the sinking pericope theories of James Snapp that are contra Markan ending authenticity

Steven Avery

Administrator
"the sinking pericope theories of James Snapp that are contra Markan ending authenticity"

Yes, James talks of a floating pericope, but it is the theories that are sinking. And yes, James pretends that he is defending Markan authenticity. However, his position is easily refuted by the contras and is a faux authenticity.

Also to be added here. Information about the books by Hester and Lunn, and their positions.

What is not included here is the discussions of particular evidences, that is planned for a separate thread. And there is lots of fine material easily available about the massive evidences.

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

Specifically on the Snapp Sinking Pericope Theories

Here are some of the discussions to date. The plan is to make them into an article here:


Facebook - Pure Bible
ending of Mark - twelve verses with the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus - the James Snapp straddle - floating pericopes
Steven Avery - Sept 11, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/860452200713337/


This has the url to the amazing 2010 discussion with Josh Walker, who properly saw the position of James Snapp as non-authentic.

The Ending of Mark - Feb 22, 2010
Josh Walker
http://www.bringthebooks.org/2010/02/ending-of-mark.html
"Thanks for the great comments and insightful work. I would agree with you that the longer ending of Mark is not original."

And here is a position that James craftily changed later, simply because it was too embarrassing:
My view is that Mark 16:9-20 *is* an original part of the Gospel of Mark, in the sense that it was part of the text before it was first disseminated in the church. I think it was added by someone other than Mark himself, but that does not make it non-original.

See the 2021 discussion here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...KUKzycTz6X7dLX-_Koq5xdsbPfL2aJW3g&__tn__=R]-R

Now he says it was written by Mark.

Facebook - Pure Bible
Steven Avery - December 15, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/901955826562974/
2 new books on the Ending of Mark, one by David Wayne Hester, one by . Nicholas P. Lunn, both have lots of strengths (e.g. on ECW references) and some weaknesses.

Facebook - King James Bible Debate - May, 2016
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/permalink/10153636956921693/

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


Other significant writing related to the Mark ending

[textualcriticism] ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy
Steven Avery - Feb 18, 2012
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/7026
also
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/7036


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


Resources

the sinking pericope theories of James Snapp that are contra Markan ending authenticity (this thread) - April, 2016
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/c.33.a/post-59

The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established (1871)
John William Burgon
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtpJAAAAMAAJ

Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (2008)
http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Ending-Mark-Daniel-Wallace-ebook/dp/B004OR17WK
Only .99 on kindle, and includes excellent Maurice Robinson material.

https://books.google.com/books?id=fA65AwAAQBAJ

The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2014)
Nicholas P. Lunn
http://www.amazon.com/Original-Ending-Mark-Case-Authenticity-ebook/dp/B00OU6OB78- Kindle Edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=D1UNBQAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=bM0SBQAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=MtDwCAAAQBAJ

Does Mark 16:9-20 Belong in the New Testament? -
David W. Hester
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VL7AA9W/
https://books.google.com/books?id=vzb6CQAAQBAJ

The Earliest Evidence for the Longer Ending of Mark (Nov, 2015)
Justin D. Atkins
http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=20837

Apologetics Press - Dave Miller
Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired? (2005)
http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=572&article=433
The Strongest Argument Against Mark 16:9-20
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5151

CARM
Mark 16:9-20 - Authentic or Not? - Snapp and Wallack - (2010)
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?4700-Mark-16-9-20-Authentic-or-Not-Snapp-and-Wallack
First of many uses of the Snapp confusion concession position working effectively used contra authenticity.


Evangelical Textual Criticism
Lunn on the End of Mark - July, 2015
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/07/lunn-on-end-of-mark.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/07/lunn-on-end-of-mark-part-2.html
In part 1 comments, similar to CARM above, except that I could correct the Snapp error.

Others like Stephen Carlson have also caught the Snapp conceptual problem.

Facebook - New Testament Textual Criticism - Oct 20, 2014
Maurice Robinson in Perspectives - Steven Avery Review
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/741986362555033/

James Snapp


The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2012)
James E. Snapp, Jr.
http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/AuthEndingMkTextEx2012.doc

Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 - Kindle (2016)
James E. Snapp, Jr.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01EU1OR9O
$5 most current


James Snapp - HTML friendly
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/MarkOne.htm

The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 - (Part Two)
External Evidence for the Inclusion
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/MarkTwo.htm

The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 - (Part Three)
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/MarkThree.htm

Early Evidence for Mark 16:9-20
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/Evidence.htm

Resources to Assist the Study of Mark 16:9-20
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/AuthSuppl.htm
Twenty-eight Pictures to Assist the Study of Mark 16:9-20
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/AuthSuppl.html
".. video-lectures about Mark 16:9-20 are available to watch at YouTube"

The NET and the Ending of Mark (Updated!) - April 19, 2013
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2013/04/the-net-and-ending-of-mark.html
There are many "correction of textual critics" and popular misinformation articles like this one. Since NETBible is Daniel Wallace, this gives the basic picture.


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

Lesser interest - Carlson review

Facebook - Steven Avery wall - Nov 16, 2015
... we note a reference to the Stephen Carlson review of the Nicholas Lunn book on the Mark ending.

Carlson review - http://www.fbs.org.au/reviews/lunn63.html

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism
James E. Snapp, Jr. - Nov 17, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/1004706499616350/
James Snapp reviews the grossly deficient review of the Nicholas Lunn book by Stephen Carlson

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


Early History in Reformation era of Ending considerations

[TC-Alternate-list] EoM - Cajetan and Catharinus
Steven Avery - Nov 2, 2008
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/2215

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - Steven Avery - June, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/877714438982224/?comment_id=891290610957940&offset=0&total_comments=37&comment_tracking={tn:R4}


Steven Avery

> Steven Estes
> I take it that before Vaticanus and Siniaticus were discovered there was really no opposition to Mk.16:9-20?

Generally true, although before Sinaiticus you had some cautious opposition, such as Granville Penn. Tischendorf before Sinaiticus (hmmm...) in 1840 per Letis. And see below, such as Cajetan.

Overall, it misses the vibrancy of discussion, which often covers the points made today and on a higher level of analysis.
.
==================
.
The must read text about the issue historically is the section from Richard Simon, covering up to about 1700:
.
A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament (1689)
Richard Simon
https://books.google.com/books?id=nYzPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA94
Andrew Hunwick translation (2013) (adds some Hunwick notes)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ia01_pLxGr8C&pg=PA99
.
Euthymius Zigabenus (early 12th c.)
Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534)
Sixtus Senensis (1520-1569)
Juan Maldonado (1533-1583)
Theodore Beza (1519-1605)
Caesar Baronius (1538-1607)
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) (others unnamed with a Grotius position)
Richard Simon (1638-1712)
.
The apologetic aspects are definitely in the mix, almost center stage. Erasmus should be added for that period, also Catherinus, perhaps Johann Gerhard. And finding and then reading, or skimming, the articles in Latin would lead to more.
.
From the ECW some issues covered in Richard
Simon
:
.
Irenaeus, versional evidences, Jerome to Hedibia and to the Pelagians, and the Manichean possible contribution, Julian the apostate use in contra-apologetics and Greek responses.
.
And there are versional and ms. elements as well.
.
Eusebius before Jerome, the source of Jerome is missed. The large number of ECW references is not mentioned, Irenaeus is mentioned twice but no other Ante-Nicene ref.
.
=============================
.
1700s before Griesbach
.
John Mill (1645-1707)
Johann Bengel (1687-1752)
Johann Wettstein (1693-1754)
Johann Adam Osiander (1701-1756)
Andreas Birch (Vaticanus collation) (1758-1829) .. overlaps Griesbach
.
The period from Griesbach to Hort is another including Burgon. James Morison (1816-1893) and Jean Pierre Martin (1840-1890) should not be missed, although after Hort.
.
=============================
.
Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000)
James A. Kelhoffer
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA5
.
“Hoe ‘Want ze waren bang’ het slot van Markus werd” - Dec, 2013
(“How ‘For they were afraid’ became Mark’s ending”),
Bart Kamphuis
https://www.kokboekencentrum.nl/tij...Zmdy2FleZqGoKNUyv2wK_ViMlTzUKIY2BYExcOvBAyWzM
PDF
https://www.kokboekencentrum.nl/tij...SRQpqs5UN2MAkQx4eEvDA-xZvDWXtGKLLVngvlf9ltrDc
p. 173-177
.
The Turning Point for Mark 16:9-20 - Dec, 2013
Jan Krans
https://vuntblog.blogspot.com/2013/...yoOqnTd7R4JShe2fuIbpsreLE45RMMSolriXVSYSxYVRA
.
=============================
.
Steven Avery


Along with the Jan Krans blog with the comments:

The Turning Point for Mark 16:9-20
http://vuntblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-turning-point-for-mark-169-20.html

Two of the only online posts on the earlier discussions about the section's authenticity.


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

To Review

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - Jan, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/790420971044905/?comment_id=796635580423444&comment_tracking={tn:R3}
Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - July, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/915065778580423/?comment_id=915240841896250&ref=notif&notif_t=like
Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - Nov, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/1004706499616350/?comment_id=1005463349540665&comment_tracking={tn:R0}
early sinking pericopes - to be made into one article


Facebook - NT Textual Criticism -
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/862070457213289/ April, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/790420971044905/ - Jan, 2015

Facebook - King James Bible Debate - May, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/permalink/10152918258471693/?comment_id=10152919543301693&offset=0&total_comments=13&comment_tracking={tn:R}
Facebook - King James Bible Debate - April, 2014
https://www.facebook.com/groups/212...=10152058527911693&offset=0&total_comments=55

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


My bookmarks reviewed from April 1, 2014 to May 1, 2016
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - 2016
https://www.facebook.com/groups/212...921693/?comment_id=10153639811031693&__tn__=R


James creates essentially new theories of "floating pericopes", he varies the author and dates (he needs a faux late date), and then he adds "production stage" and "transmission stage".
.
The contras rip this joke group of theories to shreds, I have seen that time and again. Why? It is NOT Markan ending authenticity.
.
And I have gone over this very carefully for James Snapp before, (Plan to place an article on the purebibleforum.) There is little point in trying to reason with him to reach him, his confusion is complete. The point is to warn Bible defenders!
.
(Many of his articles criticizing weak scholarship by others do not have his own position, so it is easy to miss in the day-to-day discussions.)
.
A larger discussion was held here:
.
Facebook - Pure Bible
ending of Mark - twelve verses with the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus - the James Snapp straddle - floating pericopes
Steven Avery - Sept 11, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/860452200713337/
.
And discussed it with the true Mark authenticity defender, Maurice Robinson. We smiled with sadness about these pretensions of James, appreciating his geek-tech work on external evidences but puzzled why he would take such a dumb (my word) position overall.
.
Caveat emptor.
.
James is a fifth columnist if you are defending Mark ending authenticity.
.
And Logan, this is not a joke. The authenticity of the word of God is a truly significant concern.
.
Steven Avery


> James E Snapp Jr
> , in the words of Burgon, "The question is not at all one of /authorship,/ but only one of /genuineness./"
.
What is especially tacky from James is that he continues, in the post above, even after careful previous correction, to use Burgon snippet out of context, against Burgon's actual belief.
.
This is what happens when a person is in darkness on a position. I will pull out the earlier correction of this scholastic chicanery from James Snapp. Here is an extract from the longer correction.
.
Notice that Burgon directly accuses the James E Snapp Jr postion:
.
==============================
.
BURGON DISASSEMBLED - James E Snapp Jr
Steven Avery author - Sept, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/860452200713337/?comment_id=861045577320666&offset=0&total_comments=14&comment_tracking={tn%3AR}
.
******
"How persons who believe that these verses did not form a part of the original Gospel of Mark, but were added afterwards, can say that they have a good claim to be received as an authentic or genuine part of the second Gospel, that is, a portion of canonical Scripture, passes comprehension.' Burgon p. 12.
.
*****
This is on the very next page as the quote mangled by Snapp by being used out of context. Ignoring this is not just tacky scholarship, it is now elevated to James engaging in outright lying, or at best self-delusion.
.
==============================
.
James Snapp .. thou art the man!
.
You are the critic (with Tregelles and Norton) with the wild interrupted hypotheses.
.
STOP MISREPRESENTING BURGON.
.
Suggestion: review the evidences, and join the true defenders.
.
===============================
.
The irony is that Tregelles was proclaiming a faux authenticity position, just like James does today, and he was ripped to shreds by Burgon, precisely because of the "interrupted" and then tack-on theory.
.
Snapp is in such total confusion on this Burgon position that he takes Burgon discussions on how the text was dropped, and tries to apply them to how the text was formed! (This was in the previous thread.)
.
Thus, I warn you even more:
.
BEWARE of the James Snapp position ald lack of logic and distortion of evidences in regard to the Mark ending authorship. ! His position is actually a disaster for Mark ending apologetics.
.
===============================
.
And as we see with his continuing Burgon blunder, error begets error.
.
Steven Avery

Peter, it was just a corruption fantasy that there is anything wrong that was foisted in the textual apostasy of the mid-late 1800s and still infects some today.
.
The men before then, like Beza and Michaelis (who goes into the woman afraid ending difficulty) were well aware that the style and internal elements all favored the traditional ending. These men were far more fluent in the Greek and Latin issues and ECW than today's lexicon scholars.
.
Beza -
"in this section I notice nothing which disagrees with the narratives of the other Evangelists or indicates the style of a different author, and I testify that this section is found in all the oldest manuscripts which I happen to have seen."
.
Michaelis
" there is nothing in its style which particularly distinguishes it from the rest of the Gospel,"
Even Richard Simon has an interesting section \that begins:
.
"Grotius has believed with many other authorts that it is not possible that S. Mark should have omitted in his gospel the entire history of the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
.
I would have to check exactly where this nonsense began, but it may have begun with Griesbach (Latin, afaik untranslated c. 1790), and thus picked up by some 1800s textual cornfueniks, with Burgon noting at least Tregelles and Alford.
..
There was noting of the comments of Jerome and Eusebius and the missing section of Vaticanus (which may date to the 400s) but so far I have found no sytlistic or internal arguments made before the 1800s textual apostasy.
.
Some info is given here by:
.
Burgon
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtpJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA5
.
It is theoretically possible that writers like Mill, Wettstein or Birch may have alluded to the style of the traditional ending negatively in their analysis (none omitted the verses) however, so far I know of no quotes.
.
==============
.
Btw, I found much more about the Snapp abominable misuse of Burgon, I plan to place that on the PureBibleForum, so as not to clutter here.
.
Steven Avery
.
Returning to the real problem with the James Snapp faux authenticity position on the Mark ending, there was a bit more conversation here:
.
Facebook
New Testament Scholarship Worldwide

This leads to two thoughts.
.
1) by the grace of the Lord Jesus, I really need to place the whole shebang on one blog or page of posts. It is truly a subtle yet gross deception upon the Bible believers that James plies this absurdity.
.
2) James is simply not the brightest light bulb. That is not a personal attack, simply an observation. It comes out clearer when he is defending absurdities against the pure word of God and he tries to convince himself and others that black is white. (There is a spiritual component as well, whenever a person is an attacker of the pure word of God the mind gets muddled ... "when you mess with the book ..." .) At times a person goes beyond clueless.
.
Note: this does not mean that he isn't a decent tech-geek. They are two different things.
,
As another example, Daniel Wallace is obviously not too bright (see the articles on his statistical illiteracy). However, he can at times be a decent tech-geek. At times he even writes with some gumption (although not in his writing in defense of the textus corruptus.) His article on Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit showed some gumption, even though he never realized that the Critical Text shoots down his position!
.
====
.
And I added a few notes to the Wallace talk on Codex Sinaiticus and Tischendorf (a fair talk overall, from the limited knowledge of the textual scholars.)
.
Dr. Dan Wallace - Tischendorf and the Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVSzBGXXL1Y
.
However they deleted the post, so I will see if I have a copy.
.
Ok, notes placed here:
.
Pure Bible Forum
Tischendorf and the Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus - Daniel Wallace
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=283
.
===='
.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy - 2020-2021

floating pericope - caveat emptor
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...k/588691828643350/?comment_id=588959858616547
MYPOST
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...k/588691828643350/?comment_id=852750088904188

List of True Authenticity
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...k/640980123414520/?comment_id=642393326606533
On the traditional ending of Mark, any idea that the ending was not written by Mark as the ending of the Gospel, but was some sort of later tack-on, must be seen as a position of:
=================

NON-AUTHENTICITY.
Bruce Metzger ("ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark")
James Snapp - "floating pericope"
Peter Gurry ("Scripture, something like an ancient appendix.")
David W. Hester
And I strongly encourage you not to let them try to pull this shake and bake game with you.

TRUE AUTHENTICITY
John William Burgon
Edward Freer Hills (and AV defenders in general)
Maurice Robinson
Wilbur Pickering
Nicholas P. Lunn
Jeffrey Riddle (Reformation-Confessional defenders)

Feel free to tweak the list and offer updates and additions.
=================
YouTube on John MacArthur blunders
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...k/867720480740482/?comment_id=867740970738433
 
Top