Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    Stephen Avery wrote:  However, the theory even of Hort et al is that the traditional ending precedes the short ending. See the quotes above. And since we
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 20, 2012
      Stephen Avery wrote:  "However, the theory even of Hort et al is that the traditional ending precedes the short ending. See the quotes above. And since we have solid 2nd-century attestation to the traditional ending, this is pretty much an open and shut case." 
       
      Which document(s) are 2nd century? 
       
      george
      gfsomsel

      search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.

      - Jan Hus
      _________

      From: schmuel <schmuel@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:21 PM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy

       
      Hi Folks,

      Continuing from:

      ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy
      Steven Avery - Feb 18, 2012
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/7026

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

      Fenton Hort and the Shorter Conclusion

      First, the fallacious reasoning actually began first with Fenton Hort (surprise!) five years before Warfield.
      Hort uses "Shorter Conclusion".  I would venture that he was the first one to ever make this fallacious argument.

      The New Testament in the original Greek, Volume 2 (1882)
      Fenton Hort
      http://www.archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor82west#page/44/mode/2up#

      Ironically, Hort's conclusions are interesting, conflicted, and a bit confusing  (emphasis added).

      "omission was accordingly at least very ancient"

      "The Greek patristic evidence proves, if proof were needed, the great antiquity of these verses; but it is all of one colour, and belongs to the least pure line of Ante-Nicene transmission."

      "vv.9-20 are a very early interpolation, early and widely diffused and welcomed."

      In Hort-speak, Vaticanus is the pure line, part of his circular structure. And since Hort agrees that the two major variants were very early (the shorter conclusion having no claim on autographic originality) that affirms the point of my earlier post that the "Shorter Conclusion" has basically zilch evidentiary value favoring one or the other (between the traditional ending and the woman afraid ending). Once the two variants are predominant in differing locales, any third and fourth variants will arise easily (especially in a major section of many verses, where the gap is palpable). A vacuum to be filled, the mutilated text crying out for fixing, one way or another.

      The shorter conclusion simply shows that the dual variant situation arose quite early, which is agreed upon by most everyone. 
      The dual variant situation can arise similarly whether inclusion or omission are original.

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

      John Burgon and the Intermediate Ending

      Sidenote: John Burgon adds more helpful info about the major Shorter Conclusion ms, Codex L, asserting that it basically adds nothing to the basic textual discussion.

      The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark vindicated against recent critical objectors and established (1871)
      John William Burgon
      http://books.google.com/books?id=RgYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA123 | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
      Messages in this topic (3)
      Recent Activity:
      .



    • George F Somsel
      I repeat, which are 2nd century?  Do you decline to answer? george gfsomsel search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 20, 2012
        I repeat, which are 2nd century?  Do you decline to answer?
         
        george
        gfsomsel

        search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.

        - Jan Hus
        _________

        From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...>
        To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 1:29 AM
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy

         
        Stephen Avery wrote:  "However, the theory even of Hort et al is that the traditional ending precedes the short ending. See the quotes above. And since we have solid 2nd-century attestation to the traditional ending, this is pretty much an open and shut case." 
         
        Which document(s) are 2nd century? 
         
        george
        gfsomsel

        search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.

        - Jan Hus
        _________

        From: schmuel <schmuel@...>
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:21 PM
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy

         
        Hi Folks,

        Continuing from:

        ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy
        Steven Avery - Feb 18, 2012
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/7026

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

        Fenton Hort and the Shorter Conclusion

        First, the fallacious reasoning actually began first with Fenton Hort (surprise!) five years before Warfield.
        Hort uses "Shorter Conclusion".  I would venture that he was the first one to ever make this fallacious argument.

        The New Testament in the original Greek, Volume 2 (1882)
        Fenton Hort
        http://www.archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor82west#page/44/mode/2up#

        Ironically, Hort's conclusions are interesting, conflicted, and a bit confusing  (emphasis added).

        "omission was accordingly at least very ancient"

        "The Greek patristic evidence proves, if proof were needed, the great antiquity of these verses; but it is all of one colour, and belongs to the least pure line of Ante-Nicene transmission."

        "vv.9-20 are a very early interpolation, early and widely diffused and welcomed."

        In Hort-speak, Vaticanus is the pure line, part of his circular structure. And since Hort agrees that the two major variants were very early (the shorter conclusion having no claim on autographic originality) that affirms the point of my earlier post that the "Shorter Conclusion" has basically zilch evidentiary value favoring one or the other (between the traditional ending and the woman afraid ending). Once the two variants are predominant in differing locales, any third and fourth variants will arise easily (especially in a major section of many verses, where the gap is palpable). A vacuum to be filled, the mutilated text crying out for fixing, one way or another.

        The shorter conclusion simply shows that the dual variant situation arose quite early, which is agreed upon by most everyone. 
        The dual variant situation can arise similarly whether inclusion or omission are original.

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

        John Burgon and the Intermediate Ending

        Sidenote: John Burgon adds more helpful info about the major Shorter Conclusion ms, Codex L, asserting that it basically adds nothing to the basic textual discussion.

        The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark vindicated against recent critical objectors and established (1871)
        John William Burgon
        http://books.google.com/books?id=RgYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA123 | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
        Messages in this topic (3)
        Recent Activity:
        .





      • schmuel
        Hi Folks, I repeat, which are 2nd century? Do you decline to answer? george gfsomsel Steven My first post since you answered George, you are more than a bit
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 20, 2012
          Hi Folks,

          I repeat, which are 2nd century?  Do you decline to answer?
          george gfsomsel

          Steven
          My first post since you answered George, you are more than a bit impatient.:)  And I tend to not jump at every post as I appreciate the posting facility here and would prefer not to place lots of posts on singular lesser points.  Generally I wait for a little discussion, and then post, to help with forum decorum and balance.

          And this is pretty much the least important question from my post, looking more like a diversion than anything else, from some one who does not want to acknowledge that the basic Horitan textual theory has been shown fallacious on (yet another) basic fundamental point. And this major logical error carried through from Hort-->Warfield-->Metzger-->Wallace.

          Since even Fenton Hort agrees that the traditional ending is very early, and I have never heard anybody claim that the traditional ending was "late" (e.g. 3rd century).  Such a view, I believe, would be totally absurd.

          The Irenaeus citation is in Against Heresies:

          Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says:
          "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;" confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool"

          Mark 16:19 (AV)
          So then after the Lord had spoken unto them,
          he was received up into heaven,
          and sat on the right hand of God.

          That is about as solid an ECW citation as possible.   Much as Irenaeus (and Cyprian) cite Acts 8:37, yet even stronger.

          Personally I think a lot of writers confuse two different issues, as a type of hand-waving against ECW evidences. I noted this in the articles trying to get around the John William Burgon citation evidence on many variants.

          (1) The possibility that the precise text of an ECW quote can be conformed to the current popular variant, in the transmission process, where there are alternate variants. 
          (2) And the possibility that a later writer simply mangled the text to create new sections that were never there. 

          (1) is reasonably possible (although easy to overrate, imho, and its own fascinating discussion)

          (2) would be the major exceptional case, and should only be given a real note of consideration if there is some external compelling indication that modifications may have been made (e.g. the Origen-Rufinus situation). 

          Note that when texts are quoted through multiple hands, like Papias, that has to be handled with caution, as a special case.

          Shalom,
          Steven Avery
          Queens, NY



          =================
           
          Stephen Avery wrote:  "However, the theory even of Hort et al is that the traditional ending precedes the short ending. See the quotes above. And since we have solid 2nd-century attestation to the traditional ending, this is pretty much an open and shut case." 
           
          Which document(s) are 2nd century? 
           
          …
          From: schmuel <schmuel@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:21 PM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy

           
          Hi Folks,

          Continuing from:

          ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy
          Steven Avery - Feb 18, 2012
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/7026

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

          Fenton Hort and the Shorter Conclusion

          First, the fallacious reasoning actually began first with Fenton Hort (surprise!) five years before Warfield.
          Hort uses "Shorter Conclusion".  I would venture that he was the first one to ever make this fallacious argument.

          The New Testament in the original Greek, Volume 2 (1882)
          Fenton Hort
          http://www.archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor82west#page/44/mode/2up #

          Ironically, Hort's conclusions are interesting, conflicted, and a bit confusing  (emphasis added).

          "omission was accordingly at least very ancient"

          "The Greek patristic evidence proves, if proof were needed, the great antiquity of these verses; but it is all of one colour, and belongs to the least pure line of Ante-Nicene transmission."

          "vv.9-20 are a very early interpolation, early and widely diffused and welcomed."

          In Hort-speak, Vaticanus is the pure line, part of his circular structure. And since Hort agrees that the two major variants were very early (the shorter conclusion having no claim on autographic originality) that affirms the point of my earlier post that the "Shorter Conclusion" has basically zilch evidentiary value favoring one or the other (between the traditional ending and the woman afraid ending). Once the two variants are predominant in differing locales, any third and fourth variants will arise easily (especially in a major section of many verses, where the gap is palpable). A vacuum to be filled, the mutilated text crying out for fixing, one way or another.

          The shorter conclusion simply shows that the dual variant situation arose quite early, which is agreed upon by most everyone. 
          The dual variant situation can arise similarly whether inclusion or omission are original.

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

          John Burgon and the Intermediate Ending

          Sidenote: John Burgon adds more helpful info about the major Shorter Conclusion ms, Codex L, asserting that it basically adds nothing to the basic textual discussion.

          The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark vindicated against recent critical objectors and established (1871)
          John William Burgon
          http://books.google.com/books?id=RgYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA123 
        • George F Somsel
          Hort is still as valid today as it was ever thought to be.  There are, however, some who refuse to give up their TR regardless of how much proof is
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 21, 2012
            Hort is still as valid today as it was ever thought to be.  There are, however, some who refuse to give up their TR regardless of how much proof is offered until someone pries them from their cold dead hands.  As regards Irenaeus, I would not take that as being a secure witness since it is not the original of Iraeneus but a Latin translation.  I would need to assess the practice of the translator to determine how faithful he was to Irenaeus and whether he completed quotations from his own (later) sources.  We do know that the session of Christ at the right hand was a standard position taken in other NT works as well.  Then again, perhaps this is another "Isaiah the prophet" quotation as in Mk 1.2.  In short, your "evidence" proves nothing.
             
            george
            gfsomsel

            search for truth, hear truth,
            learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
            defend the truth till death.

            - Jan Hus
            _________

            From: schmuel <schmuel@...>
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:05 PM
            Subject: [textualcriticism] ending of Mark - 130 years of Hort error, shorter conclusion as more evidence for "woman afraid" ending (common omission-inclusion TC error)

             
            Hi Folks,

            I repeat, which are 2nd century?  Do you decline to answer?
            george gfsomsel

            Steven
            My first post since you answered George, you are more than a bit impatient.:)  And I tend to not jump at every post as I appreciate the posting facility here and would prefer not to place lots of posts on singular lesser points.  Generally I wait for a little discussion, and then post, to help with forum decorum and balance.

            And this is pretty much the least important question from my post, looking more like a diversion than anything else, from some one who does not want to acknowledge that the basic Horitan textual theory has been shown fallacious on (yet another) basic fundamental point. And this major logical error carried through from Hort-->Warfield-->Metzger-->Wallace.

            Since even Fenton Hort agrees that the traditional ending is very early, and I have never heard anybody claim that the traditional ending was "late" (e.g. 3rd century).  Such a view, I believe, would be totally absurd.

            The Irenaeus citation is in Against Heresies:

            Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says:
            "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;" confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool"

            Mark 16:19 (AV)
            So then after the Lord had spoken unto them,
            he was received up into heaven,
            and sat on the right hand of God.

            That is about as solid an ECW citation as possible.   Much as Irenaeus (and Cyprian) cite Acts 8:37, yet even stronger.

            Personally I think a lot of writers confuse two different issues, as a type of hand-waving against ECW evidences. I noted this in the articles trying to get around the John William Burgon citation evidence on many variants.

            (1) The possibility that the precise text of an ECW quote can be conformed to the current popular variant, in the transmission process, where there are alternate variants. 
            (2) And the possibility that a later writer simply mangled the text to create new sections that were never there. 

            (1) is reasonably possible (although easy to overrate, imho, and its own fascinating discussion)

            (2) would be the major exceptional case, and should only be given a real note of consideration if there is some external compelling indication that modifications may have been made (e.g. the Origen-Rufinus situation). 

            Note that when texts are quoted through multiple hands, like Papias, that has to be handled with caution, as a special case.

            Shalom,
            Steven Avery
            Queens, NY



            =================
             
            Stephen Avery wrote:  "However, the theory even of Hort et al is that the traditional ending precedes the short ending. See the quotes above. And since we have solid 2nd-century attestation to the traditional ending, this is pretty much an open and shut case." 
             
            Which document(s) are 2nd century? 
             

            From: schmuel <schmuel@...>
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:21 PM
            Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy

             
            Hi Folks,

            Continuing from:

            ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy
            Steven Avery - Feb 18, 2012
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/7026

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

            Fenton Hort and the Shorter Conclusion

            First, the fallacious reasoning actually began first with Fenton Hort (surprise!) five years before Warfield.
            Hort uses "Shorter Conclusion".  I would venture that he was the first one to ever make this fallacious argument.

            The New Testament in the original Greek, Volume 2 (1882)
            Fenton Hort
            http://www.archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor82west#page/44/mode/2up #

            Ironically, Hort's conclusions are interesting, conflicted, and a bit confusing  (emphasis added).

            "omission was accordingly at least very ancient"

            "The Greek patristic evidence proves, if proof were needed, the great antiquity of these verses; but it is all of one colour, and belongs to the least pure line of Ante-Nicene transmission."

            "vv.9-20 are a very early interpolation, early and widely diffused and welcomed."

            In Hort-speak, Vaticanus is the pure line, part of his circular structure. And since Hort agrees that the two major variants were very early (the shorter conclusion having no claim on autographic originality) that affirms the point of my earlier post that the "Shorter Conclusion" has basically zilch evidentiary value favoring one or the other (between the traditional ending and the woman afraid ending). Once the two variants are predominant in differing locales, any third and fourth variants will arise easily (especially in a major section of many verses, where the gap is palpable). A vacuum to be filled, the mutilated text crying out for fixing, one way or another.

            The shorter conclusion simply shows that the dual variant situation arose quite early, which is agreed upon by most everyone. 
            The dual variant situation can arise similarly whether inclusion or omission are original.

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

            John Burgon and the Intermediate Ending

            Sidenote: John Burgon adds more helpful info about the major Shorter Conclusion ms, Codex L, asserting that it basically adds nothing to the basic textual discussion.

            The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark vindicated against recent critical objectors and established (1871)
            John William Burgon
            http://books.google.com/books?id=RgYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA123 


          • james_snapp_jr
            Dear George Somsel, Hort s theories certainly are *not* as valid today as they were ever thought to be. The foundation-stone of his approach -- that the
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 21, 2012
              Dear George Somsel,

              Hort's theories certainly are *not* as valid today as they were ever thought to be. The foundation-stone of his approach -- that the Byzantine Text is a recension -- has been replaced by the notion that the Byzantine Text developed gradually. (P. W. Comfort still teaches the Lucianic Recension, straight up, but he's an exception; that's what happens when professors become unaccountable; they can teach year after year, lecturing from notes they wrote back in their own days as seminary-students.) The belief that there are no doctrinally motivated alterations to the text has been obliterated. The belief that distinct Byzantine readings can't be all that ancient has been demonstrated to be false. The belief that conflations (or apparent conflations) prove the posteriority of the text-type in which they are found has been shown to be ill-founded.

              "As valid today as they ever were thought to be"? I laugh at that! Page after page could be written about how wrong Hort -- the Introduction, not the person -- is on point after point. (Pickering already has done this, to a large extent. You haven't read Pickering's "Identity of the NT Text" book, have you. It's online, so nothing is stopping you.) Hort is a genealogical method without a genealogy. Many of the criticisms put to Hort by its earlier critics -- Kenyon, Salmon, Miller, and (more mildly) Harris -- have not been effectively answered, and I'd say that although a few folks have done some hand-waving over Pickering's book, many of his most important criticisms of Hort remain intact.

              GFS: "As regards Irenaeus, I would not take that as being a secure witness since it is not the original of Iraeneus but a Latin translation."

              You said that some people refuse to give up their TR regardless of how much proof is offered. That may be the case. But here before my eyes I see evidence that something similar can and should be said of some Critical-Text advocates. For even though Irenaeus' statement in which he explicitly quotes Mark 16:19 is embedded in the course of his composition, and the presence of this passage in the (rather wooden) Latin translation cannot be accounted for as a matter of text-substitution (as if a translator were conforming Gospels-quotations to his own local text-form of the Gospels), and even though Codex 1582, and Codex 72, and another codex (recently documented by the adventuresome monastery-explorers from CSNTM) include, alongside Mark 16:19, a Greek margin-note stating that Irenaeus, who lived close to the time of the apostles, quotes this passage in the third book of his work "Against Heresies," and even though 1582 descends from an exemplar in the 400's, you do nor regard Irenaeus' statement as a secure witness, preferring, it seems, an alternative which is downright conspiratorial.

              GFS: "I would need to assess the practice of the translator to determine how faithful he was to Irenaeus and whether he completed quotations from his own (later) sources."

              Exactly how do you imagine that such a translator would complete a quotation of *nothing* by turning it into the contents of what is stated in Against Heresies III:10:5-6? In other words, why would a Latin translator insert an *interpolation* here? And why, and how, would the person who originated the margin-note that is found in 1582 obtain that Latin translation, and why would he make a note (in Greek) about its contents, if the Greek of Irenaeus was different? Do you see the senselessness of the notion that this part of "Against Heresies" is not genuine? There's no way to be aware of the pertinent evidence and do otherwise.

              GFS: "search for truth" --

              Yes; try doing that, instead of waiting for data to be spoon-fed to you by exasperated researchers who know that you have readily available means of finding out the things that you say you want to find out.

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.