Rick Sumner

Peter Kirby provided specifics in a thread some time ago.

Despite praxeus, Ehrman is on about the solidest ground a text critic can be on.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Steven Avery

Just be sure to note that Bruce Metzger defacto retracted the version of the story he put in the first two editions of the "The Text of the New Testament" when Dutch scholar DeJonge stepped in with a major correction, which ended up as a footnote in Metzger's third edition. The history is still often given incorrectly today.

Or it may have been the actual writing of John, that dropped out of most of the Greek line during the Sabellian controversies beginning in the second century.

On this last one, I highly recommend that it only be read in conjunction with the excellent article -
Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7 by Martin A. Shue
http://www.kjbbn.net/response_to_dan...hn%205%207.htm

Looking up the thread, my original post was a tad combative and feisty, unnecessarily so to a very sincere inquiry. Apologies. I'll try to be more cordial to the textcriit scholars, and most especially to those who are trying to inquire about or relay their material.

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

Steven Avery

I'm simply going to extract one phrase from Metzger here (we haven't seen the related Ehrman quote from the tape series) as an example of the type of selective misinformation (to the point of intellectual dishonesty) to which I referred above. The phrase may in fact by technically true, and sounds very impressive.

"No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage,"

So it sounds to the reader or hearer like Spanish_Inquisitor that the Pericope jumped out, almost from nowhere, into the text, and hardly anybody knew about it, or quoted it.

Yet when you look at the actual quoting by early church writers you get something like this, just up to around A.D. 500. (You can also add lots of Greek manuscripts before the 12th century cutoff of Zigabenus.) Most of these wrote in Latin, although of course some or many read both Greek and Latin, since on a scholar's leve there was nothing close to a "Chinese Wall" between the two language worlds.

c.250 Didascalia
375 Ambrosiaster
380 Ambrose
380 Apostolic Constitutions
(early) Old Latin text line - many manuscripts
384 Latin Vulgate
c. 390 Jerome "many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin"

Also..
Pacian in the north of Spain (370),
Faustus the African (400)
Rufinus (400)
Chrysologus (433)
Sedulius a Scot (434),
Two anonymous authors
Victorius or Victorinus (457)
Vigilius of Tapsus (484)
Gelasius Bishop of Rome (492),
Cassiodorus
Gregory the Great
other Fathers of the Western Church

Now, I believe there is some sort of Latin name for the logical fallacy where you cherry-pick the requirements to match the evidence to make an argument look much stronger than it is. (The experts here might help with that).

If the artificial inclusion of *Greek* in ...
""No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage,"

doesn't qualify for rigged or intellectually dishonest presentation, more especially from a polished professional to a largely lay audience, then I don't know what would.

Btw, you will see the exact same trick pulled on the Johannine Comma discussion.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
Incidentally, Professor Maurice Robinson, a top textual scholar, was earlier in the year involved in a new presentation of information about the Pericope, in a public dialog, which I understand may effect the analysis. However I don't have the details at this time.

Steven Avery

Oops, I omitted Augustine, around 425, who is also especially interesting because he offers a reason why the Pericope had dropped out of some manuscripts.

Hmmm.. Bruce and Bart forget to tell you about that as well ?

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

Peter Kirby

To present misinformation, you must tell an untruth. The phrase that you selected to criticize is true. Therefore, you are wrong about it being misinformation.

Of course you are foolish not to read the book from which the quote comes before casting aspersions as you do, and saying that he "forgot to tell you something". You have relied on a quote of a quote of Metzger's work. I thought you said you were into meticulous research?

sincerely,
Peter Kirby

Killer Mike

Check out "Lost Christianities" course by Bart. Some early christians believed in 30 gods. Some believed that Jesus never even died. Needless to say the Christianity of today is quite different, even with all its variation in denominations.

Vorkosigan

Robinson has some info here

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html#Fallac

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tc-list/message/3116

Thanks Steven, I thought I'd recognized your style from several groups. You're a Jewish apologist for Jesus, no? Messianic Apologetics? Schmuel or Shmuel, something like that? Welcome aboard.

Haran

Thanks, praxeus. And the things you mentioned are excellent points to ponder.

Haran

Thanks Rick, but you missed Peter's assessment: "It is clearly a late and fanciful addition to the gospel texts. That he is oblivious to this fact and attempts to make the tale into straight historical reporting by the apostle John shows that C. S. Lewis is a crackpot." Wish I hadn't missed that thread, but I probably didn't read it because I don't really care what others think of C.S. Lewis.

In light of the evidence that has been presented rather well by Praxeus, I would say that Peter's assessment might have been a little too strong. It makes things seem as if only "liberal" scholarship matters. I am a little surprised to have read this from Peter, but I imagine that we all overstate our cases at times.

Haran

Would you mind mentioning, for the edification of others, how you obtained your list of Latin church fathers in support of the reading, so that others may verify the information if the wish? Thanks.