Steven Avery

Jeffrey, the answer is above in the post. It may have been added while you were composing your normal barrage of questions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Jack the Bodiless

In other words: "no".

Apikorus

Let's see about those qualifications:Oopsie. I guess praxeus is wrong once again.

praxeus can you please cite the post where I allegedly claim that the Vaticanus is "pristine" (with no appropriate adjective)?

Steven Avery

Jack, please you have no excuse for not simply reading the post and coming up with a kvetch instead. The links and the text were in the post before you posted this, before my last post (that you are responding too) as well.

And I had put them in before seeing Jeffrey's post. However Jeffrey may have composed his post in an overlapping fashion.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

You switched from "most pristine" to "more" to "just relatively so".

And the big problem is that you never quoted Tov as calling Vaticanus a "pristine" text at all anywhere, and yet you have used the word three times in various ways. It is a word that is meant to be a shiningly correct text (compared to something) which it obviously is not, even if one is an urtext aficionado.

You are amazing at how you can strain at a gnat. When spin says that Vaticanus is "directly derived from the Hebrew" you try to pretend that somehow he was only talking about one verse (which would just be circular assertion) against the full context, the comparison of Alexandrinus and Vaticanus. Show some gumption and be willing to call out real blunders instead of trying to come up with a cover-story.

Anyway your repeated usage of pristine "most" .. "more".. "relatively" is quite curious. Where does Emanuel Tov call Vaticanus a "pristine" text, whether most or more or relatively, and what is the exact usage ? Hort may for propaganda have used the descriptive word for the NT (along with "neutral text") but I am dubious that Emanuel Tov would say something so absurd.

When you have those quotes, if they support your repeated usage (the "most..more..relatively" descension), I will be happy to withdraw objections to "pristine" as a poor representation of the Emanuel Tov view. It would still be totally absurd as a description of Vaticanus but let us see if you can show us that as the Tov view.

pristine
having its original purity; uncorrupted or unsullied.

If one text is a disaster, and another text is simply bad, does that make it proper to refer to the bad one as "most/more pristine" .. in comparison to the disaster ? Or is that turning language on its head.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Apikorus

"most pristine" means "more pristine than other witnesses" and is a relative term. English problems?

Steven Avery

None whatsoever. Your adjectives declined in superlative sense as you realized that Vaticanus is not actually defendable as "pristine" in any objective sense. One uses "most" to give an impression of masterful art, "more" an impression of something that might pass muster as very good, while "relatively" starts to give the real impression - "objectively, I really can't find much good to say about this text, even if it might be better than something else".

Once you are down to the "relative" sense, then all of spin's arguments are up in smoke even to yet another even another degree. How much good is a mediocre text translated from who knows what or when by whom as a base to understanding the Hebrew ?

Ironically you understood this point to a degree. That 'going to the Greek' is at most a minor concern in the issues of Judges 13.

Now.. why don't you at least try to answer the basic three questions above ? Including the ones about when Judges was translated, what did you mean by Hexaplaric influence.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Jack the Bodiless

...Ah. You tacked it onto your post more than half an hour after submitting it. It wasn't there when I read your post.

OK, now will you similarly admit your "pristine" blunder?

Amaleq13

Here is the exchange. Feel free to continue this discussion in the original thread if your research is complete:

Subsequent to a complain about the delayed response:

spin

One has to catch praxeus on the right day:

One day he'll say that the Greek in Jdg 13:5 [echei] is the future tense and another he'll learn to stay silent.

One day he'll talk about the Greek and another he'll conveniently forget that he did.

One day he'll say the Greek "can be of some relevance" and another he'll go into denial about using the Greek.

One day he'll use the Codex Alexandrinus to defend his misunderstanding of the text and another he'll forget all about it because the Greek is a naughty text.

Which day, if either, do you trust praxeus?

So.. choose .. he says...

An honest & sensible methodology, as explained above,

or

The methodology of manipulation.


Methodology of manipulation, indeed!


Instead of talking about the text, the only thing that praxeus does is to manipulate language. He was upset because he discovered that the Greek text of Jdg 13:5 as found in Rahlfs has a present text, yet a later text, 100 years later has a future tense. Now he's suddenly upset because I used the words "the Greek", so to avoid talking about the text he manipulates language and bleeds through the nostrils about "the Greek".

He doesn't even like the fact that I call the Vaticanus a translation of the Hebrew, but when asked what it is if not a translation of the Hebrew (post #119), his response was, well, look for it, I couldn't find one. He just doesn't know. So he bleeds from the nostrils about the fact that the Vaticanus is a translation of the Hebrew

Another piece of language manipulation: he doesn't like Vaticanus .. is directly derived from the Hebrew, though it is not a translation of any intermediary language. It's from Hebrew and now it seems he must want the Vaticanus to represent a translation of some other language than a Hebrew source tradition found amongst the Qumran texts.


If you want to learn about the text of either Jdg 13:5 or Isa 7:14, obviously praxeus can't help you. Shame, isn't it? That's what the thread's basically about.


spin