To clarify my position, I am not arguing from authority, but independent witnesses, over a vast geographic area, with different theological positions, that were fighting with one another. Independent witnesses that agree, that didn’t collude on the evidence, would be conclusive in any normal court of law.

Mr. Wallack, you have to take into consideration that the historical churches were fighting with one another, yet are you asserting that they had no problem allowing their texts to be corrupted by the opposing party?

Thank you for your response and clarification Mr. Sheffield. I believe you are saying that your best evidence in general is that there is good implication that multiple specific Churches, defined by geography, at important points in history, held the LE as original?

Let me ask you about some specific Churches. The Church of Jerusalem would be the best potential witness yet now there is not much of a Church presence there. The country is now a Jewish country (a theoretical impossibility per the Churches you cite as witnesses here) and every country Jesus supposedly visited is now not Christian. Where does the current (or historical) Jerusalem Church say that the LE was original? [This is mainly rhetorical, I’m not expecting an answer to this].

Let me give an easier question. How bout the Church of Rome? On the surface, not a good witness to supposed events at the edge of the Empire with a different language and culture. What is your best evidence that the Church of Rome, at a key point in history, claims that the LE was original? Keeping in mind:

1) The Vatican seems to consider Vaticanus their prize manuscript.

2) The footnotes of Catholic Bibles generally indicate that the LE is likely not original.

3) My outstanding question is still why would a position of a specific Church a long time ago be more authoritative than their current position? Here, for the Church of Rome.

Thank you for your questions Mr. Wallack.

To clarify my position, I am not arguing from authority, but independent witnesses, over a vast geographic area, with different theological positions, that were fighting with one another. Independent witnesses that agree, that didn’t collude on the evidence, would be conclusive in any normal court of law.

Mr. Wallack, you have to take into consideration that the historical churches were fighting with one another, yet are you asserting that they had no problem allowing their texts to be corrupted by the opposing party?

(e.g Polycarp in the second century from Smyrna (Asia Minor) was fighting with the church of Rome on when Easter should be observed.)

In regard to your second question Mr. Wallack: “Please tell us in what other discipline older scholarship would be preferred over newer?”

Answer: The 17th century Scientific Method of Sir Francis Bacon over the late 20th century postmodernism.

In regard to your third question Mr. Wallack: “can you estimate the time period during old scholarship when publicly saying that the church/Pope was wrong and the LE was not original would not have been very bad for your health?”

Answer: Dr. Carrier documents in his book (See Hitler, Homer, pg. 278) that the Georgic and Armenian lack the LE (nearly a hundred).

FYI, the Georgic and Armenian churches are still independent of Rome. Do you recall that the Pope of Rome visited Georgia about a year ago, and the Patriarch of Georgia said no one should go see the Pope? The Pope spoke before an almost empty stadium.

In regard to your fourth question Mr. Wallack: “why do you divide between the Church and Bible Scholarship?”

Answer: I accept the biblical scholarship of Jerome, Augustine, Erasmus, Cardinal Ximenez, Lancelot Andrews, Theodore Beza, William Tyndale, John Calvin, and modern scholars such as Burgon, Hoskier, Miller, Hills, Pickering, Letis and others.

What I am arguing against is one school of thought that was invented in the late 18th century by German rationalists, not all of biblical scholarship.

Mr. Wallack, to reiterate I am not arguing from authority, but independent witnesses that agree, that can establish a legal chain of custody for the text in which they were both guardians and witnesses too.

In addition, I am not speaking to their personal morality, but the polity of the Apostolic Churches.

Please let me know Mr. Wallack if you have any further questions.

“In conclusion, the scholarly consensus against the LE is a late 18th century development, and while the central premises of their theory have been falsified, the scholarship which Dr. Carrier relies on, continues to maintain their conclusions. Dr. Carrier’s so called best and earliest texts that are deficient the LE, cannot establish a legal chain of custody to the Apostolic Churches, yet Jerome’s Vulgate and the text at Antioch that witness to the LE can.”

As a Skeptic I would rate the importance of Authority criterion behind The Difficult Reading Principle, Internal and External categories. As a Believer though, you weigh Authority as the top criterion, at least the authority you agree with.

Regarding your preference for older Bible scholarship over newer, please tell us in what other discipline older scholarship would be preferred over newer? While you are at it, can you estimate the time period during old scholarship when publicly saying that the Church/Pope was wrong and the LE was not original would not have been very bad for your health?

Also, why do you divide between “The Church” and Bible Scholarship? Aren’t the Bible scholars of your Church accepted as authoritative by your Church. Aren’t they responsible for your current Bible text?

And regarding the supposed authority of the Church in general, the original Church rejected the authority of its supposed source, The Jewish Bible, and your Church rejected the authority of your supposed source, the Catholic Church.

Additionally, the authority of “The Church” looks impeached in general with its history of antisemitism and sexual misconduct.

This looks to me like an inconsistency within your argument.

Thank you for the question Peter, hopefully I can shed some light, and resolve the concern you have.

Since we are investigating the style and manner of Mark’s Gospel, it’s important to understand what historical documents we have to give us more information on the formation of Mark’s Gospel.

First, Irenaeus tells us that “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter handed down to us in writing what Peter had Preached” (See Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3, 1st chapter).

Next, Eusebius tells us that Mark, who was Peter’s Disciple was asked to provide a summary of the instruction the people had heard from Peter. Eusebius says he is deriving the information from Clement of Alexandria in Outlines Book VI, and that his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis. (see Williamson’s 1965 translation of Eusebius, History of the Church, pg. 88-89).

So, the source is Peter’s Sermons, and Mark is providing a summary of them based on the historical documents we have.

Now, if the historical records are correct, it should read like a summary, instead of a detailed account like Livy’s history of Rome.

So, when we approach Chapter 16 verses 8 to 9, what we have is a switch-over, moving from one event to another (abruptly) to close out the Gospel.
I just finished reading the Last Chronicle of Barset by Anthony Trollope, who does the same thing to close out his book.

But the question is, do we see the same pattern anywhere else in Mark? Burgon demonstrates yes, and that the pattern we see in Chapter 16, we also see in Chapter 1. (in Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, p. C-79).

I’m going to provide Burgon’s quote, but as your reading it, pull up the first chapter of Mark (KJV) and follow along with Burgon as he goes through the chapter. Then pull up Mark 16 (KJV) and read through the entire chapter and tell me if you see the same pattern or not.

“The candid reader must needs admit that precisely the self-same manner is recognizable in this first chapter of Mark’s Gospel which is asserted to be peculiar to the last. Note, that from our Savior’s Baptism (which occupies three verses) the Evangelist passes to His temptation, which is dismissed in the next two verses. The last five describe the call of four of the Apostles, without any distinct allusion to the miracle which was the occasion of it…The opening of His Gospel is singular concise, and altogether sudden”

Looking forward to your reply.

Jonathan Swift was a High Church Anglican, and probably would have supported Richard Hooker as I do.

Thanks.

Mr. Vineyard,

Hopefully I can clarify from Birdsall’s study where Hort’s premise has been falsified.

First, Birdsall is conducting an investigation on the Gospels’ texts used by Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century.

Birdsall then lays out his presupposition for his investigation which was based on Hort’s premise: (see quote below)

“Since the publication of Hort’s introduction in 1881 it has been assumed in most quarters that the text was uniform from the time of Chrysostom and that this uniform text, called here Byzantine, is to be found in his quotations…”

Then Birdsall states that Hort’s premise doesn’t reconcile with the recent studies: (see quote below)

“However, more recent investigation has questioned both the uniformity of the Byzantine Text and its occurrence in Chrysostom’s citations.”

Then J.N. Birdsall states, in referring to his own work and the work of Lake, Lagrange, Colwell, and Streeter states that the premise has been falsified: (see quote below)

“It is evident that all presuppositions concerning the Byzantine text—or texts—except its inferiority to other types, must be doubted and investigated de novo”

“It is evident” & “Must be doubted” is clear that the presuppositions have been falsified Mr. Vineyard.

When Birdsall states “except its inferiority to other types (referring to the Byzantine text form) – this is where Birdsall is not giving up his conclusion, even though all presuppositions have been falsified.

Please let me know if you have any further questions Mr. Vineyard.

….it appears from Birdsall’s review of the studies, including his own, that Hort’s premise has been falsified..

Riddle me this… To me, this appears to be an assertion since I cannot discern how it has been falsified.

The brobdingnagian iruny surely can’t be lost on Jonathan…