Julian

Hmmm, 'skeptic theology.' That would be funny if it wasn't so sad. No need for me to comment on that. I mean, imagine my audacity, my nerve, to actually want reasonably strong evidence before I acknowledge the existence of magic and the supernatural. I am obviously not right in the head.

I must also be suffering from a complete lack of ability to read since nowhere on Willker's PCA page do I see the phrase, "Unfortunately I have no reliable information as to how many MSS support each group." Surely, I must be going blind.

Praxeus is once again going at the 'reconstructed autograph' target. I don't care. Why, you ask? Because luckily for me that issue is of no importance in this context. Anyone who understands even the most meager basics of statistics in the feeblest manner possible would know that it doesn't matter what baseline you define your numbers against as long as you apply the same baseline for all your data. I can measure the height of the chairs in my house, for example, and compare them and get meaningful results whether I measure them using inches, centimers, or schlafelflugels (don't bother looking it up) as long as I measure all the chairs using the same system because we are merely dealing with a datum relative to another. In the case of Willker, he compares NA against the majority text. Fine. Whatever. As long as he does that for all his variants it doesn't matter, i.e. he is not making a value statement here. He could measure his variants against old danish cheese (although I wouldn't recommend it unless you are used to it) and still get the same results.

Sigh.

Julian

Julian

Hmm, all the other sarcasm aside, this seems like it might be a serious question which I will answer if that is indeed the case. I don't understand what you are asking, though.

Julian

Steven Avery

Then let google be your friend.
Or load the paper and use the search function. You will get to p.23 and then you can explain the comment to us from the perspective of individual manuscripts rather than groups being the focus.

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 4b
The Pericope de Adultera: Jo 7:53 - 8:11 (Jesus and the Adulteress)
by Wieland Willker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian he is not making a value statement here.

Of course he is. When Wieland says or implies that certain groups are superior because they are closer to the "reconstructed autograph" that is a value statement. Thus there is a circularity to the exercise if it is meant to have any application to either ..
a) superiority of manuscripts
b) originality of the Pericope

"Why are the data points given as group ID's if groups have no relationship to the input ?"

On the data graph the only input points appear to be groups, not individual manuscripts. My question is simple .. why ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Julian

My comments have been confined to Willker's PCA study. That study can be found here: http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/pub/Analysis-PCA.html and does not contain the words that praxeus quoted. I am sure that they do appear in the commentaries. However, commentaries do not concern me as they are just that, commentaries. As for my 'value statement' comment, it is not a value statement in regards to the PCA study and its results. Again, I will defend his study, not his views because, frankly, I don't care what his views are for the purposes of this thread.

As a general comment there is no doubt that referring to NA27 as the 'reconstructed autograph' can be categorized as severe overstatement. Being a supporter of the Western Non-interpolations, just as an example, I see some severe deficiencies in NA27. I also believe that supporting the Byzantine/Majority/Erasmus text is overstating things to a degree far beyond what I might say about NA27. There are no grounds for supporting any Byzantine variation as anywhere near the autographs other than what motivation may spring from dogmatic apologetics of a particularly puzzling nature. NA27 is not at all perfect, nor an autograph, but it is miles closer than anything else we have. Most scholars would agree with me, seeing how NA27 is pretty much the de facto standard bible in scholarly circles.

Julian

Steven Avery

What do you think of variants that were originally rejected from NA but were then put into NA-27? Did they have "no grounds" before they were put in ? Or is NA-27 the pizazz text ?

Have you studied Jim Snapp's site on the ending of Mark ? Would you actually say there are "no grounds" for supporting the ending of Mark as the original text ?

What does "no grounds" precisely mean ?
Is it a coffee term ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Amaleq13

There does not seem to be any point in splitting off a single post that doesn't appear likely to generate much discussion so ignore it and move on would be my advice.

Julian

My personal opinion is that the committee is caving in to tradition and popular pressure. The problem with religion is that people who adhere to such stuff can never be quite as neutral as is required for a reasonable and rational viewpoint so results are always far outside the boundaries of what you see in other sciences. People need to start seeing god as god, the bible as the bible, and the church as the church and realize that any commonality between them is entirely arbitrary and manmade. You can believe in none, one or more of the preceeding as you please. Feeling compelled to believe in all of them in a particular fashion with a particular ceremonial whatchamacallit is probably an external impetus making itself known. Making itself known to the impartial observer on the outside, that is. It is nice to be here on the outside but also a little scary for reasons I am sure you wouldn't understand.


Julian

Nazaroo

Okay, I've let a lot of absolute crap slide by in this thread. But I really can't pass by on this.

The committee 'caved in to popular pressure'?

The committee did that when they dedicated their lives to popularizing a 4th century ecclesiastical text as the 'original NT'.

Give us a break! The UBS text is overseen by the most powerful Cardinal of Europe.

Are you completely clueless, and unaware that the Roman Catholic church is the most powerful religious institution in the world? That they run a propaganda engine that makes Goebbels' efforts appear like sandcastles in a playbox?

What planet are you from again?

Its protestants who are the victims in this case, who actually bought the hypocritical BS, took the RCs at their word, and try to base their religion on the traditional text. The one the RC's are undermining just enough so that its authority can be supplanted by their religious hierarchy.

And you're worried about the 'neutrality' of RC scholarship?

Oh Please get me a shovel.

Steven Avery

Hi Nazaroo and Julian,

Hmmm.. an edgy back-and-forth.
Grace and peace to you.

Shalom shabbat,
Steven

Julian

Really? The most powerful? I am assuming that you are referring to Cardinal Carlo Martini. I am surprised that he isn't Pope already, the way you are describing him. Oh wait, he is one of those 'progressive' cardinals, right? You know the kind, the kind that says that condoms might just be permissible under certain circumstances. A lesser evil, according to him. A tree hugging liberal by any standard, wow, we can't have him messing with our beloved-indoctrinated-from-birth text in case he might apply scientific rigor to his examinations. We accept only strict KJV-only objectivisim. As for his condom stance, personally, I think we need more people on this planet. I can still move my arms. Breed away, catholics! And ancient Carlo, he dominated the twin towers of Metzger and Aland (with reserve-Aland, that would be Barbara, to back him up)? Wow, who knew? I am glad that you are here to explain this to us.
Yeah, I am completely clueless. First of all, I know nothing about linguistics, as you established earlier. I also know nothing about statistics, science, or math. In addition, I also know nothing about religion, history, and manuscripts.
Planet Catholics-are-undetectable-and-all-powerful-on-this-world, why?
Hmmm, I am not sure that I recall stating that I was worried but since you say it, I am sure that I am shaking in fearful anticipation of papist scriptural domination. I honestly can't imagine a worse event.
How about I get to use the shovel and you just stand there?

Julian