Jack the Bodiless

praxeus:
The error is yours, not mine. We were discussing Mark 7:31, which specifically refers to the SEA of Galilee. When discussing the SEA of Galilee, any mention of "Galilee" should be taken as a reference to the SEA of Galilee. This principle is known as context: a concept that apologists frequently fail to grasp.
Northwest, yes. But from that direction, they would not pass through the MIDST of the Decapolis coastal region to reach the SEA of Galilee (unless taking a very strange route), because that is the south-eastern coast. Kapiche?

If they were heading to a destination that was ITSELF in the midst of the Decapolis coastal region: they would still encounter the Sea of Galilee first, before reaching that destination. Unless, bizarrely, they came at it from inland: requiring a detour.
Do you accept that the reference to Jeremy is erroneous, or do you deny it? Why are you evading?

And why have you snipped what the phrase "Your inability to account for this supposed blunder is again noted" was actually referring to? Again, why are you evading?
Actually, no, the issue is the totally unjustifiable use of a specific verb that the text does not support (even if a verb of some sort is appropriate).
And I notice that some folks play a very elaborate shell-game with themselves to preserve the illusion that the Bible's problems have somehow gone away. Even to the extent of (apparently) admitting errors in the Tyre prophecy and the Jeremy reference, but still continuing as if the Bible was nevertheless inerrant...

JoeWallack

JW:
Staying with the Earliest references to a Long Ending and Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") let's look at some interesting, possibly related testimony, that Irenaeus provides:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html

"7. Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law,—[principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew’s Gospel34483448 Harvey thinks that this is the Hebrew Gospel of which Irenæus speaks in the opening of this book; but comp. Dr. Robert’s Discussions on the Gospels , part ii. chap. iv. only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true."


JW:
Of course Irenaeus' logic here is ridiculous, he also didn't know that Omar was a Stoolie so I say his Judgment stinks and I wonder what other mistakes he made. But note specifically to "Mark":

"Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark".

Presumably one would think that the "Mark" sect had a relatively accurate Gospel of "Mark" since they had no need to "Harmonize" it with any other Gospel. Additionally, "Mark" by itself does look Separationist since the "Christ" Spirit comes unto Jesus at the Baptism and Orthodox Christianity was motivated to Forge onto into later Manuscripts. On "the other side" "Mark's" Jesus' last words are literally "Why have you left me behind" and once again Orthodox Christianity was motivated to Forge "Why have you reviled me".

The Ending of "Mark" also appears to support Separationist:

Mark 16:6

"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified."

JW:
Note that it's not "Jesus the Christ" who was crucified but "Jesus the Nazarene". This is the same reference used before Jesus became Christ (Anointed with God's Spirit at Baptism). Note that "Matthew" has exorcised "Nazarene" and "Luke" has exorcised "Jesus the Nazarene".

And now the Beginning of the Gospel of youknowwho:

Mark 1:9-11

9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."


JW:
"Jesus came from Nazareth". "Nazareth/Nazarene" appears to be a Textual "Marker" distinguishing Jesus from Christ.

No Long ending would make more sense to the Separationists because their Christ had already left Jesus to go wherever the hell Jesus has been hiding for the last two thousand years. So what would a Jesus sans Christ have to say?

Irenaeus has already confessed to us that there were plenty of Gospels around which said things he didn't like. He would have had motivation to quote some source, any source that he thought evidenced a Markan post-resurrection meeting because this would help counter the Separtionist claim that Jesus lost Christ at the crucifixion.

This is the Problem we run unto naively taking Irenaeus as evidence of the Long ending being original. Irenaeus witnesses as an Advocate, not a Judge, and his apparent quote of Long Ending info is probably based on Faith and not Reason. This will be the same problem for Fathers after Irenaeus who refer to the Long ending.

We'll see next that someone around the time of Irenaeus, Tatian, had a definite reason to add something to the post-resurrection Gospel story that didn't previously exist.



Joseph

TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.

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

Steven Avery

Mark 7:31
And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon,
he came unto the sea of Galilee,
through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.
Nonsense.
Have you ever been in Israel and talked to people? Apparently not.
In no context have I heard the lake simply called Gallilee. None.
Nor in the Bible.

And our context includes a discussion of the various regions, which on the map includes Galilee, Decapolis, Phyloteria, all of which were in our conversation thread. Please, Jack, use common sense. Do you have to belabor your own (albeit small) impreciseness and twist it into an embarrassing reflection ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless Northwest, yes. But from that direction, they would not pass through the MIDST of the Decapolis

Through the midst of the COASTS (borders) of the Decapolis.
It is not our usual language in English construction but it matches the geography.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless coastal region to reach the SEA of Galilee (unless taking a very strange route), because that is the south-eastern coast. Kapiche?

Definitely. If the Bible did not have the "the coasts of" it would be a circuitious route.

And apparently you think coasts here means water boundry, I doubt it, since there are references to the coasts of Bethlehem and Judea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless If they were heading to a destination that was ITSELF in the midst of the Decapolis coastal region: they would still encounter the Sea of Galilee first, before reaching that destination. Unless, bizarrely, they came at it from inland: requiring a detour.

Either way is possible. I know the geography, and the current roads, but not the ancient roads. It is very possible that the route was through Golan (the Gamla area) rather than the Jordan River Valley down to Kinneret. Either way I don't see a problem.

In fact, what the verse above is most doing is indicating what part of the Sea of Galilee was being travelled to .. the Decapolis region on the southeast.

Now if you want to go into this more we could parse "through the midst of the coasts" for a few posts. Keeping in mind that coast means borders and not waters, you can go first. As I said, it is a tad unusual as an English construction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless Do you accept that the reference to Jeremy is erroneous, or do you deny it? Why are you evading?

Please. I never attacked the reading and you never asked, you just blustered. I think it is just fine, the word of God. I dunno if we did a discussion on it here or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless And why have you snipped what the phrase "Your inability to account for this supposed blunder is again noted" was actually referring to?

Your right. It was about why the scribes messed up in the alex text. And as I told you, they messed up hundreds (possibly thousands) of basic copying and grammatical and all sorts of errors. Dean Burgon goes into that. You could spend years trying to figure out whether they were dumb, venile, incompetent, confused or what. What's the point, they were bumbling incompetent copyists who lived over 1600 years ago. Maybe they had heat-stroke or were diverted by somebody playing music or didn't see the letters or slipped with the pen. They did that stuff hundreds of times, as Dean John Burgon points out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless Actually, no, the issue is the totally unjustifiable use of a specific verb that the text does not support (even if a verb of some sort is appropriate).

So your argument is very different than that on all the anti-mish and related sites where they claim that emending to 'like a lion' is correct. You are defacto acknowledging that that is very weak. And that your issue of concern is one of dug (as in the Douay from the Latin) vs. pierced. Ok, that is a reasonable question for consideration. Maybe the Emanuel Tov article and that question should be brought over to the Psalm 22 thread (I wasn't posting at that time) and the discussion continued from there.

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

Jack the Bodiless

"Common sense" is a virtue you appear to be entirely lacking. How do you imagine that Mark (...remember him? The alleged author of the verse we were discussing?) was referring to the region of Galilee?

And why do you choose to imagine that I had suddenly started discussing the region of Galilee? Even after I referred to the various boat trips of Jesus? Even after I clarified the point that I was referring to the SEA of Galilee, thereby clearing up ANY misunderstanding?
The error is well-known: that Matthew falsely attributes a Zechariah verse to Jeremiah. But if YOU think it's "fine": why do you imagine the scribes would not? Especially if they were "inspired"?
So, you're not actually aware of any specific type of textual error that could transform "departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon" (in Greek, of course) into "went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon". You merely have faith that "heat-stroke" or "music" would cause a scribe to insert additional words from nowhere.

For some reason, this seems more plausible to you than the notion that "smoothing" has occurred. Indeed, your whole position is that more consistent texts are earlier and that errors have been introduced: rather than the notion that some initial inconsistencies have been "smoothed" out. But I don't think you are capable of making an objective assessment of this, because you have an ideological committment to inerrancy. I have no such committment, in either direction: I neither know nor particularly care which is the "original". I already know the Bible is false, due to other issues that you seem unable to address: issues which have nothing to do with translation accuracy.
From what I can see, "like a lion" doesn't require much of a change: overall, it's less of a stretch than going to "dug" and then on to "pierced". And lions are mentioned elsewhere in the psalm IIRC. Of course, it wouldn't really matter if it DID say "pierced", because that's what the teeth of the attacking wild animals would do: from the context, this isn't a reference to crucifixion. But it shows the desperation of apologists.

Apikorus

Steven, you are misrepresenting me and misunderstanding Tov. The email allegedly from Tov says,

"...the most important is probably the fact that the septuagint (lxx) has the verbal form, probably ka'aru, and this translation is jewish and not touched by christians."

This is the reference to the "pre-Christian verbal form" of what is rendered K)RY in the MT of Ps 22:17. It has nothing to do with the atnach following hikifuni in the MT. There were no masoretic notes in the (purely consonantal) Hebrew exemplar of LXX Psalms, or in any pre-Christian Jewish writings, so it is impossible that I could be referring to the line you quote.

So you are completely wrong to insist that it was in reference to Tov's remark about the masoretic interpretation that I referred to the "pre-Christian verbal form". I was referring to the LXX's exemplar. Get it right, for once.

Regarding Tov's views, if the email is indeed to be associated with Tov, the strong implication is that the MT is corrupt in Ps 22:17, else Tov would proffer an appropriate "verbal form" in translation of the MT's K)RY, which, of course, means "like a lion." He's saying that since the atnakh, which is a verse divider, occurs after HQPWNY, one should expect what follows to be a phrase, and thus to contain a verb. It would help if you understood a little Hebrew, Steven. At any rate, this issue has been discussed at length in a previous thread.

The truth of the matter is that a scholar like Emmanuel Tov thinks that fundamentalist views such as yours are ludicrous -- Tov wrote an entire book on textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible in which he identifies various errors in the biblical text and attempts to correct them based on the manuscript evidence. Doubtless Tov would also find the idea that Jesus is prefigured in the Tanakh laughable.

Steven Avery

Then the obvious question is why you ignored the other important parts in your first summary, .. like the Masoretic form .. as if it was not in his post.

With you, Api, every other word about the Bible text is 'corrupt' so of course you put your construct over what Tov says.

Api, you are totally missing the context of the note. Emanuel Tov is acknowledging, even defending, the translation in the Peter Flint, Abegg, Ulrich book (Flint has been an associate, is my understanding, which was part of what led to this inquiry). And that translation is ..

"They have pierced my hands my feet"

There is your sought after verbal form in the context of the letter. What does Tov think about 'pierced' and 'dug'. Dunno. Might not be an issue to him.

Amen.

And I'll (snip) your regular attempt at a condescending accompanying comment (yawn).

The interesting thing is to notice how this is not mentioned on the websites supporting 'like a lion'.

Which I hope to review after shabbat.

And I'll (snip) your general diversion rant and your assumptions about Tov's views. They may be right, or wrong, neither of us knows.

And you might well have claimed the same about other Jewish scholars like David Flusser and Pinchas Lapide.

Anyone but you would realize that I referenced Emanuel Tov as an expert on the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text, who had spoken very specifically and cogently on Psalm 22:16, and not as a general appeal for all Bible authority. Api, you fall into that cheap debating trick-trap an awful lot.

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

Steven Avery

Generally as 'Galilee', and once Mark referred to the 'region round about Galilee'. I have no idea of your point here, and I see your posts deteriorating, so I think it is time to close it up.

Your arguments about the alexandrian scribes are particularly belabored and indicate that you have really dug your head in the sand. Why am I supposed to analyze with a microscope the foibles and errors of demonstrated incompetent, blundering scribes? Such nonsense.

At least you have defacto dropped the claim that Mark has errors in the historic Bible text on Mark 7:31. (Which is why, like JW, you switch to trying to convince .. somebody.. that the sparse alexandrian reading is the original.)

Your defacto concession on the main point is enough to consider the thread as productive and the discussion has helped me to understand the verse as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless I have no such committment...I neither know nor particularly care which is the "original". I already know the Bible is false

Thank you Jack for acknowledging that you bring your anti-Bible presuppositions to all these textual discussions.

Appreciate the discussion. Parts of it were excellent.

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

Toto

Steven: this is not an issue that I care about. I'm just here to prevent fistfights from spilling blood on the forum.

Iasion was clearly referring to the manuscripts underlying the first exemplars, even if those manuscripts are not available to us.

Given that I don't care one way or another about this, I might have missed some subtle distinction. How does a statement that "NO Greek MSS has the Comma until the time of Erasmus" contradict "no Greek MSS had the Comma before Erasmus" (copying and pasting the two statements.)

And, speaking as a moderator,

No more discussion of "integrity". The readers are capable of judging your integrity from what you post. Any further mention will be edited out.

Heidi Guedel

Johnny Skeptic posted:
Of course I would... and so would all the other skeptics and self-proclaimed infidels. I enjoy debunking the concept that any 'god' whatsoever guided the writing of any book whatsoever for any reason whatsoever. Without those of us who share that point of view, this forum would be nothing but a series of posts by die-hard believers who want to quibble endlessly about their pet interpretations of unsubstantiated scriptures... often written by anonymous authors. How interesting would that be?

Humph. That assumption is about as accurate as the assumption that some deity inspired that collection of nonsensical and contradictory writs that I like to call "The Wholly Babble".

You could say that... but it seems more likely to me that numerous deceptive and/or deluded and/or power hungry human beings (so far, all males) have composed all of the foundational religious books over the centuries. A few females, like Mary Baker Eddy and Amy Simpleton (oops) Semple McPherson have also been convinced by foundational religious doctrine, and have jumped on the bandwagon to write their own follow-up volumes.

Heidi Guedel

Comma, comma, comma, comma... comma chameleon!
It comes and goes... it comes and g-o-e-s!