John Kesler

Uh, Dr. Gibson, not only do I consult commentaries ("ever consult commentaries"?), I own and have quoted from the very commentary you mention. See this post from last December. I respect Keener's opinion, but his is not the only scholary opinion on verse 25's intention, is it? Second, you claimed that I didn't accurately state what verse 25 says--"[verse 25] doesn't say what you say it says"--and I ask for your correction. Are the translations from which I quoted in error? What did I state about verse 25 which is in error?

jgibson000

You'll forgive me, I trust, for not having read every IIDB BC thread or everything you've posted to IIDB BC.

No. But -- leaving aside the matter that previously you did not raise the question of what scholarly opinion on this verse was -- so far as I know, no scholars says that the point of v. 25 is what you previously claimed it was.

That Joseph never had sexual relations with Mary after they were wed ("even after marriage, Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary").

JG

John Kesler

You wouldn't have to have read everything I have posted to avoid making the unwarranted assumption that you did. And if you hadn't read enough of my posts to make a determination about whether I "ever" use commentaries, then you shouldn't have claimed that I don't.


Well, the scholars who annotated the New American Bible seem to agree with me. The note on verse 25 says that, "the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus."

What I said is "[W]hy does he make it a point in verse 25 to state that, even after marriage, Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary?" which is what verse 25 states. From this post:

I didn't say that Joseph never had sex with Mary after marriage, though I can see that I should have been clearer.

jgibson000

Point taken.

But now take mine, please: I didn't not claim specifically that you don't consult commentaries. But given that, as is demonstrable, few who post here actually ever do, and that your post gave no indication that you had done so -- or were doing so -- on Matt. 1:25, the inference seemed to me to be warranted.

Fine. But, to use your own words, that is not the whole of scholarly opinion on the matter, is it?

You left out the "until/before" clause of that verse.

What then is the meaning of "had no sexual relations ... even after marriage" except "never had sexual relations"?

Jeffrey Gibson

John Kesler

No, it's not. But my post was in response to your statement that, "so far as I know, no scholars says [sic] that the point of v. 25 is what you previously claimed it was."

As I acknowledged, I should have been clearer. After marriage was when Joseph could have lawfully had sex with Mary. He declined to consumate his marriage immediately, for whatever reason, thus my statement that "even after marriage" he didn't have sex with Mary. I didn't mean never after marriage.

Steven Avery

Thank you, John. Although there was a bit of unclarity I concluded that this was your likely meaning. One clue was the reference to the sheet, as if you were talking about Joseph abstaining for a special season, a period continuing "till she had brought forth her firstborn son". Not setting up a lifetime rule. Anyway, all clear now. Thanks.

John Gill's commentary is similar in its emphasis to what you share
and he adds an additional point -

"that it might be manifest not only that she conceived, being a virgin, but also that she brought forth, being a virgin: for both are signified in the prophecy before related, "a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son"; which is all one as if it had been said, a virgin shall conceive, and "a virgin" shall bring forth a son."

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

spin

(Oh, really? Who'd have guessed that you wouldn't like the Vaticanus?...)

In true apologetic style, Praxeus lets his ends dictate his means. And if I were him I would cover those ends up for fear of indecent exposure. We are supposed to be trying to uncover what the reality was. As usual he is not up to the job.

He has suddenly become a champion of Codex Alexandrinus over the Codex Vaticanus. Why? -- because it has a future tense in the Greek which agrees with the reading his apologetics dictates.

The lowly Codex Vaticanus has a present tense verb in Jdg 13:5, & 7, while the Alexandrinus has a future in both places. Good one for Praxeus, right?

Well, actually, no. It wouldn't strike one as notable that Codex Alexandrinus is a century later than Codex Vaticanus.

Let's look at the following comment on Alexandrinus:

The text of Codex A is considered one of the most valuable witnesses to the Septuagint. It is found, however, to bear a great affinity to the text embodied in Origen's Hexapla and to have been corrected in numberless passages according to the Hebrew.

Oh, so Codex Alexandrinus has been "corrected in numberless passages according to the Hebrew" after the fact. It is considered Byzantine in text tradition.

Here's a cut from Wiki on the septuagint:

There is at least one highly unreliable complete text of the LXX, Codex Alexandrinus.

It's a hundred years later than the Vaticanus and it is seen as highly unreliable. That's the text of choice for Praxeus.

We find that while the Codex Vaticanus has the present tense form of the verb in each of the cases in Judges, Codex Alexandrinus has the future. One has to ask why the earlier has the present and the later has the future. We don't have to look far for the tendentious reasoning behind the later text using the future in Jdg 13:5.

But why Jdg 13:5? what's it need to be changed for? I have argued elsewhere that Jdg 13:5 is a source text for Mt 2:23 another christian "prophecy". Jdg 13:5 talks of the one being born saving Israel, just as Jesus would save his people (1:21). The birth of Samson was one model for the birth of Jesus and just as Samson would be a nazeiraios, so Jesus would be called a nazwraios. The scribal difference between these two Greek forms is minimal. As the Jesus tradition has the conception in the future at the time of the enunciation, so must Samson. Hence the tendentious change of the Alexandrinus text in Jdg 13:5 from already pregnant to pregnant in the future.

What we see is a plain and simply modification to pander to people like Praxeus. One can therefore understand why Praxeus would abandon the earlier text for the latter, though that has nothing to do with evidence. He was prepared to cheat to get his way, as he tries regularly when he doesn't understand the texts he is playing with but rehashes people like Gill and other apologists.

The Greek evidence, the oldest version of which clearly supports the Hebrew, is of course, as I argued, secondary to the Hebrew, but because Praxeus of his own admission knows nothing about Hebrew he wants me to go somewhere else so that other people can do Praxeus's work for him in analysing what I have argued.

Sadly Praxeus is incapable of identifying errors. He's too busy covering for his beliefs.


spin

spin

You see Praxeus, it is this undigested crud that is your downfall. How the hell would Gill know any better than you? Does he supply you with a functional critical apparatus or is it that you take his comments on faith? Citing his opinions on anything is like citing the pizza delivery person's opinions. Who cares about opinions, when facts and evidence is what we need?


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

An amazing post. Spin gets caught on a blatant blunder, on
"the Greek" of Judges 13, and rather than simply say "oops, I
was wrong, I didn't know the textual variation" he spins and
squirms to the max.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin (Oh, really? Who'd have guessed that you wouldn't like the Vaticanus?...)

So spin goes to 'Wiki' (!) to try to respond to the scholarship at ..

http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?...s,%20Book%20of
Book of Judges.
7. Relation to Septuagint and Other Versions:

Note that the NetBible article is not only in depth but it also is
addressing specifically the Greek OT of Judges ! btw, in addition
the LXX forum moderator (Carl Conrad) gave the Alexandrinus
as the reading of the Greek OT of Judges.

Against this spin goes quote-mining in Wiki and the catholic
encyclopedia, not even addressing the excellent NetBible
article on Judges. The depths someone will go to rather
than simply acknowledge an error.

Two points are funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Oh, so Codex Alexandrinus has been "corrected in numberless passages according to the Hebrew" after the fact.

Remember, spin claims the Hebrew is not future tense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin as he tries regularly ... tendentious change of the Alexandrinus text in Jdg 13:5 from already pregnant to pregnant in the future.

Copyists anticipating the IIDB debates coming up in 1500 years. Anyway the NetBible article discussing Judges on Alexandrinus and Vaticanus (along we have the Latin) shows that spin is way off, there is no textual warrant for his accusatory conjectures on this. It is simply spin. His methodology, rather than deal with the evidences attack motives, as we see with ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin He was prepared to cheat to get his way, as he tries regularly ..

It is too bad for the skeptics here that this low-quality poster is your scholarly representative on such issues as the Greek OT.

As for John Gill, his knowledge of the Hebraic background of the texts
is actually quite amazing. His commentary on Matthew was simply good
commentary, why a "functional critical apparatus" would be pertinent
to his comment I shared on Matthew will remain a spin-mystery. Spin
seems to be a bit desperate, spinning out of control, now that his blunder
on "the Greek" of Judges 13 was brought to the attention of the forum.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

spin

As the Wiki comment did fairly represent the scholarly view regarding Codex Alexandrinus, your avoidance merely says you aren't interested in reality.

You still trumpet a troubled text as though it buoyed you up from your failure to justify your reading of the Jdg 13:5.

Just to remind you, as you don't know any better, there is no future tense in Hebrew. When you wrap your head around that, maybe you might start to see the problem that your ignorance puts you in.

NetBible? A blind man clings to the one-eyed guide.

The NetBible "article" doesn't even supply you with the basic information that you needed to prevent you from making more of a hole for yourself. This is all it says about the codexes:

There are two early Greek translations of the Book of Jgs, which seem to be on the whole independent of one another. These are represented by the two great uncial manuscripts, B (Codex Vaticanus) and A (Codex Alexandrinus).

Now that's real deep and useful there, Praxeus. Tells you a lot don't it?? Not even a date to help you out.

Oh, it also says:

The other version is contained in A and the majority of the uncial and cursive manuscripts of the Greek texts, and, while certainly a real and independent translation from the original, is thought by some to show acquaintance with the version of B.

This shows how Praxeus got to where he is today.

Just remember, Praxeus, from here every direction is up.

Evidence is what I have put forward. The Hebrew is clear. One form has one meaning unless context shows you differently. I could rest my case there, but because of your ignorance I showed you further evidence. The Greek... the earliest Greek we have of the text puts the relevant verb in the present tense. Unable to deal with the Hebrew willfully avoiding the earliest Greek, he clings to an obviously later form. Very sad, Praxeus, old son. You're just an apologist who lacks the tools to be apologetic. :wave:

As you are in no position to know, your evaluation is not worth the paper it's printed on. You'll need a better spokesperson for your Gill.


spin