuit is just insanely silly.

We agree, you reject views from unqualified people, such as those providing and editing the brackets in the NASB, ESV, NIV and on and on.

 

[37818]

. . . my belief that the earliest extant copy of Against Heresies, quoting part of the long ending, dated to the 16th century, . . .

It slipped by me here. Please, what was your post# here where you gave this source document identity? If correct, it bears repeating.

 

[Van]

It slipped by me here. Please, what was your post# here where you gave this source document identity? If correct, it bears repeating.

Here is the quote, from post #174

No second century author evinces any knowledge of the LE being in Mark, even though in several places they would likely have mentioned that fact (Hitler Homer, pp. 290-95). Only a medieval Latin translation of Irenaeus includes mention of it, and there is strong evidence that’s an interpolation of a marginal note not written by Irenaeus (Hitler Homer, pp. 295-300).​

​

 

[John of Japan]

Here is a definition of plagiarism from Yale U. which exactly fits what Van has done on this thread:

"Plagiarism is the use of another’s work, words, or ideas without attribution. The word “plagiarism” comes from the Latin word for “kidnapper” and is considered a form of theft, a breach of honesty in the academic community." What Is Plagiarism?

 

[37818]

.

Here is the quote, from post #174

No second century author evinces any knowledge of the LE being in Mark, even though in several places they would likely have mentioned that fact (Hitler Homer, pp. 290-95). Only a medieval Latin translation of Irenaeus includes mention of it, and there is strong evidence that’s an interpolation of a marginal note not written by Irenaeus (Hitler Homer, pp. 295-300).​

​

.

From the internet:

No second century author evinces any knowledge of the LE being in Mark, even though in several places they would likely have mentioned that fact (Hitler Homer, pp. 290-95). Only a medieval Latin translation of Irenaeus includes mention of it, and there is strong evidence that’s an interpolation of a marginal note not written by Irenaeus (Hitler Homer, pp. 295-300). Third century authors all fail to mention the LE even when they should have (e.g. Hippolytus, Origen, Clement, Vincentius), while fourth century authors (e.g. Eusebius and Jerome) outright tell us it was a rare reading (Hitler Homer, pp. 300-09). A later medieval author even admitted to adding it to manuscripts he found lacking it (Hitler Homer, pp. 306-07).​

​

From that, how am I to know the Irenaeus citation is 16th century? Not 383 AD, and not in any way a 2nd century Irenaeus?

 

[John of Japan]

Here is the quote, from post #174

No second century author evinces any knowledge of the LE being in Mark, even though in several places they would likely have mentioned that fact (Hitler Homer, pp. 290-95). Only a medieval Latin translation of Irenaeus includes mention of it, and there is strong evidence that’s an interpolation of a marginal note not written by Irenaeus (Hitler Homer, pp. 295-300).​

This is not the author giving his source. Van does not give that. It is simply that the author linked to a source, the "Hitler Homer" thing. If Van had given us the source for his quote, we could then have discerned that the source the unknown author linked to was a book of his own (self-published, by the way). Frankly, this atheist, anti-Christian, arrogant (just read his pages!) author is the last person on earth I would use as a source for textual criticism.

 

[John of Japan]

By the way, Van's source actually doubts that Christ ever lived! (Read his pages.) Even Bart Ehrman knows that Christ lived and the Bible is accurate on this. Thus, this guy, Richard Carrier, is totally unreliable when it comes to the Bible. and Christian beliefs.

 

[Van]

.
.

From that, how am I to know the Irenaeus citation is 16th century? Not 383 AD, and not in any way a 2nd century Irenaeus?

The 16th Century refers to 1500 to 1600 AD. The Middle ages, Medieval, dates to the 1500's. This citation should not be taken to overrule
your source. I was not able, after a brief search to find a second source for the date in the 1500's, but did find sites supporting 380 AD.
I have not yet given up finding a second source, but am not encouraged.

 

[Van]

By the way, Van's source actually doubts that Christ ever lived! (Read his pages.) Even Bart Ehrman knows that Christ lived and the Bible is accurate on this. Thus, this guy, Richard Carrier, is totally unreliable when it comes to the Bible. and Christian beliefs.

Yet another fallacious argument attacking the source and running from citing an alternate source. I have heard better arguments.