tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post2015873830631834371..comments2024-03-18T11:13:57.904-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: The Atheist Charge of "a smoking gun"Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-19932967739821441762014-03-31T06:03:35.635-07:002014-03-31T06:03:35.635-07:00Why? I am not textual critic. I don't know eno...Why? I am not textual critic. I don't know enough about it to argue on it further. It's something I should research I just have too much goign on to do everything. I appreciate your knowledge.<br /><br />are you snap?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-63049797970707954342014-03-31T04:39:09.653-07:002014-03-31T04:39:09.653-07:00A response to this full reply - even acknowledging...A response to this full reply - even acknowledging it - would have been nice from Metacrock?!? I write this two years after it was posted...!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-44818860087533639322012-02-28T16:40:08.270-08:002012-02-28T16:40:08.270-08:00Metacrock,
Yes; I've read the materials that ...Metacrock,<br /><br />Yes; I've read the materials that are presented at Michael Marlowe's site (not just those snippets, but the books themselves, at least the major ones). And I have pointed out, and corrected, some of the mistakes and misrepresentations that some of those authors have written.<br /><br />I do not deny that the Gospel of Mark concludes at 16:8 in two Greek manuscripts (one that has a distinct blank space after Mark 16:8, and one in which the pages containing Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 were not produced by the copyist who made the surrounding pages). Those two manuscripts (from the 300's) are the two earliest manuscripts of Mark 16, but they are not the earliest evidence; in the 100's, Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus used the passage. (Irenaeus' quotation of Mark 16:19 in "Against Heresies" 3:10 is particularly clear.)<br /><br />The Sinaitic Syriac manuscript (from c. 400) and one Sahidic manuscript (from c. 425) also close the text of Mark at the end of 16:8. They attest to a form of Mark which circulated in Egypt at that time. Also, Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis has just the Shorter Ending after 16:8. So if one surveys the Greek manuscripts and non-Greek manuscripts from before the 700's, there are exactly four in which Mark ends at 16:8, and one that has the Shorter Ending without any trace of 16:9-20.<br /><br />All of the evidence that supports the abrupt ending at 16:8, and all the evidence that supports the Shorter Ending, appears to descend from a form of the text that circulated in Egypt in the early 200's. Everywhere else, though, Mark 16:9-20 is supported by ancient evidence, and that ancient support consists of a lot more pieces of evidence, from a lot more places. <br /><br />Regarding the "Smoking Gun" argument, I would bring a few extra factors into the equation, the first of which would be Mark's dedication to spread the gospel later on, at the service of Peter and Paul. The idea that Mark would serve in that capacity, or in any capacity at all, for people investing their lives in the promotion of a story that he thought was untrue, would be obnoxiously ridiculous. <br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br /><br />James Snapp, Jr.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-52669431237547884502012-02-27T14:06:41.553-08:002012-02-27T14:06:41.553-08:00James Snapp Jr. writes
I encourage you not to le...James Snapp Jr. writes<br /><br />I encourage you not to lean too heavily on what you may have read about this passage in any commentary that vaguely refers to "various endings," or which says things such as, "Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses."<br /><br />I have written a research-book on this passage, and more recently, a 25-page summary of the research-book, and would be glad to send digital copies of both of them to you, for your own use, on request.<br /><br /><b>Did you read the specific material to which I linked? Do you deny that the passage is missing in some of early Ms?<br /><br />what is your answer to the original "smoking gun" argument that there is no Resurrection in Mark?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-12595855925486454772012-02-27T07:40:25.410-08:002012-02-27T07:40:25.410-08:00Greetings, Metacrock.
Regarding Mark 16:9-20 - I ...Greetings, Metacrock.<br /><br />Regarding Mark 16:9-20 - I have looked into this passage in detail, and it looks to me like a lot of the scholars who regard it as a scribal accretion have not independently studied the evidence, but have instead echoed the words of Bruce Metzger about it. <br /><br />I encourage you not to lean too heavily on what you may have read about this passage in any commentary that vaguely refers to "various endings," or which says things such as, "Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses." <br /><br />I have written a research-book on this passage, and more recently, a 25-page summary of the research-book, and would be glad to send digital copies of both of them to you, for your own use, on request.<br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br /><br />James Snapp, Jr.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com