Toto

Some off topic posts have been moved here

Steven Avery

Hi Jeffrey, yes, I sort of understood that but I had not recovered from the shock.

However, one cannot really criticize anyone, even Richard, for thinking of
Symmachus as a LXX version. I was coming to his defense in that one
aspect of his implied concepts even while ..

a) Richard had the wrong century
b) the implication the three versions were available to Matthew was
totally false
c) his statements about the LXX, such as one version surviving,
showed a rather severe ignorance of the topic.

And also-
z) his tude defending his error was arrogant and worse

Granted, some slack on (z) can be granted since I brought up the
issues originally in a humorous but a tad sarcastic manner. His
hit-and-running off attempt, trying to mask error, has now left a
little concern, almost of an odiferous nature.

And I agree that taking one of your posts off this thread made no sense
at all, since it dealt directly with the Richard Carrier assertions. Since
I've had my own tussles with the SPS (Skeptic Protection Society)
moderation as well as a few with you I'll try to stay germane to the
thread topics as much as possible. I came back on IIDB for enjoyment
and learning more than wars and I try to pass by posts that look like
they are meant for baiting more than edifying. (Expressing a general view,
not a complaint meant to be applied to anything in specific.)

And I take blue on many forums, as my distinctive color. It reflects my
placid and irenic nature as well as the magisterial sky-heights of the
Gospel and scriptures that are a joy to defend. Then I color-code the
scriptures in royal purple and other speakers in various colors. However I
can't do any of that on the NO-HTML lists.

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

jgibson000

Really? Why not -- especially when all one has to do know that it's not a version of the LXX is to consult a basic reference work on Greek versions of the OT where the facts about Symmachus' translation are set out, and even more so when a poster is claiming to be an expert/to have done research/is posting authoritatively on the subject?

It's an annoying and unnecessary affection and it conveys none of the things you think (or hope) it does, even granting that your nature is as you say it is.

JG

Diogenes the Cynic

Maybe. My impression was that he was talking about rescensions prior to the 1st century, but he might have made an error here. Hopefully he will return to this thread and clarify what he meant (has anybody emailed him yet?)
I don't believe he implied this. He did not say that all three versions of the LXX (whatever he meant by that) were still extant in the 1st century, only that they had existed BY the 1st century. It's possible he meant that the version available to Matthew was the current rescension but Carrier's statement did not necessarily assert that all three versions were still current.
One version does survive. "Version" does not mean "orginal manuscript."

One more thing I want to point out from Carrier's quoted statement:
I think the word I bolded is rather significant. Carrier argues that Matthew is not quoting directly from the version of the LXX we have left to us which means that he is therefore either quoting from another (no longer extant) version, or he fudged it. He suggests that if you would like to argue that the former explanation should be preferred, then you will need something substantive to back it up. I am not taking sides on that, but none of that sounds unreasonable to me on its face.

There is a side issue of what he meant by three different versions of the LXX by the 1st century. That may just be a matter of semantics or broad definition. It may actually be an error on Carrier's part, but it's not actually relevant to his contention that GMatt does not quote directly from the version of the LXX which still exists. His central point remains the same whether there was one version or 100. Either Matthew was quoting from another version or he altered the text.

Steven Avery

Clearly Richard blundered. Good Greek OT histories have been posted. It is no surprise that he hit-and-ran with vitriol. Better to acknowledge the blunders, correct them, and move on.

You are truly convoluting to the max. Nobody has an argument that versions vanished before the 1st century, nor would it make sense as part of Carrier's presentation. Please, stop smoke-screening.

Have you even read the actual histories ? Or are you just coming up with any possible hypothetical cover story for Richard Carrier no matter how nonsensical ?

Really ? Only one version ? So explain why the texts of that one version are so radically different, such as the Vaticanus text compared to the Byzantine text.

Total non-sequitur. Nobody remotely made such a claim or implication.

There is no problem in Carrier trying to show that there were lots of word-possibilities in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. That was never the point of the part of the thread here pointing out the Carrier errors.

None of which is relevant to the Richard Carrier errors. Nobody could show one way or another whether Matthew matches the non-extant texts. Neither side on that one could meet any burden of proof. Using the term 'fudged' is a Carrier problem, however the emphasis here is his blatant Greek OT blunders. And I disagree on other points in his article and believe Matthew worked with Hebrew texts anyway.

Carrier blundered. He simply flunked on the scholarship level. On an article from a self-proclaimed 'professional historian' who is footnoting his material. Worse, he is refusing to properly accept and make the necessary corrections. .

Or, as Richard Carrier properly points out, he was using a Hebrew or Aramaic text.

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

DCHindley

Jeffrey,

I got the impression that he was thinking of the three textual traditions that have been proposed to underlay the MT Pentateuch, LXX (Old Greek Pentateuch, whatever) and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Wasn't that proposed by F M Cross?

I am only familiar with this hypothesis from a monograph on the origin of the Samaritans and their SP by Purvis, but I think Purvis did make some citations and gave a few examples.

Dave

Diogenes the Cynic

Maybe, but I doubt it.
Richard does not spend much time here. Unless someone has emailed him, he probably isn't aware of the question being asked about this tangential point.
You need to learn to read with more comprehension. All I was saying was that a plain reading of what Carrier wrote does not exclude that possibility.
One version from the 1st century does not include versions from subsequent centuries.
You did exactly that when you accused him of saying he had a manuscript from the 1st century
Carrier never claimed otherwise. He only claimed that Matthew did not copy from the extant 1st century text.
He needs to clarify what he meant, but no one has proven any "blunders."
Extremely doubtful, but if he did so, he cheated the translation.
How would you know anything about the "scholarship level?"
Where does Carrier say that? He says there were different Hebrew and Aramic versions available but does not argue that Matthew used one. Even if Matthew did so, he still either cheated the translation or used a bad Aramic translation (but the chances that Matthew knew Aramaic are low to non-existent).

JoeWallack

JW:
1) Alexandrian (surprise)

2) Proto-Lucian (Palestinian)

3) Proto-Theodotion (Palestinian)

Looks like three to me Gibson. You've already been told by the Moderator that Mr. Carrier normally doesn't post here. I will note though that so far here, other than whining about the Moderation, you have just asked questions. Praxeus is the one who guarantees his eternal soul that Mr. Carrier has made some type of colossal error here.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Steven Avery

Does the Skeptic Protection Society reimburse you for the time spent on convolutions and smoke-screens ?

"To make matters worse, there were several Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the OT, too.
So discussion of what words were where is always an uncertain business"

Ironically if Richard had simply carefully read the Gerald Larue article he then links to he would not have written in such a confusing and blunderama manner about the Greek OT. We see that Richard actually links to an article that has accurate information as to the dates of the Greek OT versions. Yet his own article tries to put those versions in the first century, in the context of Matthew. Larue also does not make the Carrier blunder of saying that one of the early versions survived.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

gregor

While off-topic, is praxeus going to defend his statements in several threads he dropped 6 months ago, or those threads dropped 12 months ago? (ref. YEC, the ark, wyatt's wheel, speed of light, KJV-only, & etc.)