tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post7469952209268050842..comments2024-03-29T00:57:56.876+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: 2015 ETS and SBL Paper SummariesP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50343093695672583732015-12-16T18:04:59.762+00:002015-12-16T18:04:59.762+00:00Mr. Snapp, at my blog, http://thenewporphyry.blogs...Mr. Snapp, at my blog, http://thenewporphyry.blogspot.com/2015/12/arguments-from-silence-for-mark-168-as.html I'm developing the argument that the early second century Patristic witness is for 16:8 as original. This is an Argument From Silence and I confess that generally Arguments from Silence are weak evidence. As you string together a group of such arguments though, the argument gets progressively stronger. I've currently inventoried GMatthew, GLuke and GPeter as for 16:8 and am about to add the EPA. I found your brief attempt to dismiss these as evidence weak. I am curious (a better word for me than "interested") to see what Atkins' criteria are for concluding that the three he claims bear witness, support LE. JoeWallackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10666074795187377455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26310423570372453122015-12-01T23:21:28.710+00:002015-12-01T23:21:28.710+00:00So you agree with me.So you agree with me.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13637013348728211262015-12-01T18:06:52.202+00:002015-12-01T18:06:52.202+00:00Peter M. Head,
Stein has already deduced that Epi...Peter M. Head, <br />Stein has already deduced that Epistula Ap.'s composition-date must be before 150, due to the part that indicates that Jesus' second coming was expected before 150. (And the Ethiopic text indicates that Epist.Ap. was around to reword so as to say that Jesus' second coming was expected before 180.<br /><br />Figuring that whatever Ireanaeus addresses/cites is earlier than Irenaeus, and granting a date before 150 for Preaching of Peter, they're all still pre-180.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77505581373015288692015-12-01T15:04:30.992+00:002015-12-01T15:04:30.992+00:00I think the dates Atkins is proposing for some of ...I think the dates Atkins is proposing for some of these texts are strangely definite (and early).Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86598362915988254672015-12-01T14:27:19.499+00:002015-12-01T14:27:19.499+00:00Only two of the three second-century sources cover...Only two of the three second-century sources covered by Justin Atkins seem to make use of Mark 16:9-20, eh? For a second there I thought his findings were going to have an impact on how the passage is viewed by pro-Alexandrian textual critics, but since we thus only have . . . lesseehere . . . <br />Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, Epistula Apostolorum, the Ophite account referenced by Irenaeus . . . <br /><br />I guess that would make *five* second-century compositions, instead of six, the consensus remains safe. <br /><br />Unless one is persuaded by Nick Lunn's proposal that Clement of Rome made several allusions to Mark 16:9-20. In which case, *seven* very early utilizations would be necessary.<br /><br />Unless Clement of Alexandria was alluding to Mark 16:19 in that obscure comment about Jude verse 24, preserved by Cassiodorus. In which case *eight* very early utilizations would be necessary.<br /><br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-73606155207877151722015-12-01T13:10:29.552+00:002015-12-01T13:10:29.552+00:00Thank you for the summaries.Thank you for the summaries.Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-83046421589747979732015-12-01T12:21:19.342+00:002015-12-01T12:21:19.342+00:00Thanks PeteThanks PetePeter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.com