summary - the true Mark ending authenticity position of James Snapp

[Steven Avery]

short posts to counter Mark ending disinformation - including the true position of James Snapp

Wip
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/873728173473046/

James Snapp does not believe the long ending of Mark is original. He believes it was some sort of floating pericope that was tacked on after Mark was arrested, died or something.

The theory is absurd. So while his geek-tech information on the evidences his helpful, he really is a contra-authenticity trojan horse, whose position is torn to shreds quickly in the real discussion land with short corrupt ending proponents.

 

[Steven Avery]

James Snapp is actually de facto an opponent of Mark ending authenticity

Dear Textus Receptus Academy,

Caveat emptor.

The geek-tech work of James Snapp on the Mark ending evidences is superb, correcting lots of disinformation put out by the Westcott-Hort recension supporters, who support the faux “women afraid” ending of verse 8. James compiles and analyzes the massive support for the section, and his work on this is the most comprehensive single source available, and free. All of that work can be properly used in defense of the authenticity of the traditional ending.

True Mark ending supporters like John William Burgon, Edward Freer Hills and Maurice Robinson do support the full chapter as authentic scripture and Mark’s original Gospel text. The proper understanding.

James Snapp, however, actually does NOT accept the 12 verses as Mark’s original Gospel text. Instead, against logic, sense, Ockham and probability, James Snapp theorizes Markus Interruptus (arrest or death or something) just as Mark had finished writing verse 8 and was ready for the finale of the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus Christ. Halleluyah!

This is followed by Special pleading to the max. After the no-evidence interruption, James theorizes that a “floating pericope” was attached on after verse 8. This FP may have been written by ‘Friends of Mark’,or Mark unrelated to the Gospel, or ... somebody. (James has moved the theory around over the years.) Then James theorizes, again without a scintilla of evidence, that this hybrid Mark was copied into production before the actual shorter Gospel was copied and distributed.

If you buy into this scenario, please.watch out for bridge salesmen!

(btw, this convoluted scenario is totally unnecessary. The reasons that James gives for wanting to combine two texts are essentially a multiplication of nothings.)

Thus, James represents a Trojan Horse, with a position that is contra Mark ending authenticity! And he is easily exposed by the savvier Critical Text short ending supporters. As an example, he lost his debate on CARM to Joe Wallack in 2010 on precisely this point.

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA

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

Pure Bible Forum

summary - the true Mark ending authenticity position of James Snapp
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...luding-the-true-position-of-james-snapp.1792/

More Info

the sinking pericope theories of James Snapp that are contra Markan ending authenticity
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...at-are-contra-markan-ending-authenticity.282/

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

Aug-Sept 2021

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/956816381830891/

YouTube
https://youtu.be/sJbskEHtHro
Post put in, Sam apparently removed it

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

 

[Steven Avery]

New 2024 on his forum

James E Snapp Jr
Admin
Top Contributor

Joshua N Angela ,
<< If it was removed, why and when and by who? >>
It was removed very early by a copyist or copyists in the early Alexandrian transmission-stream who detected, or thought he/they detected, that verses 9-20 were non-Petrine, and thus should be regarded as a secretary's note rather than as Petrine.