Steven Avery

On the Pericope, (unlike 1 Timothy 3:16), afaik nobody has collated the precise references, not even the listing of verse locations, much less yet the translations thereof, much less yet the original language.. I discussed earlier how absurd this situation is, all sorts of people doing all sorts of arcane papers on obscure topics, and much base material is not accessible -- except for the types of yeoman efforts of folks like Roger Pearse, Wieland Willker and yourself (working in different realms).

So far I think I could only whip up perhaps Ambrose, Ambrioster, Jerome, Augustine and Apostolic Consitutions, from the sources on the URL's I gave

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

In that sense, I think you miss the point. I find Ehrman's personallity quite interesting, a sort of charming honesty, and even his argumentation is often more honest, perhaps because he doesn't have a Christian facade; barely ever discuss Brown, except that in my reading he has a smarmy way of writing negatively about scripture. Mostly he is irrelevant, even more so to the textual discussion, but I find his name pop up on some issues.

Metzger, its not a question of his personality, but of a very dubious belief system, with paradigms of unbelief, especially signiificant because he is posed as "Christian" scholarship. This type of contradiction (see my 5-point explanation of the innate paradigmic paradox) has polluted almost all official scholarship textual discussion.

Ok, now to the issue du jour, the Pericope.

And a number of Greek manuscripts before the 12th century.

In summary, it is inexecusable in ALL the public demonstrations, (I showed you about five) who all repeat the same deceptive structure. They follow like lemmings the flaws, the deception, of Metzger's piece, and the result is stuff like the complete misunderstanding of Spanish_Inquistor, just trying to learn the truth, and yet fed a bunch of nonsense from Ehrman parrotting Metzger.

As I pointed out to you earlier, we are used to seeing these types of deceptions, socalled excused "flaws" and "imperfections", from Metzger on issue after issue.

When you see a pattern of intellectual dishonesty, you don't split every hair on the multiple offender. Many states apply a 3-strike rule, and Metzger has struck out again and again.

btw.. what about the quote of yours, Peter, that I highlighted, that needs public correction ? Remember, "all evidence". I hope you are getting that straightened out.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Vorkosigan

Where is that?

Alas, for you have made no substantive demonstration that it is nonsense.

The quote was correct. All the evidence suggests that the Gospel of John did not have that pericope in it.

What counts as "evidence" is a matter of methodology, Prax. Facts are constructs of method. It might be better, to prevent further pointless, insult-filled debate, for you to lay out the methodological assumptions and methodology you are using.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

So explain to me whether the following apsects are not counted as facts.

1) Jerome including the Pericope in the Vulgate
2) Jerome's "many Greek and Latin manuscripts"
3) Augustine's explanation of the Pericope being omitted, not added.

Please, I would prefer not to have long shpiels on them, unless you are offering new insight.

What I would like to know is simple, whether they count as evidence --
and if your methodology says no, they do not, please describe your methodology, and its method of exclusion.

Peter is welcome to comment as well.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

> praxeus This type of contradiction (see my 5-point explanation of the innate
> paradigmic paradox) has polluted almost all official scholarship textual
> discussion.
Post 104, uphill.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=104
Each person who reads the thread will have to decide. Peter even referred to the similar extracted Metzger written explanation as flawed and imperfect. We saw how corn-fused and misinformed Spanish_Inquisitor was before we gave him greater fullness of information, which is the real live demonstration of the Ehrman mis-direction through ultra-selective statements.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Alison

The British Museum have a copy of the Sinai Bible that dates from the 8th century .......... and so far, I don't think they have allowed anyone to translate it :down:

I have read that there are 26,000 differences between that bible and the one we now read which, if no one has been allowed to translate it makes one wonder how they came to that conclusion :Cheeky:

Peter Kirby

As I stated, since the statement that you picked out from Metzger is true--and true in the straightforward reading, not by lawyerspeak or through ambiguity--the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your allegations of "intellectual dishonesty" and "deception." You have failed to prove either intellectual dishonesty or an intent to deceive.

The flaw is simply that Metzger did not canvass all of the arguments that might be raised against his position. That would be dishonest only if he made an implicit or explicit claim to mention the counter-arguments. He does not. He presents his work as a summary of some of the positive reasons for the UBS decisions, as a companion work to the UBS itself with its apparatus. The flaw is that his small entry is not as strong as it could be, not that it Metzger is intellectually dishonest, that he is deceptive, and that he presents "phoney-baloney textcrit conceptions and contraptions and deceptions." At the least, you haven't shown that; it doesn't follow from the fact that he omits refutation of counter-arguments.

All evidence that is evidence is valid evidence. With that truism stated, it is not obvious that the quote needs public correction--of course, if the quote were false, yes it would need public correction. Yet it may turn out that there is valid evidence supporting the originality of the Pericope Adulterae to the Gospel of John. For that reason I will retract the statement (but not "correct" it) until I have given the issue a fresh review. I am going to start a couple threads, one on the internal evidence and the other on the external evidence. I estimate that the investigation will take about two months--balancing it with work, life, and other projects.

Since I am taking on the project at your behest, I expect you to participate actively. :thumbs:

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Ah....now I see your Big 5.

Prax argues:

• 1) Harder reading- more likely to the original, "smoothed" by later scribes
  2) Harder reading is to be preferred

Prax, (2) is inherent in (1)

• 3) This is true whether or not the harder reading is error
  historical, grammatical, geographical, numerical , doctrinal, logical,
  harmony, Tanach/NT prophetic, etc.

That's correct. You cannot let doctrine determine reading. Nor can the fact that the reading is an error from some other perspective determine the reading. The only thing that counts are the textual witnesses.

• 4) Textcrit science recovers, close as possible, the original autographs.

is this really what text crit does?

Does text criticism address the issue of inerrancy?

Steven Avery

In a negative sense, by insisting upon paradigms that are incompatible with inerrancy, and which strain to actually produce errors in the text. Any paradigm of the text that would be compatible with inerrancy is declared non-functional and off-limits. It is the very atomization that creates the textual disaster, and then the resultant disaster is insisted upon by many of the skeptics, as the "reconstructed" garbage text so-created is an easy target.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/