Petergdi

There is the strange translation of Revelation 17:5 in the KJV which makes "mystery" part of the forehead inscription. The text could be read that way, but neither Tyndale nor modern translations do. While I cannot prove this, it seems to be influenced by Joseph Scaliger's recollection that the word "mysterium" had been written on the papal tiara. (My source that Scaliger reported this is on page 120 of Joseph Scaliger: a study in the history of classical scholarship (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Anthony Grafton. Oxford 1983)

Peter.

spin

(You keep putting these two names together as they are some kind of parah to you. Yes, they put the book out together, but you should know however that it was Hort who did all the grunt work of textual analysis.)

Is there anything in this besides YEC rhetoric?

List reasons why it would be necessary to abandon earliest manuscripts when they agree:

________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________

OK, we understand your fear of the texts that Hort relied on, but I'll wait for you to show that these texts are as you apparently so lamely claim to be more corrupt than your favored later manuscript evidence.

I gather you will admit that they are the oldest manuscript sources we have. If not, which texts that you can demonstrate are older?

I appreciate your resourceful consistency of trying to shift the burden of proof.

How can you claim that they are corrupt when you have nothing to show that the prior state was very different from the Alexandrian tradition?

You need to demonstrate this, but see below.

This is obviously one of those things that you've done your prep work on and I have never looked at before in this light. You know that one example in itself means little. However, Irenaeus doesn't give indications that he is citing from Acts 8:37. Irenaeus's Philip says 'that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, "I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God."' Where in any version of Acts 8 does Philip say to the eunuch "that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself"? Where in the same text does Philip say as Cyprian has him "If you believe with all your heart, you may"? You know that the answer is nowhere. What else did Irenaeus get from nowhere that might have got confused with early tradition?

I'm sure you've got other attempted proofs. This one's a failure.

There's an assertion in here somewhere, but it's not particularly clear not enunciated with any data.

This is an a priori commitment which has no connection to reality made for it.

You have no way of knowing the temporal relationship between your favored texttype and the Alexandrian. As the earliest manuscripts are Alexandrian and feature elements that have not survived in later Greek texts Hort worked on the notion that the normalization process removed the wrinkles. That's one way of looking at it. But on the issue of being closest to the sources there is a prima facae case for supporting the oldest.

I haven't looked at Hort's actually work in over a decade. I don't even have a copy here of his text with apparatus. Perhaps you'd like to complain about my memory. Would you like me to google something for you?

You might start with all the western non-interpolations. Hort used the Sinaiticus as his benchmark. All the non-interpolations are a sign of him preferring another text over Aleph. That makes eclectic. Oh,... I get it -- you want some evidence for favoring the TR.

This is not what I have heard. Can you confirm with citable data that Hort's text "is fully reflected in the RV.. text which is close to identical to the NRSV, NAS,"...?

Which of those 500 are early and what dates do you give for the earliest?

There seems to be something you haven't got in the study. Hort's "neutral" text was a relative term. Today no single manuscript tradition is seen as 100% correct. Therefore I'm sure you will find individual issues that you can point at where one texttype will be preferable to others.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

It looks like spin now realizes he was blowing hot air, and that he now accepts that the actual Westcott-Hort theory was :

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus über alles

Asked for verses to support his earlier description :

Spin has defacto acknowledged that so far he has ZERO! In the whole 27 books of the NT ! By trying the "answer a question with a question" approach.

Will spin retract now retract his blundering and misleading ?

Once spin does that, acknowledges that the W-H methodology was simply :

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus über alles

Then we will have a base to address this issue further. However, so far instead we have the same blunder in another form:

spin, its time to acknowledge the truth to the forum, you were wrong, the above erred either deliberately or lack of knowledge, in your main claim on their methodology.

(My conjecture is that the error was lack of knowledge, there is so much propaganda claptrap about the decrepit 'revision' and the resulting Greek text. And the modern version proponents rarely look at actual verses closely. Statements similar to that of spin's error here are repeated daily, you could probably find them from even "evangelical textual critics" .. yet again, without any verse examples where W-H actually did not use the agreed alexandrian reading from the two manuscripts over all other evidences.)

You now apparently accept (but will not acknowledge) that the whole W-H system boiled down to two manuscripts - and all other evidences were secondary (e.g. they may be consulted when Vaticanus and Sinaiticus did not agree, or when only one has a variant reading and the second lacked text and the variant in the first was prima facie absurd.)

W-H would take the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus reading
No matter what was in :

hundreds of Greek manuscripts
hundreds of Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts
hundreds of Syriac manuscripts
other language evidences
early church writer references
(even ECW from before the two manuscripts would not affect the decision to take Aleph and B)

Whatever was in those evidences and contradicted their approach would be of no import, even if the reading was very strange, they would still take the two darling manuscripts.

(Possible exception: if the level of textual blunderama was so glaring that it seemed outside even the realm of their lectio difficilior approach .. a complete absurdity that could not be foisted into the text .. however readings with such a high bar of absurdity would in most, perhaps every, case be in only one of the two manuscripts, not both, for obvious reasons.)

spin ..
Simply write the truth on this, once, and we will continue.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Note: Most of this thread is not King James Bible .. the main topic (after the posts that are about the ending of Mark) is about the:

textual theory of Westcott-Hort and their methodology of dependence on the two alexandrian manuscripts.

This is a Reformation Bible versus Critical Text discussion in the general sense, and a Westcott-Hort methodology discussion in the specifics.

There are a number of related elements within the discussion. such as the earlier writer citations, the relationship of English Bibles to the two underlying texts, the small differences between the Westcott-Hort text (reflected in the Revised Version) and the NA27 Critical Text (reflected in NAS, NIV etc) the citations in Acts 8:37.

While a thread about the King James Bible is fine in its own right, the only posts here really on that topic are the two between Avi and myself.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

You can see Steven Avery in the park on his soap box declaiming to know one that he knows that modern bibles are all crap because spin isn't going to pander to his folly and go and get a copy of the full Hort that he hasn't seen for a decade. OK, you've heard that. Get your whinge out of your system. Say it several times: spin has zero. Do it again: spin has zero. Feel good? Doesn't change much.

Show that it is blunder and misleading. Cut the empty rhetoric and quote the exact errors of analysis that Hort made in his Greek text and explain why it is wrong. Perhaps, you might get an argument. But you are just building up to bust your guts about your prefab examples, just as the Aramaic primacy guys do.

Would you mind showing that the text you don't understand but are trying to criticize can be summed up as "Vaticanus and Sinaiticus über alles"?

I tell you what demonstrate your claim. You're big on shifting burdens. You've always been big on shifting burdens. This post is one long demonstration of you shifting your burden. If you want to make a claim about the Hort text, you have some time got to break down and learn the Greek and demonstrate your claims. Rehashing the apologetics is ultimately meaningless because you aren't demonstrating anything.

I'm not going to renounce a position based on memory simply because you are rabbiting on with your usual apologetic agenda. Stop joking.

Sorry, did you just say -- I mean you -- did you just say "propaganda claptrap"? I mean are you committing the ultimate act of hypocrisy? It seems you are!

Buzz word: "decrepit". It indicates nothing but your dislike. Where is your analysis. So far in this thread you've shown nothing.

What's your exact problem with it? If you can put it in a meaningful package I can look at it.

Which scholars in the area do you mean? Can you name them? Or are you just doing what you usually do? -- waffle!

Where is the error? Where is your evidence? Where is your argument? Where is your lunch?

You are still too far up the road. The burden is back where you started. Demonstrate your case, rather than abdicate your responsibilities.

I gather you are attempting to be a prophet. Sorry to disappoint you but you are without a clue. You are confusing the acceptance of Hort's preferences with Hort's whole system. All you need to do is show that his whole system is the way you are trying to portray it.

This simply negates your claim that "the whole W-H system boiled down to two manuscripts". You've just shown at a minimum that other manuscripts become deciders.

We've already seen you misuse data from church fathers. You are rushing to pile up so much material, though I know you haven't looked at anything but English apologetics. You know less than judge does about Syriac manuscripts. You apparently don't know anything about the scribal tendencies of Syriac manuscripts. You don't enter into the notion of dating any of these sources. You are just trying to boggle with numbers and the result seems guarateed to be meaningless.

You know getting data out of you is like getting blood from a vampire. Lots of vampire rhetoric, but no substance.

Here you've skipped over the data and once again gone for one of your foregone conclusions.

Translation: Steven Avery and his apologetic cohorts (living and dead) don't like the approach. As a matter of fact they hate the logic of lectio difficilior. [If there are any other poor readers to this slugfest, lectio difficilior is the approach which notes the more difficult form of a phrase or passage is most likely to be changed, therefore those difficult phrases and pssages that have survived are more likely to represent an earlier form of the text.] Of course the logic of lectio difficilior has been accepted by the vast majority of text scholars. This makes Steven Avery out on a limb, so he shouldn't be so shocked about the state of text scholarship.

Yup, Steven Avery sure doesn't like lectio difficilior, but have you ever seen a clear scholarly presentation of his point of view on the issue? Naaa, didn't think so.

OK, show me by demonstrating the truth and yes we'll see where we go from there.


spin

avi

Steven Avery describing Sinaiticus and Vaticanus:
My question to you Steven, is this: What would Erasmus have written about Westcott and Hort?
How do Erasmus, or you, Steven, or Westcott/Hort, or anyone else know what the ORIGINAL Greek texts contained?

Given that we do not, and can not, know with certainty, what the original texts were, absent a copy of the original version, how is it that reliance upon a translation from a faulty Greek copy into Latin or Syriac or Coptic renders clarity today? How do you know, Steven, that the Latin or Syriac or Coptic copies (of faulty Greek copies) are more faithful to the original Greek manuscripts, than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus?

Yes, we can see some problems with both of the latter documents. I don't dispute this fact. Any person can observe, using the internet, the fact that Sinaiticus contains redactions, scribbles, scribal notations, and textual modifications. I do dispute the notion that Erasmus' copies of ancient Greek manuscripts, or Steven Avery's copies of ancient Greek Manuscripts are ANY LESS woefully corrupted. They may even be or have been, more corrupted. No one knows, because no one has any extant original copy.

Let me write it again. We don't know anything about the original manuscripts' content, whether it is something as complex as the omission of entire verses from Mark 16, or something as simple as omission of a single Greek word, "mou" = English "my", in John 14:28:

KJV: " : for my Father is greater than I."

DRB: " : for the Father is greater than I."

So, Steven, since this thread has been split away from the question of the Endings of Mark, may I suggest, in order to SIMPLIFY the discussion, that we focus on this ONE sentence from John 14:28, involving this ONE word, "mou", i.e. "my", which I claim, has been wrongfully inserted into KJV and many other versions?

Which is the AUTHENTIC Greek, Steven? More to the point, how do you know, (what basis) which is the correct version, and which is the "woefully corrupted version: "the father" versus "my father" --i.e. which is the version that the author of John initally wrote? On the one hand, Jesus is referring to THE father, and on the other hand, according to your beloved KJV, "MY" father.

Let me make my own opinion very clear, I believe that the ORIGINAL Greek manuscript, when the ink came off the quill of whoever was writing John 14:28, did not include this word, "mou". It is my belief, not a fact, that "mou" was inserted into copies created in later decades/centuries. I have no evidence to support my position. I argue this opinion based solely on my understanding, however feeble, of history. I have observed how the Christian church behaves, and the modification from "the father", to "my father" is entirely consistent, from my point of view, with the sort of editorial changes I would associate with the practices of this religion.

Could it be the reverse? Yes, it could. The original version could indeed have been "my father", not "the father". How can I be certain that "mou" was deleted from the original version, so that Sinaiticus represents a "woefully corrupt" copy? I can not. I do not know. Point is: I don't think you, or anyone else, knows either. Accordingly, I don't think you ought to rail against Westcott and Hort, or Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, (both of which contain "the father", not "my father" in John 14:28,) until that day comes when you can produce an authentic 2nd century version of John, i.e. hot off the press, when it was supposedly created.

I would welcome your comments on the theological significance of "the father", versus "my father", since this thread is no longer devoted to Mark, and since the focus has shifted now, to why we cannot, or should not, accept Vaticanus/Sinaiticus as authoritative texts. I will be very keen to learn why you think you know which Greek texts are more trustworthy than those two venerable documents, particularly in the context of interpretation of that passage in John 14:28.

Here's my guess: I suppose that you work backwards. I guess that you start, not with the Greek texts, but with your understanding of one of the flavors of Christianity, and then search for a Biblical version that supports your political viewpoint. If I am in error, I look forward to your clarification.

bacht

Steven how do you expect us to take you seriously? Are you advocating what the Catholics used to do, reading the Latin text to uncomprehending congregants? This might work for public worship, but privately studying the Bible in Shakespearean English is ridiculous. Might as well learn the Greek and Hebrew if there's no usable English translation.

Or we could go back to medieval style when no-one understood the text, they just looked at the pretty-stained glass pictures over the sanctuary (not that much different from cartoon tracts I guess).

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Note the same old trickery. Spin makes the assertion and then runs and hides around "you prove I am not right".

spin acknowledges his assertion above. spin says he wrote it from memory! Yet he refuses to even give one verse where Westcott-Hort depart from a Vaticanus-Sinaiticus agreement. spin's memory is what counts, in his unusual world, not the facts. spin actually acknowledges he has zero support for his "quite eclectic" assertion, not even one verse, yet will not retract the position ! Amazing.

You have to have a rather limited intelligence if you somehow think that does not place Vaticanus and Sinaiticus über alles - even when there is lots of Latin, Greek and Syriac and early church writer evidence contrary .. the reading will be Aleph-B.

Case closed. spin is clueless and refuses to support or retract his memory with even one verse. He sure can type a lot of nothing when he is trying to hide a blunder argument.

Oh wait. Does spin claim that all the Aleph-B agreements have additional strong support in the lines? (I would agree that if that were the case there might be some conceivable defense for the assertions he made.) Yes or no. If spin claims yes, if that is the basis of his hodge-podge above, then spin .. make the claim clearly and we can continue. You write as if you are such a textual expert, yet you make weird claims from memory and then simply spew invective when caught.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
Note:
Issues like more discussion of the abuse of lectio difficillior as a tool to fabricate weakly-supported errors and blunders into the modern version text simply will wait. The basics first.

spin

Still the same old same old burden shift. Spout fumes about how horrid Hort's work is and you simply cannot demonstrate the fact. It's only to be expected.

Perhaps you don't remember how memory works.

How close?

Note the usual empty rhetoric?

This is a better representation of the facts than you've made so far. But why should I retract a memory? That's just the way it is. It may be wrong. But your apologetics don't help to clarify the issue. Nobody is going to change their memory simply at your whim. Demonstrate your claim about Hort's text and you then could make me see that the memory is wrong.

I think anyone can see that Steven Avery still won't demonstrate his vociferous claims about the Hort work on the earliest manuscript traditions. Instead he incessantly shifts the burden. This is the process.

1. Make unsubstantiated claims about something.
2. Wait for any signs of opposition.
3. Attack them with a tide of shite.
4. Refuse to substantiate the original claims.
5. Sometimes cite opinions of well-known old time apologists, in lieu of any facts.
6. Shift the burden.

You'll sees variations of this sad process time and time and time again.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

bacht .. do you ever even go into a fellowship, or even a Paltalk room, where the King James Bible is the standard ?

Shalom,
Steven