Julian

Since Alexandrian texts represents our earliest texts, any byzantine reading would have to coincide to some extent in order to qualify. That is simply a natural conclusion based on demonstrable age. I cannot give you any specific examples since I am both very tired at the moment and inherently lazy. I am sure we would disagree anyways.
Most tiresome. Even so, provide a link and, if it is not too long, I will read it and comment.
The person doesn't matter. The conclusion does when it flies in the face of the evidence. What is the desperation with wanting the majority text to be 'the one?' Oh, by the way, is it the Majority, Byzantine, or Textus Receptus you support? They are, after all, different texts.

The issue is not what might be possible but what is the most likely in the absence of conclusive evidence.
I tend to ignore byzantine texts in my studies (not because they are not interesting in many ways because they are but they are not useful for early christian studies) simply because they proliferate at a later stage when christianity has solid control and enough time has passed to allow the NT to be streamlined and polished.
Quick mathematical note here, two manuscripts do, in fact, make a vector. 1 point = point. 2 points = line. 3 points = plane (or curve in 2d). What we really want is a trajectory (a much better term than vector) that can be somewhat reliably traced back to an early time. As I have said before, Tischendorf loved his manuscript, obviously, and that has set a bad precedent in many ways. It is a great manuscript but far too much importance has been attached to it. This doesn't mean that I think your viewpoint is any more valid, only that the Western Non-interpolations and other such deviations show that Aleph and B are simply too late to do us much good regarding the earliest manuscripts.
Byzantines are still late. The western tradition is more or less entirely in latin with the exception of D (05), a diglot. Westcott and Hort's logic regarding the Western Non-interpolations is hard to argue with. The variants pervasiveness in the latin tradition also shows the ease with which significant variants can be established and maintained.
Well, I partially agree with you here. I happen to think that Willker is correct but one should not let such opinions drive the research. All factors should be include and weighed equally and the evidence should determine the direction of study, regardless of any personal desire and/or opinion. Advice you would do well to heed, seeing how you voiced it yet do not seem to follow it.

Luckily for me, my salvation doesn't depend on any of this. In fact, I don't believe that there even is such a thing nor that I would need it. Hence, the evidence takes me wherever it wants because I have no personal investment serving as an anchor or, worse, rudder.

Julian

Julian

Boy, you sure can talk a lot. When are you going to say something...? Anything...? So far you just come across as Abbott and Costello, physicists at large... Was there a particular reason why you picked them to represent your views and level of understanding?

Julian

Steven Avery

You are using a major unwarranted assumption that there were not differing texts being transmitted (e.g. the Antioch region and other locales) at the times of the alexandrian texts in Egypt that could be the transmittal source for the Byzantine.

And those Byzantine readings are often amply supported by early church writer references from BEFORE the dates of the Alexandrian manuscripts, destroying the utility of your assumptional hypothesis above.

Also they are often supported by the manuscripts lines of early translations to other languages, including the Old Latin, the Peshitta and even the Vulgate.

And in specific verse cases these supports are aligned against Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, however modern textcrit will generally go with Aleph and B. Bringing Alice into textual Wonderland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian Quick mathematical note here, two manuscripts do, in fact, make a vector.

Sure, technically. But one of much less transmissional pizazz that a vector that results in hundreds of manuscripts over a wide geographical and cultural range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian The western tradition is more or less entirely in latin with the exception of D (05), a diglot.

My point, thanks. There is a translational vector involved that can effect the whole text-line through as little as one translation manuscript. Your statement "variants are hard to establish" overlooked this aspect. And this is similarly why the Vulgate, with many hundreds hand-copied manuscripts, is a relatively minor textual source. Similarly with the Peshitta although it is a good witness to the antiquity of the Byzantine text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian The variants pervasiveness in the latin tradition also shows the ease with which significant variants can be established and maintained.

Repeating the same confusion as above. A translation text can have variants easier. That is one reason why there is so much emphasis on the Greek "fountainhead" texts.

My personal view is for the Received Texts, Hebrew, Greek and English. The case for the Received Texts is in many ways built on the case for the Byzantine text. If Professor Maurice Robinson and others were wrong about the basics of textual transmission and the deficiencies of the modern dependence on a couple of alexandrian manuscripts then both views would be similarly effected. The term "Majority Text" now has at least three distinct meanings and is best avoided without more specifics.

As to the little discussion about following the evidences please understand that I used alexandrian versions like the NIV for many years. Then I studied the evidences and put those versions way aside. (Apologetics was barely an issue, if at all.) It was that study itself that triggered the change. First was a book by Daniel Segraves that explained the ins and outs of the modern textual criticism theories. So I have no problem with the concept of studying the evidences, I simply believe they strongly point to the Received Text Bibles.

I'll pass on supplying you links on aspects that you will read begrudgingly, on points described as "tiresome". It is not a fair way to read the excellent study of Professor Maurice Robinson.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Nazaroo

Obviously the discussion so far has gone completely over your head.

The Gospel of John has built-in structural features that expose tampering.

Ordinary written works, such as novels, or histories, have no structures of this type. Even if they follow broad outlines, or a topical agenda, there is nothing that can be used to detect editing or bogus additions or omissions.

John's Gospel is a unique document, having many carefully overlaid layers of structural components. The difference can be likened to this:

With a bunch of arbitrary items lying in a sandbox, it will be difficult to tell if some have been moved, or if objects have been added or removed by someone who is not the usual child playing there.

On the other hand, if a swiss watch from the 19th century is found, it is a trivial matter to determine if a part belongs, or has been inadvertantly dropped into the back by accident or design. The watch stops functioning, because the idiot who dropped in the component had no clue or care about how the watch works.

Similarly, if a component is removed, again the watch stops. Even though a part is missing, it can often be reconstructed at least in function or in principle, although the watch may not be functional any longer.

There is no real comparison at all between literary analysts attempting to determine the authorship of say, a Shakespearian sonnet, and determining the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11. One problem is difficult and ambiguous because it depends upon vague and variable literary 'stylisms', while the other is a matter of accumulated independant evidence of careful construction by the author and deliberate but naive tampering by idiots.

Nazaroo

Try to follow the line of argument:


(1) Does the PA know about John's Gospel?

Everybody should know that it is not enough that the passage shows knowledge of John.

This might only indicate an incredibly clever forgery. And we already have evidence that the author of the PA DID have intimate knowledge of the content and style of John, and used it.

However, this evidence certainly proves that the PA cannot have been randomly inserted in John by clueless scribes. It can only have been constructed to be deliberately inserted in John's Gospel. This means that all of the attempts at explaining how it ended up in the MSS, like Ehrman's Medieval scribe copied it in from the margin Theory, or Hort's Lucian Recension, are plainly wrong.

The only theory that could come close to explaining the PA now, is that it was deliberately concocted by some powerful Ecclesiastics, inserted into John, for some purpose: that purpose being...? To support some variation on a doctrine or dogma about Christ, an adulteress, the Law, forgiveness?

Most of the doctrines we know about are supported by other scriptures. Most of the controversies we know about don't hinge on this passage, or any other.
So, perhaps the motive was to 'preserve an ancient tradition'. But to actually extensively 'forge' it into a piece of John? Isn't that the anti-thesis of a concern to preserve truth?

------------------------------------
But we are hardly stuck in this position, because we can also ask a SECOND and clearly more important question:

(2) Does John's Gospel know anything about the PA?

Because if it does, then at the very least, the form of John that we know of, must have been issued with the PA included.

Now when we turn to P66, P75, Aleph, B, the only other versions of John we know of, we find that other than a few minor half-verses, they are identical to the version of John WITH the PA.

That is, there is only one basic version of John, with or without the PA.

And its this version (the only version) of John in which we find copious evidence of a plan, a structure, and multiple safeguards built-in against tampering. The document is a veritable fortress.

And in every case, the structures detected make more sense, retain more balance, appear undamaged, find their purpose fully, when the PA is included.


If the absurd 4th century Ecclesiastical text offered by Codex B and Aleph were original, this would not be possible.



I am sure I can.

That's why I posted his article and made it available on my site.

Nazaroo

Just to prevent Praxeus posting 5 more requests for a correction and apology, I point him to message #109.

Nazaroo

jgibson000

Here is post # 103.

{from "hatsoff}

Perhaps you could tell us what this has to do with apologizing for confusing me with Joseph Wallack or preventing SA from calling again for a correction and apology for the mix up.

And did you forget that in the very message where you "apologized" for confusing me with Joseph (i.e., #109), you went on to do it again?

For a guy with an IQ of 147, you seem to have some real recollection and reading problems.

JG

Nazaroo

I am delighted to apologize for incorrectly stating that Mr. Wallace sent an article to Mr. Wallack (an obvious similarity in names), when in fact Mr. Wallace sent an article to Mr. Gibson, in message #109.

Although I am frankly at an impasse to see how this could be construed as an insult to any of the parties, or how it could have any relevance for any of the debates and/or arguments discussed in this thread.

It does seem to be an insignificant error of fact on a par with getting the day of the week wrong on a letterhead.

But go ahead: enlighten me, if you think it will further advance Johannine studies, and in particular the question of the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11.

Sincerely, and with apology,

Nazaroo.

Steven Avery

Thanks, the proper thing to do - and all I asked. I (snipped) the part where you question the significance. Better to simply leave it as above. These types of things are significant whether we agree or disagree on 100 other items.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

Leaving aside the matter that it is not Mr. Wallace nor Mr. Gibson, let's note that this misattribution of the recipient of Dr. Wallace's article (which was originally made in message 106, not 109) was not the only time you made this mistake or that it was the only mistake you made for which you should apologize.

JG