jgibson000

Why should he have? He asked you to provide the references, not to send him to a place where the "references" can be found only after one digs through mendacious invective, bad Greek, misquotations, poor scholarship, and cheap, patronizing sermonizing.

Strictly speaking, Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium is only against Apollinariuis -- i.e., the individual, not any followers of his.

The text of Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium 147.9, does not have the Scriptural identifications your English translations above has (those are translator editorial choices). More importantly, the context of the line in question, i.e.,

le/gei; ei)j ti/na tw=n a)gi/wn a)nafe/rei to\n lo/gon, o(/ti pneu=ma
e)sarkw/qh; ou)x ou(/twj para\ tw=n eu)aggeli/wn h)kou/samen,
ou)x ou(/twj para\ th=j mega/lhj tou= a)posto/lou fwnh=j e)di-
da/xqhmen, a)ll' o(/ti me\n (O lo/goj sa\rc e)ge/neto, le/gei to\
kh/rugma kai\ e)n ei)/dei peristera=j to\ pneu=ma katabh=nai/
fhsin h( eu)aggelikh\ i(stori/a: sa/rkwsin de\ pneu/matoj ou)dei\j
ei)=pe tw=n t%= pneu/mati lalou/ntwn musth/ria. (H do/ca kate-
skh/nwsen e)n tv= gv= h(mw=n: kai\ (H a)lh/qeia e)k th=j gh=j a)ne/teile:
kai\ Qeo\j e)fanerw/qh e)n sarki/: kai\ Dikaiosu/nh e)k tou=
ou)ranou= die/kuye: kai\ a)/lla toiau=ta polla/. pneu=ma de\ sar-kou/menon h( qeo/pneustoj ou)k oi)=de grafh/.
Kai\ prou+pa/rxei, fhsi/n, o( a)/nqrwpoj Xristo\j
ou)x w(j e(te/rou o)/ntoj par' au)to\n tou= pneu/matoj,
toute/sti tou= qeou=, a)ll' w(j tou= kuri/ou e)n tv= tou=
qeou= a)nqrw/pou fu/sei qei/ou pneu/matoj o)/ntoj

shows not only that what Gregory is dealing with in 147.9 is the issue of the completeness of the Jesus' human nature and how the Logos assumed it on earth and changed it into the divine at Jesus' exhaltation but that his framework for making his point is the theology and langage of the Gospel of John. So it is hardly certain that i Tim. 3:16 is being quoted or even alluded to here. And if there is a quotation of/allusion to 1 Tim 3:16 here, it's text is assimilated to the language of John and the theological points being discussed. So it is therefore not a good (let alone a powerful) witness to the original wording of that verse.


The context of this passage (which is actually 133.5)), i.e.,

Apo/deicij, fhsi/, peri\ th=j qei/aj sarkw/sewj th=j
kaq' o(moi/wsin a)nqrw/pou. krei=tton d' a)\n ei)/h ta\j
qei/aj paraqe/sqai fwna\j ei)j e)/legxon th=j kainh=j tau/thj
o)nomatopoii/aj. (O lo/goj, fhsi/, sa\rc e)ge/neto kai\ (H
do/ca kateskh/nwsen e)n tv= gv= h(mw=n kai\ (O qeo\j e)fanerw/qh
e)n sarki/, w(j a)\n di' e(ka/stou ma/qoimen tw=n ei)rhme/nwn o(/ti a)ei\
a)/trepton o)\n to\ qei=on tv= ou)si/# kai\ a)nalloi/wton e)n tv= treptv=
kai\ a)lloioume/nv gi/netai fu/sei, i(/na t%= i)di/% a)tre/pt% th\n
h(mete/ran pro\j to\ kako\n troph\n e)cia/shtai. ou(tosi\ de\ fhsi\n
ou) qeo\n e)n sarki\ pefanerw=sqai, o(/per tau)to/n e)sti t%= mh\
to\n lo/gon sa/rka gene/sqai, to\n e)n o(moiw/mati a)nqrw/pou kai\
sxh/mati tv= zwv= tw=n a)nqrw/pwn dia\ tou= doulikou= prosw/pou
kaqomilh/santa, a)lla\ qei/an tina\ sa/rkwsin a)natupou=tai t%=
lo/g%, ou)k oi)=da ti/ shmai/nwn t%= r(h/mati, po/teron troph\n
th=j qeo/thtoj a)po\ th=j a(plh=j au)tou= kai\ a)sunqe/tou fu/sewj
ei)j sarkw/dh a)ntitupi/an a)lloiwqei/shj h)\ menou/shj th=j qei/aj
ou)si/aj e)f' e(auth=j a)/llhn tina\ sa/rkwsin qei/an meqo/rion th=j
tw=n a)nqrw/pwn te kai\ tou= qeou= fu/sewj a)nafanh=nai ou)/te
a)/nqrwpon ou)=san ou)/te qeo/n, mete/xousan de/ pwj a)mfote/rwn,
h(/tij t%= me\n sa/rkwsij ei)=nai suggenw=j pro\j to\ a)nqrw/pinon
e)/xei, t%= de\ qei/a ei)=nai krei/ttwn e)sti\n h)\ kata\ a)/nqrwpon.
a)lla\ mh\n qeo\j ei)=nai ou) du/natai:

makes clear that what is under discussion is the theology of Jn 1:14 and therefore IF there is a quote here from 1 Tim. 3:16, it is assimilated to the theology of GJohn. And if this is the case, it is not a witness to the original text of 1 Tim 3:16.

Does he now. In the 11 (not 20 or, as Brown claims 22) times in the writings of Gregory in which something similar to 1 Tim 3:16 appears, namely:

Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium 3,1.133.5
Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium 3,1.147.9
Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium 3,1.207.28
In inscriptiones Psalmorum 5.106.13
Contra Eunomium 3.2.26.3
Contra Eunomium 3.3.35.3
Contra Eunomium 3.9.16.15
Refutatio confessionis Eunomii 2.6
In Canticum canticorum 6.141.10
In Canticum canticorum 6.381.5
In Canticum canticorum 6.381.17

only the last of these can actually be called a quotation of that text.

So your "authority's" (and your) claim that ""Gregory of Nyssa frequently and powerfully testified for 'God manifest in the flesh'" is not only a gross overstatement. It is simply wrong. Moreover, it is also a pretty good example of the use of the woeful methodology of reading Gregory not in the original Greek (there's no evidence that Brown read the Greek text -- and indeed, he appears Greekless) but only on the basis of an (older) English translation of his works, as well as through a theological and text critical a priori (Brown is a KJV onlist and a staunch believer -- on theological and not text critical grounds -- in the TR).

And please don't ask me to produce the Greek of Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium 3,1.207.28; In inscriptiones Psalmorum 5.106.13; Contra Eunomium 3.2.26.3 etc. If you want to refute me, find the texts themselves and show that the context and the wording of them justifies the claim you made that they are indeed contain quotations of/actual and indisputable allusions to 1 Tim 3:16.

JG

jgibson000

Actually, if you for once would take the time to read some of the critical commentaries on, and scholarly discussions of, this verse instead of basing your claims on what appears in noxious and biased web pages from KJV only-ists who know no or very little Greek, you'd see that it's the issue is the supposed lack of any antecedent for hOS, not the "ambiguity of any supposed antecedent."


For instance, consider the remarks of I.H. Marshall in his ICC Commentary on the Pastorals:

(a) ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί The first line of the hymn characterises the divine event of Jesus’ salvation-historical manifestation. The abrupt beginning with the masc. rel. pron. ὅς leads most scholars to assume that a citation of tradition commences here since there is no masc. antecedent. Wengst 1973:157 cites Phil 2:6 as a parallel, although there there is an antecedent. However, there is the possibility of a constructio ad sensum with the relative pronoun, and this is what has happened here; the μυστήριον is Christ, and the change of gender is essential in the pronoun.66 The author elsewhere appears to identify a quality or gift of God with Christ (Tit 2:11; 3:4, where the grace or goodness of God is effectively revealed in Christ). It is not, therefore, necessary to assume that he has created a grammatical tension here by making a citation. Rather, the mystery is at one and the same time the message about Christ and the Christ-event.

φανερόω (Tit 1:3 note; 2 Tim 1:10**) occurs elsewhere in relation to Jesus.67 The connection here with ‘the mystery’ establishes that the author intends to interpret God’s saving activity as taking place in the historical appearance of Christ.68 The passive form of the verb suggests that God is the initiator of the event (Knoch, 31). σάρξ is used with reference to Christ by Paul and other writers.69

It is unlikely that the statement is a reference to Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances70 or a response to a docetic epiphany Christology (contra Hasler, 31). It refers rather to the incarnation (Gundry*, 209f.; Stenger*, 119–47; and most commentators). The ‘once hidden/now revealed’ pattern of thought found elsewhere in the PE is probably echoed here also. It seems probable that pre-existence is implied; this would tie in with the Christology of the PE generally, but does not appear to be a point of emphasis.71 Rather, the point is that the Saviour has been made manifest in the world; a positive soteriological emphasis is thus intended (Lau*, 92–5).

Attempts to detect more delicate nuances in this reflection on the incarnation place undue weight on the reference to ‘flesh’ and the preposition ἐν. There does not appear to be any hint at the weakness or humiliation of Christ (so rightly Roloff, 204). Mainly on the basis of the use of σάρξ in texts such as Rom 8:3; Col 1:22 and Eph 2:14 it has been suggested that the accent is on the crucifixion.72 Yet the statement is clearly expressed in general terms with a wide scope (contrast the more specific intention of 1 Pet 3:18). There is considerable uncertainty whether the prepositional phrase ἐν σαρκί is intended to express the mode of Jesus’ manifestation, i.e. as a human being,73 or the sphere of his manifestation, i.e. either the world as the place where salvation-historical events occur (Roloff, 203) or the sphere of human existence in which Jesus participates (Gundry*, 210; Kelly, 90). The most that can be said is that the historical event of the incarnation is in mind; the stress is similar to that in 1 Tim 2:5, and the thought of Jesus’ participation in human experience is therefore probably uppermost in mind.74 The statement is sufficiently general to be capable of suggesting a number of concepts by which Jesus’ redemptive participation among people was interpreted, including his suffering and death for sin which the early church understood to be the climax and goal of the incarnation (Rom 8:3; Phil 2:7f.).

or the remarks of conservative scholar Martin O. Massinger in his article "The Mystery of Godliness" (Bibliotheca Sacra 96 [1939] 480-481):

In examining the verse we find only one textual problem, of which we can dispose very readily. The reading θεός, on which the Authorized Version bases the translation “God” is discredited, and all the evidence is in favor of ὅς, which is the basis of the translation “He who” in the American Standard Version and “Who” in the above translation.

Upon a superficial examination it would seem that the Authorized Version reads the most smoothly, and that our translation is the most awkward. However, we feel justified in following Alford in this matter, and agree with him that, far from losing by adopting the correct text, we have gained much. He says:

“Let me say in passing, that it should be noticed, in a question which now happily no longer depends on internal considerations, how completely the whole glorious sentence is marred and disjoined by the substitution of θεὸς. It is not the objective fact of God being manifested, of which the Apostle is speaking, but the life of God lived in the church, -the truth, of which the congregation of believers is the pillar and basement,-as identical (John 14:6) with Him who is its centre and heart and stock-as unfolded once for all in the unfolding of Him. The intimate and blessed link, furnished by the ὅς, assuring the Church that it is not they that live, but Christ that liveth in them, is lost if we understand μυστήριον merely as a fact, however important, historically revealed. There is hardly a passage in the N.T., in which I feel more deep personal thankfulness for the restoration of the true and wonderful connexion of the original text....”1


Thus, although there is a grammatical irregularity in referring the masculine relative pronoun ὅς to the neuter noun μυστήριον, the result is a wonderful truth, namely that the mystery of godliness is Christ Himself; that godliness, hidden in ages past, has now been revealed, and is seen not to be an abstract ideal, a mere attribute of a personality, but actually a person, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus it will readily be seen that, as Alford points out, if any other translation than “Who” is used, “the whole glorious sentence is marred.” Not only the Authorized Version, using the translation “God,” which is now discredited, but even the American Standard Version, using the translation “He who” obscures this truth.

The irregularity involved in the use of ὅς might also be explained by the possibility that this word introduces a quotation from an early Christian hymn which was current in Paul’s time. Most of the commentators, with the notable exception of Alford, seem to agree that the six parallel clauses found in this verse are such a quotation. Frequently a quotation inserted into a discourse produces a certain awkwardness. Whether this is the case or not, we feel that the first explanation given more than suffices to explain the use of ὅς.

Is that what the Greek of Contra haeresin Noeti 17:4-5 (not just 17:5) actually says?

Perhaps you'll show us (1) how the above is a faithful rendering of:

[17.4] ou(=toj dia\ no/mou kai\ profhtw=n e)khru/xqh
pareso/menoj ei)j to\n ko/smon. kaq' o(\n ou)=n tro/po<n>
e)khru/xqh kata\ tou=ton kai\ parw/n, e)fane/rwsen e(auto\n
e)k parqe/nou kai\ a(gi/ou pneu/matoj, kaino\j a)/nqrwpoj
geno/menoj: to\ me\n ou)ra/nion e)/xwn to\ patr%=on w(j Lo/goj,
to\ de\ e)pi/geion w(j e)k palaiou= )Ada\m dia\ parqe/nou
sarkou/menoj. [17.5] ou(=toj proelqw\n ei)j ko/smon Qeo\j
e)nsw/matoj e)fanerw/qh, a)/nqrwpoj te/leioj proelqw/n:
ou) ga\r kata\ fantasi/an h)\ troph/n, a)lla\ a)lhqw=j geno/menoj
a)/nqrwpoj.

and (2) what the Greek lexical, sytactical, and grammatical evidence from this passage is (compared to that of 1 Tim 3:16) that makes it certain that Hipollytus had 1 Tim 3:16 (and not Jn 1:14 and other NT passages) in mind.

I don't see that the Greek says what you (or the source that you cribbed your citations and your quotes from) claim it says. Nor do I think that the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of 17:5 indicates that Hippolytus had 1 Tim in mind, let alone was alluding to it, when he says ou(=toj proelqw\n ei)j ko/smon Qeo\j e)nsw/matoj e)fanerw/qh.

Perhpaps you'll be kind enough to show me and Chris -- through an analysis of the actual (Greek) grammar and syntax and vocabulary of this passage --what we are (apparently -- at least according to you) missing.

JG

Steven Avery

Hi Jeffrey, welcome back.

Where is the Jerome reference ?
Are you going to (snip) that simple request yet again ?

And where is your list of 4th-century and earlier pro-hOS and not Theos writers ? That you will actually defend.
Oops... (snip) again ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 He asked you to provide the references, not to send him to a place where the "references" can be found only after one digs through mendacious invective, bad Greek, misquotations, poor scholarship, and cheap, patronizing sermonizing.

You are again very confused. I sent Chris to my note on a forum listing many of the citations. Perhaps you consider my writings as having all of the above (it is popular among the skeptics to try such broad-based attack) others who read may view differently. You have a very one-dimensional approach to this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 The text of Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium 147.9, does not have the Scriptural identifications your English translations above has (those are translator editorial choices).

Though I thought that would be pretty obvious, agreed it is worth mentioning.

The rest of your discussion is similar to your attempt to discount the reference from Epiphanius when he has QEOS because his interpretative view is that this is doctrinally to Ephiphanius "God the SON". Scholarly but essentially irrelevant to the text Epiphianius had for 1 Timothy 3:16.

Here you use the confluence of John with 1 Timothy (which will often be a natural combo) as a way to try to disregard the 1 Timothy usages.

Let us look again at the first two verses closer.. later we may look at the others from Gregory and consider them as a unit.

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Church-Fathers-28.html
http://www.thirdmill.org/files/engli.../ecf/ecf28.txt

"The Christian Faith, which in accordance with the command of our Lord has been preached to all nations by His disciples ... He, I say, appeared on earth and conversed with men ... that we might be convinced that God was manifested in the flesh, and believe that to be the only true mystery of godliness, which was delivered to us by the very Word and God."

You have a paragraph that uses three distinct sections from 1 Timothy 3:16 and says specifically -
"God was manifested in the flesh"
- the only discussion should be how strong an evidence this is... while agreeing that it is a good and powerful witness.

(Ironically when you use Origen as your one early witness you don't even care that you actually simply change the word involved.)

Especially when combined with other verses like the next one.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf...i.vii.iii.html
And hence it is that all who preach the word point out the wonderful character of the mystery in this respect,—that “God was manifested in the flesh,” that “the Word was made flesh" that “the Light shined in darkness,” “the Life tasted death,” and all such declarations which the heralds of the faith are wont to make, whereby is increased the marvellous character of Him Who manifested the superabundance of His power by means external to his own nature.

Notice that Schaaf sees very clearly what Jeffrey would like to deny ..

"1 Tim. iii. 16, where it would appear that Gregory read θεός ; not ὅ ς ."

Note how Jeffrey still has to look to fabricate any possible equivocation,
even with John 1 quoted right next to and distinctly from 1 Timothy 3:16.

"IF there is a quote here from 1 Tim. 3:16, it is assimilated to the theology of GJohn.
And if this is the case, it is not a witness to the original text of 1 Tim 3:16."

Jeffrey, this is actually one of the stupidest arguments I have seen in a long time. An example of what happens when agenda trumps simple sense. A writer relates two quotations together, quoting both accurately and distinctly. And the fact that he shows the harmony of the two verses supposedly makes one verse not a witness to the actual text of that verse. Amazing.

At least Schaaf is not that blind.

=====================

Actually, since this exposes Jeffrey's shenanigans sufficiently,
I will stop here for now.

Jeffrey's questions about Terence Brown (Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, London) can be researched and checked separately. If Jeffrey has sources on Brown's scholarly background and doctrinal Bible position (beyond TR) he can share away. TBS is arguably not a 'KJB-only' org in doctrine so Jeffrey's claim above is dubious but irrelevant either way. And if Jeffrey has no real sources then that should be noted.

So your "authority's" (and your) claim that ""Gregory of Nyssa frequently and powerfully testified for 'God manifest in the flesh'" is not only a gross overstatement. Jeffrey, you claim Origen "testifies" for hOS when the Latin is actually a different word even when back-translated from another language !

Clearly you are clueless as to what is a level playing field.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

Chris already gave it to you. You apparently missed it.

Now where is your defense of "pierced"?

And where is your analysis of the Greek text of Hippolytus?

I trust you'll allow me to use the device you use to explain away data you don't like: the second text of Epiphanius is corrupt.

But the problem here is you haven't yet shown in any acceptable way -- through an analysis of the Greek text of this passage -- that there are any 1 Tim 3:16 "usages" here, let alone that a confluence of the language and theology of GJOhn isis (would have been regarded by the fathers as) a "natural combo" with 1 Tim 3:16. If this were true, we would certainly find some father saying so or implying as much in ancient commentaries on GJohn or on 1 Tim. But nothing of the sort is found there, is it?

If we are going to do this, let's do this on the basis of the Greek text.

Otherwise what's the point? And don't give me that "the English is sufficient" excuse. How do you know it is unless you've compared it to the Greek text

I'll state this clearly. Since we are talking about the wording and the syntax and the grammar of Greek and Latin texts and their alleged corrsepondence with that of 1 Tim 3:16, the only scholarly and responsible and requisite and methodologically sound thing to do is to conduct the examination through an analysis of the Greek wording and the syntax and the grammar of those Greek texts. Anyone who refuses to do this is not scholarly or respsonsible/ Moreover, anything they say about the Greek and Latin texts they are "discussing" has no right to be seen as sound or to be taken seriously.

So here's the deal: I will continue this discussion only if you stop working from, and basing your claims on, English translations of those texts and instead work from and deal directly with the Greek and the Latin of the texts you make claims about.

This is not an unreasonable demand. In fact, it is unreasonable not to accede to it.

You say you want to discuss the evidence. Well then, let's discuss the evidence in the only way that is proper to do so.

JG

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Jeffrey, yet again you have (snipped) the request for your list of church writers for the first four centuries (or 5 if you prefer) that you defend as clearly giving testimony for the hOS reading over QEOS.

Hmmm...

Ok, you would like to put Origen in that list despite the fact that the Latin word is not the translation of hOS. Beyond Origen, are you offering any others till 400 AD ? Any ?

Or do you only look for special pleadings against clear, accepted testimonies like Gregory of Nyssa while not offering anything solid for your side ?

(I think we can agree there are evidences on both sides in the 400's but that would also be good to compare.)

Oh, and I wonder how you conclude that Biblia Patristica is complete for 1 Timothy 3:16 and Gregory of Nyssa. Putting aside that citation counts can honestly vary Peter Head mentions that ...
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.b...citations.html
"(BP) is incomplete ... sometimes incomplete data"

Now onto Jerome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson Chris already gave it to you.

Nope... So far about five requests. Chris never mentioned Jerome in his posts here. Feel free to point out the post where Chris suggested that he answers the question from Jerome or even mentions his name. <edit>

And if your proposed response is in the Latin of Wettstein simply pull the response out for the forum. And if the Vulgate is doing double-duty then so finally acknowledge (which would be another dubious citation in UBS/NA, the original discusion).

And if you have a real reference, excellent, simply give it right here in your post. I would like to see it and would be happy to so acknowledge if Jerome actually writes in a way that gives testimony to "hOS".

Incidentally Zack Hubert had an interesting post about the 'ol Codex Alexandrius issue involving Wettstein, at the moment it is not coming up at http://www.zhubert.com/node/view/275 - but maybe shortly. Meanwhile you can find it in the google cache.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson I trust you'll allow me to use the device you use to explain away data you don't like: the second text of Epiphanius is corrupt.

Jeffrey, corruption was your claim here (your Origen emendation).

On Ephiphanius - do you have any basis for your new claim except one that is doctrinally-based ? Or are you simply piling <edit> (the Nyssa attempt with two verses referenced) upon poor argumentation ? Remember your earlier argument was the interesting but irrelevant point that Epiphanius was referencing "God the Son" (a doctrinal point that does not affect the textual question but made a good diversion).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson But the problem here is you haven't yet shown in any acceptable way -- through an analysis of the Greek text of this passage -- that there are any 1 Tim 3:16 "usages" here,

Gregory was clear enough that even Schaaf places it in his footnotes to Gregory of Nyssa that QEOS was his text. Oh, you (snipped) that .. hmmm.

As for the confluence of "the word was made flesh.." and "God was manifest in the flesh" it would only take a lot of confusion to try to claim that such would not be natural for some writers, modern or ancient.

So are you claiming that nobody ever connected those verses in relationship (at least until modern times) ? If that is your actual affirmative claim based on your studies then it can be worthwhile to examine. And do you have a scholarly reference for the claim or is it just another Jeffrey-ism ? <edit>

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson If we are going to do this, let's do this on the basis of the Greek text.

Jeffrey, any time you feel the Greek or Latin text actually changes the issues you are welcome to so indicate.

There were actually some significant discussions (not sure if they were with you or Steve D) vis a vis the text of Ignatius on that account. They were informative and helped properly place his text in the discussion. The significance of the exact words is clearly more important in the discussion of allusions than quotation-oriented references. (Barnabas would be another example.. Mathetes was another early one added here but the discussion did not need the Greek).

However rather than offer substantive dialog you can simply drop out of the discussion yet again.

So far you have instead come up with absurd argumentation irrelevant to the text-language such as the "God the Son" doctrinal diversion of Epiphanius or trying to say that a quote won't count if it is next to another quote (Gregory of Nyssa). You have a habit of simply making one-time special pleadings that is quite funny to watch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson Anyone who refuses to do this is not scholarly or respsonsible (sic),

Anybody who reads this thread without an agenda can see that my discussions are far more responsible than yours. You continually augment your responsible knowledge of Greek and Latin with irresponsible claims (such as the two above, or that Origen "testifies to hOS"). And by (snipping) simple requests.

They can also see that your goal with the Greek and Latin is simply to hide the poverty of your position. Pulll out arguments and information selectively and with unlevel playing fields.

And clearly you are looking to use the Greek/Latin issue as an excuse for yet the third time to skedaddle. Tis your choice.

Bye, Jeffrey.
Shalom, be well.

Others are welcome to try to answer his unanswered questions, such as the list of 4-century references, or Jerome, or try to defend his 3-claims referenced above that made no sense.

Also maybe others won't play Jeffrey's silly game of "I have a reference but I won't give tell what it says". Irresponsible posting.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologeticokok

Chris Weimer

Jerome's non-Vulgate reference is In Esaiam 63.2: qui apparuit in carne, iustificatus est spiritu.

jgibson000

That's nice. But did I say or give any indication that I used the BP for Gregory?

Would you care to show me how my citations are inaccurate or that my note about your claim on how many Gregory texts there are is untrue?

I never said Chris mentioned Jerome? I said Chris gave the Jerome reference (and quote).

(here are my exact words: "Chris already gave it to you. You apparently missed it.")

So I'll thank you not to attribute to me things I never said.

And Chris did do what I said he did -- in this post:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...45#post3806445

You obviously didn't follow the link or, if you did, were unable to understand what you saw there.

Umm ... like you have done when you send links to pages that supposedly contain the data you are referrring and through which we have to hunt to find the data you cite, let alone not citing the data as they should be cited -- in Greek or Latin?


I was simply following your lead in the way you have dealt here with evidence you don't like. If that is pilling upon poor argumentation, then so be it. But be careful of that tar brush you use.

That's not actually what Schaff says, now is it? Schaff notes that Gregory has changed hOS into QEOS. He says noting about Gregory's langage being that of the original of 1 Tim. 3:16. And he makes no statement about what the text of 1 Tim 3:16 that Gregory used -- if he did, and was not quoting (if he was -- from memory -- actually read

In fact the implication of Schaff's remarks is that Gergory gets the text of 1 Tim 3:16 wrong and that Gregory is not a good witness to the original wording of 1 Tim 3:16 and should not be used as such.

Just as you snipped my requests for you to give us your argument for "piereced" and to show me through an anyalsis of the Greek of Contra haeresin Noeti 17:4-5 (not just 17:5) (1) that Hippolytus actually says what you claim he says and that (2) the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of 17:5 indicates that Hippolytus had 1 Tim 3:16 in mind, let alone was alluding to it, when he says ou(=toj proelqw\n ei)j ko/smon Qeo\j e)nsw/matoj e)fanerw/qh, not to mention others..


Funny how when ever you are asked to deal with Greek or Latin and/or to justify your claims on the basis of the actuall Greek or Latin of a text under discussion, you either ignore these requests or prescind from doing so by claiming that the Greek or Latin isn't all that important.

In any case, just what do you think Schaff said with regard to what the original text of 1 Tim 3:16 was and how Gregory handled it? And how does what Schaff says on this matter differ from what I said when I noted:

... if there is a quotation of/allusion to 1 Tim 3:16 here, it's text is assimilated to the language of John and the theological points being discussed. So it is therefore not a good (let alone a powerful) witness to the original wording of that verse.

I don't know what you are speaking of when you say " it would only take a lot of conflusion to try to claim that such would not be natutral" for the church fathers. I'm not interested in what it would take to "try to claim" something, let alone a negative. I'm interested in whether or not the claim you made is true or has any evidence to back it up.

So can you? Is there any evidence that what you say would have been "natural" (even assuming that this claim is not question begging and does not raise the issue of how you know what for the fathers was and wasn't "natural") was ever actually done.

I did not make a claim, let alone the one you allege I did. I asked a question. Of you.

Here are my words again:

... you haven't yet shown in any acceptable way ... that a confluence of the language and theology of GJOhn is ([i.e.,] would have been regarded by the fathers as) a "natural combo" with 1 Tim 3:16. If this were true, we would certainly find some father saying so or implying as much in ancient commentaries on GJohn or on 1 Tim. But nothing of the sort is found there, is it?

In other words I asked you whether you knew if there were any instances in any ancient commentaries on GJohn and 1 Tim in which we actually see -- as we should expect there to be if the confluence of the langage and theology of the Gospel of John and that of 1 Tim was what you say it was (natural) -- the confluence of GJohn and 1 Tim 3:16.

Do you know or not?

I have already, several times.

Really? Shall we take a poll?

To those reading this thread: Whose discussions -- mine or Steve's -- do you think shows the most "responsibility"?

And how much would you like to wager that if the poll goes my way, Steve will explain the results away by claiming that those of you who say "Jeffrey" have an agenda?

If I'm irresponsible in this, so is Hooker, someone you yourself acknowledged as an authority on this matter. More importantly, you haven't yet shown that there's any reason to think that Origen doesn't do this in the evidence that has been produced.

Let's take another poll. Who here thinks this is my goal? Who here thinks that Steve's claim above is a self serving mischaracterization of what I've been doing here.

Clearly? And here I was thinking that it would provide the best and most sound basis for examining the claims that both of us are making.

Why on earth would you not want to carry out and base the discussion on the actual texts under discussion or claim that call for a discussion using the original langages of the texts under discussion is in the end an excuse to "skidaddle"?

JG

jgibson000

Leaving aside the little mater of fact that I came up with no such conclusion, I think, given the charges of dishonesty that Steven has uttered against me in this thread, that it is important to let you all know not only that

(1) Steven has royally put his foot in it in making the assumption that I used the BP to come up with my figure on Gregory of Nyssa (not to mention that he avoids tellling us what he's relied on for saying there are some 20 times in which Gregory quotes/alludes to 1 Tim 3:16),

but that

(2) to make his points about the alleged unreliability of the BP and how major text critic Peter Head (who, BTW, rejects the QEOS reading in 1 Tim 3:16) himself testifies to its unreliability, Steve has severly doctored what Peter Head actually wrote about the BP and its usefulness.

Here --in context-- is what Peter actually said:

First the context:

This morning I was asked a question and I wasn't entirely satisfied with my answer, so I thought I would ask it here.

Question: how do you track down the references to check on patristic citations cited in NA27?

My Answer: good question, I'm not familiar with any easy way to do this (and it is even worse in UBS4 which has expanded patristic support, but no indications of source material). [I have expanded my actual historical ipsissima verba answer with some things I have thought of in writing]

* Basically if the passage is in the Catholic Epistles then the ECM gives references and supporting evidence.
* If it is in Luke then the IGNTP gives references and page numbers in editions.
* If it is in Matthew or Mark then Legg gives selections of texts with some reference (although it doesn't always seem complete).
* Otherwise check Tischendorf 1869 (but you have to figure out his referencing system and then you may have to check an old edition of the cited work; and remember that not all patristic works have standard referencing conventions).
* Also try Tregelles 1857-1879 (Tregelles aimed to collect all the patristic evidence of the first three centuries, the 'early Citations' 'with full references to the passages in the works themselves').
* If none of these help (or are available) then start at the other end with the Biblia Patristica which indexes scripture citations in church fathers.
* If it is a controversial passage references (and discussion) can often be found in the secondary literature (detailed commentaries of the type that discuss the text and/or journal articles etc.).
* Remember that TLG is fairly well stocked with Greek patristic literature which can be searched for specific word combinations.
* Further info, method discussion and bibliography check the essay in the Metzger Festschrift ed. Ehrman & Holmes.

Then, after a respondent asked:

ER: Are there some egregious limitations to Biblia Patristica that made you place it down the list?

Peter replied with:

It is incomplete—a limited number of church fathers, and sometimes incomplete data for those covered thus far in the first is it five volumes, but this is one of the first places to go when conducting a thorough investigation.

If all we had to go on -- and if we could trust Steve to faithfully represent the intent of the sources he quotes -- we'd come away from Steve's quote of Head thinking that Head trashed the PG, when he actually is recommending it!

And steve has just claimed that in this thread he's been acting and posting "responsibly".

I wonder if there is anyone else here who finds it more than a little ironic that someone who claims that he is fighting for, and represents, the truth will use to "prove" his claims the very tactics that he elsewhere has claimed the lying supporters of the "corrupt alexandrian MSS texts" alexandrian use to make their case and pull the wool over the eyes of believers and pervert the word of god.

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
Responsibility to what?



Joseph

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

jgibson000

To whatever Steve means when he says "Anybody who reads this thread without an agenda can see that my discussions are far more responsible than yours." -- which I presume means being willing and able to set out the relevant evidence for one's claims when asked to do so, to avoid burden shifting, and to refuse to engage in misquotation, equivocation, and ad hominems.

Jeffrey