Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

No, the principle reason is that they accept the corrupt Westcott-Hort text with thousands of variants, many tawdry errors and corruptions like the swine marathon from Gerash. Scholars who accept the Reformation Bible as the true and pure Greek text often use the King James Bible for quote referencing, with appreciation for translation accuracy.

spinning around with circular reasoning. Those two early texts are woefully corrupt. One was unknown at the time of the King James Bible, the other was deliberately rejected as of minimal or no consequence whatsoever. On variant after variant, they even disagree with each other, with common sense, and with 98% of the mss line evidence. One was so scribally corrupt that 10 hands tried to un-hodge-podge the disaster. Scribal errors abound in a way virtually unique in NT manuscripts, with the possible exception of some papyri and Codex Bezae.

Used extensively, easily and beautifully among Bible believers, majestic yet easy to read and understand.

I agree 100% and demonstrated conclusively on other threads (before my vacation) that modern textual criticism by design and absolute necessity builds errors into their corrupt resulting text. By a number of methods, most especially by the horrid abuse of lectio difficilior, which will come down to ..

"the errant reading is our version"

The (snipping) of the Markan resurrection account is one of dozens of examples where lectio difficilior is a factor in creating a corrupt version. However there are many other verses where this is a much greater part of the corrupt version puzzle.

A whole different discussion than the pure Bible, or the JW circular insistence of weighing versions by their agreement with his view on the Markan ending .. so if there is anything worthwhile there, it will go on its own post or thread. Looking quickly, I saw nothing worthwhile.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Well-known because virtually every Westcott and Hort methodology and analysis blunder was accepted, possible exceptions being the cloud over the Lucian recension and the absurd primitive corruptions. They deliberately designed a methodology to try to fight the "vile Textus Receptus". In their more lucid moments, even modern textcrits at times acknowledge that this was the real purpose of the textcrit endeavor of the last 130 years.

Tended ?? The typical stuff. Simply list the readings in the W-H text that depart from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus when they agree.

________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________

After you give that list, we can discuss if this is a tendency or a slavish and absolute submission to two corrupt manuscripts.

Please give the list above. Demonstrate that by "oldest traditions" what you mean is not only two corrupt manuscripts (and a couple of papyri sections). Even when there are early church writers with clear evidences that precede those manuscripts by a century or two.

Simple question, which is an earlier tradition for Acts 8:37, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus or the early church writers Irenaeus and Cyprian ?
_________________________

Same question for the resurrection account in the Gospel of Mark, where Irenaeus is again one of the earlier traditions.

Now if you do not consider early church writers as "christian texts" then explain why the writings of these men who read and studied Bibles (most in Greek, Latin or both) hundreds of years earlier than any extant manuscripts are not texts.

Two corrupt manuscripts, one known and totally rejected and that to a large extent disagree with most EVERYTHING else in many verses, will clearly have "differences" from any consistent and accurate and pure Bible.

The devolution was to the corrupt text, from one that is pure. You have a couple of questions above to answer.

See my request above. Surely there are 25 to 100 easy-find verses where Westcott and Hort rejected a reading of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for other eclectic evidences, and you can list the easiest five above.

Simply supply the list. If you cannot do so, simply say so and state why. You made the many claims about their eclectic methodology, give the verses that support the claim.

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

Note : There is no difficulty confirming the verse claims. The W-H Greek is fully reflected in the RV (Revised Version) text which is close to identical to the NRSV, NAS, etc. The Reformation Bible Greek is 100% reflected in the King James Bible and the Geneva Bible. And, with a caution or two, Youngs and the NKJV and some other versions. Thus every significant variant can be easily seen in English.

The information about Aleph and B (and if their is a corrector) is available from Laparola, along with a bunch of other manuscript information, and also the e-catena material comes over automatically and there are ECW references (which material is often woefully incomplete, yet is helpful as far as it goes). Noting that they can put 500 Greek manuscripts under one entry (Byz) reflecting the deficient mentality of the modern textcrit biz.

Oh, one other point. The pool of such agreements (Aleph-B) against the Reformation Bible is not a commonly-discussed number (and the number will vary based on significance) I think it is safe to say that 1000 is very conservative. The 180 major omissions on the Magic Marker page are mostly of this nature, and that represents only one type of difference, and very major ones. Remember that Aleph and B have 3000 significant disagreements with each other in the Gospels, per the Herman Hoskier analysis. If spin wants to claim that there are not many such verses (Aleph and B vs the Reformation Bible) he can do so and we can discuss this first and in depth, while he tries to give the examples requested.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Here I want to make it very clear that I am very pleased to be considered a defender of the pure Bible, the Reformation Bible, whatever the insipid or irrational attack, whether the attack on the pure Bible comes from James White or Joe Wallack or spin or others. Such is my most reasonable honor and service.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

First (ms stuff planned shortly) lets point out that Joe simply refuses to give his theory of Mark, and what in the world Joe actually believes about the origin of Mark and the origin of the resurrection account. Thus JW goes on simply with stuff that has no context to the debate whatsoever.

Joe, what is your position ?

Mark 1 - 16:8
Authorship................ ____________________
Dating of Writing........ ____________________
Dating of Church Use.. ____________________
Authority.................. ____________________

Mark 16:19-20
Authorship................ ____________________
Dating of Writing........ ____________________
Dating of Church Use.. ____________________
Authority.................. ____________________

Joe, if you still refuse to even give the reader any idea of what position you take, what is the meaning of this debate. Was does all your cutesy stuff mean if you offer us absolutely no theory of transmission ?

e.g. If you think that Mark was written in 120 AD .. and the resurrection account in 130 AD .. what do you actually offer to the debate ?

Now I see that you actually claim, for your position that other parts of Mark are redactions, anything that comes against your argument, the familiar redaction of convenience approach.

Mark 16:7
But go your way,
tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee:
there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

Mark 14::28
But after that I am risen,
I will go before you into Galilee.

This is an astounding admission of the feebleness of the JW theory. Any verse that contradicts the theory is thus postulated as a "redaction" .. while no other verses are singled out as not original. Only those that are uncomfortable for the particular position !

Note though, that Joe has never even given a theory of what is the "original text of Mark". Written by an individual, written by Mark, written by five hands or a community, written in 1 piece or 5, written in 45 AD or 90 AD or 130 AD or 200 AD or later. So even within his own construct, there is simply no meaning to the phrase "original text of Mark".

On to text stuff later, this is at a library and I must gmail myself my notes !

I will ask Joe one simple question, what post did he address the Latin manuscript evidence and which Latin manuscripts does he claim lack the resurrection account. I simply did not see anything about that in his presentation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
(I do agree however that the James Snapp position is woefully deficient, and I have no objection with Joe saying that James to a large extent loses the debate before he begins -- by separating out the resurrection account as a separate piece of literature. imho .. This is only some residue of previous conditioning, as James is well aware of the deficiencies of the separation arguments. As far as I can tell, on this issue Professor Maurice Robinson is far more forthright and direct in affirming the authorship of the full Gospel of Mark. Research on that in progress.)

spin

Entertaining rhetoric. Contentless, but...

That seems to be a reflection of your ignorance of what Hort was doing.

We usually brush aside such bald assertions, so, (waving hand)...

You claim, you need to demonstrate.

Why "woefully"? Oh, I see: you're being rhetorical again.

Argument from ignorance. Useful.

Yup. As do all the text families. That's why they are families.

Common sense is not a criterion when dealing with text form. It is merely a retrojection of your mores. You must work from the text. You use common sense to distort the text into what you think it should be rather than what it was.

Your phrase "mss line evidence" is obscure to me. What do you mean exactly?

10 hands? Which text are you referring to and what is the scholarly bibliography?

So much for your "virtual unique". If you cut through your own verbiage, you might save effort and communicate better.

Utter rubbish. I don't think you'll find that kids of KJV only families will do any better in understanding Shakespeare than anyone else.

How many really know what "hallowed" means? What about a "shambles"? "Incontinent"? To make "manifest"? "Censorious"? "Peradventure"? "Chambering"? "Staves" or "scrips"? "Charger"? And on and on. (references provided if needed.) The text is teeming with words that readers simply don't have access to. So, don't kid me with ridiculous phrases such as "majestic yet easy to read and understand". You simply don't know what you're talking about. Please think about what ordinary readers can understand before you say another of your more vacuous assertions.

String of assertions. I think I recognize this style.

We already know that you believe the KJV. And you will badmouth anything that disputes it.

Knowing that you know nothing about the original texts, but are merely shuffling apologetics that you have picked up along the way, I don't see that you've proffered any evidence for another bunch of assertions.

You seem to be accusing Joe of doing exactly what you are doing, ie "circular insistence of weighing versions by their agreement with [your] view on the Markan ending". You have an a priori commitment to the text of the KJV, therefore, you cannot accept that the long ending of Mark could be a later addition. This means that you will say anything against the manuscripts that don't support the way you want the text. You reject the oldest manuscripts because they don't meet your requirements, they are faulty, they haven't been normalized. But that's the point: they haven't been normalized. They reflect traditions prior to any great amount of scribal intervention. This doesn't mean that there aren't any errors in them. It means you have to contemplate the weight of every word from a text critical point of view and leave your a priori commitments at the door.


spin

avi

Hmm. I wonder what the Catholics would write about that latter assertion.
Steve, I think you are treading on thin ice here. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus may well be "corrupt" as you have asserted, and as anyone can now see for themselves, by simply going to the internet and observing some of the many redactions, and editorial changes--inserted n years ago, where n = 1-1500 years earlier--however, what gives you the authority to boast of the validity of Irenaeus, a guy whose very existence seems remarkably tenuous to me? Andrew was kind enough to suggest that Hippolytus offered commentary on Irenaeus, thereby confirming the latter's authenticity, but Hippolytus in turn, appears suspiciously mythical, at least to my eyes....

The problem with all of the oldest extant manuscripts is that they apparently represent forged copies, replete with editorial content not originally included by the authors...

Can you teach me, Steven, what is it about the King James version that you prefer, compared with the Tyndale original English bible? Do you think that the scholarly work of the Bishops in the latter part of the sixteenth century, translating from the Greek manuscripts extant at that time, was superior to the work of Erasmus, translating the newly discovered Greek manuscripts fifty years earlier, as employed in Tyndale's monumental achievement?

What makes you believe that the definitive scholarly work translating the Greek from extant 16th century manuscripts, is superior to the work translating the Greek from extant 21st century manuscripts? Steven, do you suspect that there were possibly any political influences at play in making translations in the earliest years of the 16th century? Steven, does the term, "Council of Trent" mean anything to you? Do you suppose that there could also have been political influences in the 2nd to 16th centuries? Do you acknowledge that the long ending of Mark 16:9--, could have been inserted into various Greek editions, upon command by potentates, rather than having been authored by Mark himself? Do you have some explanation why Sinaiticus and Vaticanus lack the LE?

With regard to the supposed beauty of the 16th century English translation, the King James version, may I inquire whether the various French translations are equally attractive in your eye? When I watch a movie with a Shakespearian theme, I must employ the subtitles, as I cannot understand what they are saying. This is less the case for French. 16th century French poetry is as lyrical, beautiful, and nearly as comprehensible, as 21st century French poetry. The rapidity of changes in English, have created a chasm of misunderstanding, so I wonder again, why it is that you would prefer an English translation prone to misinterpretation, even if it has faithfully translated (which--not the oldest extant?) some arbitrary group of "original" copies of Greek manuscripts, itself a hotly contested issue, in view of the ample evidence of tampering....

bacht

imo the KJV is a great translation for public recitation. The rhythm is beautiful, and the attention to the flow of words to the ear is terrific. But it's impossible for the average English speaker to follow any more, and many words are either out of use or have changed their meaning. Passages that were once clearly intelligible to contemporaries are now obscure or misleading.

Steven Avery

The RCC has never embraced or utilized any Received Text Bible in any language .. and the Erasmus works were put on the Index librorum prohibitorum, so they generally will not speak favorably of any Reformation Bible.

Tyndale did a superb job, and was the English foundation of the English Holy Bible. The KJB took a more refined Greek text and had much more translation skill and improved the excellent Tyndale language.

The Stephanus and Beza scholarship did improve on Erasmus yes, and therefore the Bishops, Geneva and KJB were superior text-wise to the Tyndale. The differences were not large in any way, and only a few were very significant, yet they did exist.

The phrases "extant 16th century manuscripts" and 21st .. need some unpacking . The short answer, the paradigms that created the Westcott-Hort text were grossly deficient. Before my vacation I think I had a thread or two on that.

Sure, you see some in Tyndale and in the Geneva notes. Rheims NT (RCC) surely. Beyond that, not much in text.

Sure the RCC attempt to defend against the Reformation.

A bit vague.

The clear referencing as early as the 2nd century makes this basically an impossible origin, JW handwaving and lack of any dating theory aside. Note: the same limitation, especially with the Cyprian reference, applies to the heavenly witnesses, Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace notwithstanding.

Since the first part was impossible, this "rather" is moot. However I do believe that Mark was indeed the author, while James Snapp equivocates.

With omissions being far easier than additions to account for, you can consider both accidental and a few deliberate reasons, especially with the alexandrian manuscripts being so tampered right and left. (e.g. look at Psalm 14). Probably I would agree 98% with the James Snapp expositions on this part.

I understand that David Martin did a superb translation, however je parle seulement un peu de français and I would hardly be able to say much more about the French majestic language in comparison.

You are combining two issues, text and translation. Text comes first, and there it is trivially easy to defend the pure Bible text against those who try to force or cajole me to use a corrupt modern version (spin, JW, etc). On the translation, as someone who went decades not using the King James Bible, and having all the same mental kadaddles .. when I actually read the KJB as the pure word of God the clarity and majesty and authority was quite evident, daily.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Amen. Preach it !

Naah. if that were true, if the situation were so dumbed-down, reading the KJB would help those in trouble in reading to be edumacated and literate, since the basic problem would be reading comprehension, not the King James Bible language.

Difficulties are minor, and often paying attention to the words really helps your speech and improves your "conversation" in community life. Is there really a difficulty in speaking the Bible powerfully and clearly using the English Holy Bible ? I trow not !

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

All this .. and the question is not answered.

Spin, you made the assertion, show us the eclectic verses where Westcott and Hort did not go with Vaticanus and Sinaticus.

So far -- 0

If you can't get such a simple assertion right, what is all the <edit potential simile> stuff above ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery