Steven Avery

The most basic issue of a manuscript is what it is copied from, and its transmissional history. There is no 'hair-splitting' involved in that. That is why for spin to <Edit> about Vaticanus was the amazing thing -

"directly derived from the Hebrew"
"a translation of the Hebrew".

And you can reread the context where spin made those assertions. Spin was trying to defend the overall superiority and primacy of Vatiancus as "the Greek" OT. He was not indicating a one-word agreement in his chosen verse.

Clearly this is not scholarship <edit>. The simple fact is that he got caught.

Perhaps he was totally confused <edit> but either way a full retraction would be the only proper course.

Remember he spoke those confusions <edit> for a political purpose, to support one broken claim after another, they were not given to the forum in a vacuum.

Now what you share below proves me correct, but for political reasons you obviously seek to put on a proper spin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Perhaps he means to say that the codex Vaticanus itself was itself not directly translated from the Hebrew, but rather copied from an earlier Greek exemplar. This is probably correct.

Of course. There were numerous Greek OT translations in the 2nd and 3rd century, way before Vaticanus. No Greek manuscript that we have can even remotely be claimed to be "directly derived" from the Hebrew.

(In contrast, Latin and Aramaic manuscripts can so claim. The Vulgate and Peshitta have a comparitively (to the Greek) pristine transmissional history .. yet spin ignores those, even while trumpeting how important it is to be derived directly from the Hebrew.. hmm.. consistency, thou art a jewel.)

Spin just blundered, as part of his stack of blunders, one upon another. Although I am sure, after you prove him wrong, Api, he will appreciate how you attempt to provide cover, helping the wounded off the field.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus ...[*]A multitude of textual traditions, resulting in corrections (mainly toward the Hebrew) in all known individual scrolls in the pre-Christian period, and to a later extent in the first century C.E.[*]

Which is hard to give much application to Vaticanus, a fourth century text that has the NT was well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Textual stabilization in the first and second centuries C.E., due to the perpetuation of some textual traditions and the discontinuation of others.[*]The creation of new textual groups and the corruption of existing ones through the influence of the revisions of Origen and Lucian in the third and fourth centuries C.E."[/list][/indent]

Even all of this is before Vaticanus. Lucian died about a half-century before Vaticanus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus It seems to me that praxeus is <edit>

Apikourus is funny. His fact checking proves me right, so now he has to try political cover for spin. Well done, comrade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus misinterpreting spin. When spin says that "the Vaticanus is directly derived from the Hebrew" I take him to mean that the text of the Vaticanus is directly derived from the Hebrew (in the case of Judges 13:5),

Which of course is simply saying that since Vaticanus agrees with his ideas on Judges 13:5 it is "directly derived from the Hebrew". For you to defend such illogic and circularity doesn't say much for you, Api.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Praxeus, whose arguments have been shredded by spin, is digging himself in an ever-deeper hole with his responses.

You are like the Vietnam generals who said we should declare victory and leave.

Congrats, Api.
Spoken like a true politician.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

Yes, I agree. And there's more than a little equivocation and hypocrisy involved when he chides "Spin" for referring to "the Greek". It is recognized by virtually all text critics and LXX scholars that the Vaticanus text of Jdgs 13:15 is what the LXX originally had and therefore is "the Greek" of Jdgs. 13:5.

And note how he engages in the very thing he accuses "Spin" of doing when he discusses "the Greek" (i.e. the original NT text) of 1 Timothy 3:16 and claims that the reading of that text attested to in Siniaticus and , notably, Alexandrinus, should not be taken into account since it is not, according to his lights, "the (true) Greek" of 1 Tim 3:16.

Can you say double standard?

Jeffrey

Apikorus

Praxeus, you are attempting to cloud the issue as a face saving measure. It won't wash. I've provided citations to two impeccable sources on the LXX: the book by Jobes and Silva, and an article by Tov. These experts clearly state that the Vaticanus is the most pristine text, and that the Alexandrinus, which you prefer for your own apologetic purposes, is marred by frequent Hexaplaric influences. They also state that the Vaticanus of Judges in particular is among the most literal translations among the books of the LXX. Both these points tend to support spin, who was neither lying nor confused. (My understanding from Tov is that all LXX books which proliferated in the pre-Christian era likely received different corrections to the Hebrew, and that, pace spin, the corrections to A vis-a-vis B are more Hexaplaric in origin (no pun intended), rather than being corrections toward the Hebrew itself, as was the case with the rabbinic recensions.)

By saying that the Vaticanus of Judges 13:5 is "directly from the Hebrew" it means, I presume, that the text of the Vaticanus is the product of a faithful chain of transmission among Greek texts, the Urtext of which was a rather literal translation from the (LXX text type) Hebrew of Judges. "Direct" in this context means no corruption in the line of transmission. If spin's meaning was that the scribe who penned the B text of Judges was directly copying from a Hebrew exemplar, then you are right and I should apologize on that account. But I don't see any evidence for such a claim. Moreover, unlike you, spin is able to read both the Hebrew and the Greek and assess the fidelity of the translation himself.

To recapitulate, two of spin's main points are confirmed by unimpeachable scholars: (1) that the Vaticanus is to be preferred to the Alexandrinus, because it is a more pristine text, and (2) that the Vaticanus of Judges is "direct from the Hebrew" (to a substantial degree).

Steven Avery

An interesting claim. Please show us the text critics who discuss the Vaticanus text of Judges 13:5 and say that it is "the Greek" of 200 BC. Specific quotes. Or even Vaticanus in general. Or the book of Judges. Some quotes from text critics that have this type of certainty about Vaticanus being the ancient text.

In fact it is unclear whether Jeffrey actually believes there was a LXX Judges or not, or how and when it was originally translated. Remember the Richard Carrier thread where Jeffrey insisted that the term LXX only be applied to the c200 BC translation. So first Jeffrey, please define what is meant by the LXX Judges, and then how you would know that Vaticanus (a Christian provenance text, btw) matches that text. Apparently that is the one claim that you will make about the LXX, that Vaticanus is "IT", although only in Judges, or only in Judges 13:5.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 And note how he engages in the very thing he accuses "Spin" of doing when he discusses "the Greek" (i.e. the original NT text)

Do you have a quote from me where I discuss "the Greek" of the NT ? Or are you just making arguements of convenience ? In fact, for similar reasons "the Greek" is a phrase I studiously avoid. So where is the evidence for your assertion ? Some quotes from me would be helpful if you are going to make an accusastion of hyprocrisy. We have the quotes from spin right in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 of 1 Timothy 3:16 and claims that the reading of that text attested to in Siniaticus and , notably, Alexandrinus, should not be taken into account since it is not, according to his lights, "the (true) Greek" of 1 Tim 3:16.

Not only is Jeffrey going far afield, he is hiding the fact that there is evidence that Alexandrinus does support the traditional text in 1 Timothy 3:16. Which is surprising, since it has been rather an active issue of late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Can you say double standard?

Can you say:

Jeffrey let a group of spin blunders go by, even with the
'tools necessary' and now he looks to divert.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

You are welcome to provide these texts.

Jeffrey Gibson

Steven Avery

Agreed on that. Making spin's basic argument void.

Would you agree that the Aramaic and Latin would be the most help ? At least a lot more relevant than a split Greek line, derived from an urtext quite different from our Hebrew Bible, and passed down for about 500 years during a period of various translations and recensions ?

In all of this discussion, that is irony in the appeal to the Greek. It is super-weak in at least 4 distinct ways.

a) There is no "the Greek". The Greek and Latin LXX manuscripts are split.

b) The Greek is being appealed to, while claiming it was translated from a quite different Hebrew text than we have today (unlike the situation with the Aramaic and Vulgate Latin).

c) The scribal provenance changed from Jewish to Christian.

d) 500 years of versions and recensions intervene, making any idea of faithful transmission ultra-conjectural at best. Our extant manuscripts are about 500 years down the line, a period where one has Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian doing translations, the Lucian recension, Origen's Hexapla, and more. Any claim of faithful transmision is ultra-dubious, and would need strong direct DSS confirmation.

One could add the rabbinical/Talmudic boast that they deliberately put errors into the Greek OT translation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus I also agree with spin that praxeus is fettered by his confessional stance. To him, the reference must be in the future, in order that it point to Jesus, some 720 years after the fact -- an absurd contention.

Actually this is an issue where one can have a variety of views from a believer's perspective. Look, eg. at the Dennis Bratcher article, and midrash considerations for Matthew. The discussion of the Hebrew of Isaiah is a valid and fascinating discussion in its own right. However spin made his nonsensical appeal to a split, late urtext Greek, in Judges, and then gave us blunder upon blunder. Now Apikorus tries to clean up the spin mess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus I've provided citations to two impeccable sources on the LXX: the book by Jobes and Silva, and an article by Tov. These experts clearly state that the Vaticanus is the most pristine text, and that the Alexandrinus, which you prefer for your own apologetic purposes, is marred by frequent Hexaplaric influences.

"Pristine" is of course your word. Since there are no major manuscripts extant for 500 years all such opinions are conjectural at best and in fact scholarship goes all over the map. The LXX forum considered the Alexandrinus text as proper for Judges 13:5, the NetBible article clearly takes a different view. Plus since Jeffrey doesn't post Rahlf's we can conjecture that there is auxiliary evidence supporting Alexandrinus. (Not that that would matter to spin or those trying to cover for him.)

All of this is secondary, though. Whether one take the Vaticanus as the better text, or Alexandrinus, is a minor question. To refer to anything as "the Greek" is simply false and wrong<edit>. Not when the two major extant manuscripts are simply split.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus (My understanding from Tov is that all LXX books which proliferated in the pre-Christian era likely received different corrections to the Hebrew, and that, pace spin, the corrections to A vis-a-vis B are more Hexaplaric in origin (no pun intended), rather than being corrections toward the Hebrew itself, as was the case with the rabbinic recensions.)

You are moving about a bit over many hundreds of years here, one of he reasons why Greek OT theories are more conjecture than fact. One question, though. Does Hexaplaric in origin mean only Origen's column ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus By saying that the Vaticanus of Judges 13:5 is "directly from the Hebrew" it means, I presume, that the text of the Vaticanus is the product of a faithful chain of transmission among Greek texts, the Urtext of which was a rather literal translation from the (LXX text type) Hebrew of Judges. "Direct" in this context means no corruption in the line of transmission.

Hmm.. Then Vaticanus presumably would be very close to some DSS texts.

Anyway, you did a good job here of trying to make sense of how spin could try to salvage his statements, except that you will have a hard time finding scholars who boldly say that Vaticanus is the product of 500 years of faithful transmission from some largely non-extant urtext Hebrew exemplar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus If spin's meaning was that the scribe who penned the B text of Judges was directly copying from a Hebrew exemplar, then you are right and I should apologize on that account. But I don't see any evidence for such a claim.

The statements were made as cover stories after "the Greek" was exposed. There really is no there there. You did as good a job as anybody could to try to put a bandaid over the blunders, so I commend you on the efforts. Spin would do well to take hold of your 'explanation' even if it does depend on the claim of 500 years of faithful transmission from Jewish scholars of an urtext Hebrew through to Christian alexandrian scribes. Makes little sense, nobody can claim such "pristine" and faithful transmission over those 500 years (and the source Hebrew would still be a different Hebrew) but it as good a try as one can get.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Oops. Jeffrey forgot that he made the assertion.

Okay, we will consider Jeffrey's claim there as 'inoperative'.

And note his silence where his accusations are unsupported
and he put himself out on a limb.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

:rolling:

JG

Steven Avery

That's fine, Jeffrey. We know your games well and since nobody would care anyway (they have to amazingly claim that Vaticanus is the product of 500 years of faithful and accurate transmission from .. something ) it is irrelevant to this group.

One difference here, though. When you make dubious and false and unsupported assertions and accusations, like in the previous post, you can't kabosh the reply.

Integrity is far more important than feigned and strained laughter.

Apikorus

So you should readily agree that the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible has itself accreted numerous scribal errors over the course of 1700 years of transmission.

No.

Jobes and Silva put it this way:

...responsible use of the LXX requires careful attention to the complicated history of its transmission. Too many scholars in the past have consulted the editions of Rahlfs or Swete as though they were more or less identical with the original text. Conclusions reached on that basis can hardly inspire confidence.

I find that spin is well aware of the complications in the transmission history of the LXX. Unlike certain unnamed poseurs, he is competent in both Biblical Hebrew and Greek.

At a minimum, a "believer" believes that the biblical text is divinely inspired. This is a methodological straight-jacket.

Your affinity toward internet listserves and other electronic resources is well-known. I'll take my chances with Tov, who is generally regarded as the foremost living expert on the LXX.

Indeed, noone is saying that. What spin is saying is that the Vaticanus gives a faithful translation of the MT in the case of Judg 13:5. This is hardly miraculous. Tov states that the Vaticanus of Judges is a literal translation.

You imply that a good deal of corruption must have taken place between the notional Urtext of LXX Judges and its version in the Vaticanus. What we don't know, of course, is whether the scribe who penned the latter copied from a Greek exemplar which was 50 years old or 500 years old. If the latter, then it is quite possible for there to have been relatively little corruption.

But all this is just part of a smokescreen, it seems to me. We have top scholars on record supporting spin's claim that the Vaticanus is overall superior to the Alexandrinus -- a matter you've yet to come to grips with. We also have Tov's statement on the literal nature of Judges in the Vaticanus. Finally, spin is competent to assess the fidelity of the translations himself, because of his language competency, which is something you sorely lack.