spin

This response is incoherent. First it flits from "skepticism" to "infidelism" without any justification, then shifts into the unknown by talking of a "spiritual vacuum", a term whose significance needs to be clarified before being introduced.

The topic of skepticism is a pure matter of avoiding views which will skew analysis.

You haven't pointed it out to me. You are apparently avoiding your responsibility to argue your case.

I don't believe you. One often has a penchant to cover up one's motivations, then cover up the cover up. This may not be true in your case, but I've seen nothing in your statements to suggest that you can take a detached enough stance to analyse your own situation.

You are free to make whatever claims you like, but wake me when you want to say something relevant.

Here you go again with your polemical use of "skeptic". Stop talking rot, will you, and try to communicate reasonably.

Skepticism is a matter of attempting to leave out one's beliefs from an analysis. Perhaps you should stick to "infidelism" or somesuch. The polemical use of skepticism has developed because those people who assume the necessity of a belief cannot consider an alternative as acceptible, hence the redefinition.

I am both a skeptic and an infidel. It is my skeptical disposition to attempt to withhold belief from analysis (any study of productive thinking shows less belief tends to mean better analysis). I am an infidel by choice: I see nothing to justify religious belief.


spin

Jack the Bodiless

Given the rather obvious fact that the "Received Texts" are neither pure nor accurate: why do you make such a claim?

You seem very fond of blaming "bad copies" for all the Bible's problems, but hardly any Biblical errors can be resolved in this fashion: almost all of them exist in every single copy we have. How did this escape your notice?

Iasion

Greetings

WHAT wealth of references?
So far we have :

* Cyprian late 3rd C. - does NOT quote the Comma Johanneum at all (he merely adds a trinitarian spin to the passage WITHOUT the Comma. This shows the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim - it shows the Comma was NOT present in his copy else he would have cited it.)

* Priscillian - 4th Century. Yes - he quotes the Comma.

* Eugenias at the Council of Carthage - late 4th Century. The Council documents mention teaching of the Trinity, but does NOT quote the Comma at all. I can find no reference to Eugenias at all.

* Prologue to the Canonical Epistles of the Vulgate - when? by who? Please give a citation.

None of these are 200CE.
WHICH citation do YOU think is from 200CE?


Here are the MSS and references which are MISSING the Comma :

* Every known Greek manuscript except eight very late MSS.

* The Greek fathers

* Clement of Alexandria

* All ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic)

* The Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine)

* the Vulgate as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied AD 541-46]

* the Vulgate codex Amiatinus [copied before AD 716]) or

* the Vulgate as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [9nth century])


So, WITH the Comma, you cited :
* 1 or maybe 2 late references, and 2 false citations.

But WITHOUT the Comma, I cited :
* dozens of references including all the earliest MSS and quotes.

So,
your "wealth of references from 200 AD to 550 AD" turns out to be ONE quote from 4th C. Your claims are refuted by the evidence.


THAT is why the consensus AGAINST the Comma is so solid - because of the evidence.


Iasion

Steven Avery

Hi Spin,

Why do you think I have any responsibility to discuss with you whatever it is you are promulgating .. ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

How did you come to such a conclusion ?
Did I miss your textual theories or explanations ?

That is simply untrue. There is error after error that was fabricated, manufactured through the creation and false embrace of the scribally corrupt alexandrian manuscripts (see my post on "Dating and role in textual transmission of Codexes A, B and Aleph" for a bit more on this).

Combined with the false paradigms of modern textual criticism which considers ultra-corrupt manuscripts as "most reliable" (on the NT) and is geared toward an errant text through the application (abuse) of principles like lectio difficilior and brevior difficilior, principles which for the most part simply are counter-indicated for the Bible text.

The corrupt modern version text is a primary reason why even the definition of 'inerrancy' was changed in the 'evangelical' scholastic circles. The supposed slapdown error of the errancy wiki is only one of dozens. Others are far more consequential.

That is why some of the bitterest and most demanding protectors of the errant manuscripts are folks who have no real belief about the integrity and authorship of the NT anyway (ie. they were all fabricated, they were late, they were forged). By disingenuously embracing the oddball alexandrian manuscripts rather than the historic Bible (which usually is supported by the large majority of extant manuscripts) folks like JW know they have a duckshoot text with which to work.

Very transparent.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Jack the Bodiless

Praxeus, would you mind explaining how any of the following errors resulted from "the creation and false embrace of the alexandrian manuscripts"?

1. Six-day Creation.
2. The Noachian Flood.
3. The solid Firmament dome with stars attached.
4. The failure of the Tyre prophecy.
5. The failure of the Babylon prophecy.
6. The Herod/Quirinius contradiction.

I could go on... but that will do for starters.

Steven Avery

Strawman. First of all all but one of those are Tanach -- while the context of our textual discussion is the NT. The NT is the major battleground here, we even have some of the most active attackers of the Bible here who attack only the NT.

Each one you shared about is its own fascinating discussion.

Actually I learned a bit more about Tyre from the recent TV documentary (how the city-state was truly the island, not at all the mainland, and the pictures of modern Tyre that the Tyre-Tillites like to show is in fact basically irrelevant. Also a lot more about the Alexander the Great seige and its huge significance to his world-wide/regional conquests).

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Jack the Bodiless

Actually, two of those are NT: because OT Firmament-dome cosmology extends into the NT. And you're aware that the Tyre photographs posted are of the island (now a peninsula), right?

But you now seem to have a rather strange (and, in my opinion, difficult to justify) position. The KJV consists of an errant section and a divinely-inspired inerrant section?

But the NT still has its own problems... in every version that exists, apparently.

Sven

:huh: Of course! I've never seen anyone here claiming otherwise - except for the people who defended the prophecy!

:huh: Why? Modern Tyre is in large part on the island!

Anyone reading the prophecy in context clearly sees that it was not meant to refer to Alexander at all.

JoeWallack

JW:
(With clenched teeth ala Seinfeld) Schmuelman!

[Misquote=Stephen]
Originally Posted by JoeWallack
I Am in the process of summarizing the reasons ... Dishonestly...
[/misquote]


JW:
Why is it always "Stephen"? Actually Schmuelman! we have a Pool of debate and lecturing for you to Ponder. The Pondering would be good for you.

Trying to get back on Topic after your Ad Homilies Ad Nazorean I was in the process of discussing Patristic Identification of the Issue of the original ending of "Mark" based on Textual Criticism. I've already identified Eusebius and Jerome as Identifying the Issue and concluding that the Textual evidence indicated 16:8 was Original. As a side comment here, regarding your complaint that they still used a Long Ending, rather than Solve your problem here it just creates a bigger problem. They already indicated they knew the Texts indicated 16:8 was Likely original. So for them to ignore this evidence tells us that their Criteria for Textual selection was not necessarily the Text.

Moving on with Patristic Identification:

Hesychius - Fifth Century

Collection of Difficulties and Solutions, question 52

"For [he appeared] to different women who had run to the tomb, not to the same women, but now to two from among them, and then to the other one who happened to be with them, and then to others, and differently did the Lord appear, to one of which who was weaker, and to another who happened to be more perfect. The Lord measured out his own appearance appropriately. Whence Mark, having gone through in brief the things until the one angel, ceased the word."

Hesychius does not explicitly identify textual variation as an issue but has an implication that he considered the short Ending Original based in part on textual criticism. Also, the context is the General issue of "difficulties" rather than a response to an individual giving Hesychius' evidence more weight.


Victor of Antioch - Late 5th century

From a catena of Victor of Antioch

"But even if the [words]: And having arisen early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, as well as the things that are extant in the following in the gospel according to Mark, do not stand alongside most copies, so that certain ones reckon them to be illegitimate, but we, finding them as in most of those from the accurate copies in accordance with the Palestinian gospel of Mark, have placed them together [with the rest of the gospel] as the truth holds."

Victor Identifies the Ending of "Mark" as an issue and gives the opinion that the Long Ending is Original. He concedes though that in his time most copies of "Mark" had the Short Ending. This matches with the statements of Eusebius and Jerome that most copies in their time also had the short ending. Again, this could help explain why we have relatively few manuscripts before the sixth century, they contained the Short Ending. Note that Victor is the first Father who Identifies the Issue and gives the opinion that the Long Ending is Original. This was the guy who I Originally thought was Verbose of Hyppocritia.


Severus of Antioch - Sixth Century

Severus of Antioch, homily 77

"In the more accurate copies, therefore, the gospel according to Mark has the end until the [statement]: For they were afraid. But in some these things too stand in addition: And having arisen early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons."

Severus Identifies the Ending of "Mark" as an Issue and explicitly Identifies the Short Ending as Likely Original. Note that Severus is also an especially good witness against Victor above as they are both from Antioch.

By the end of the sixth century the Long Ending is completely dominant in manuscripts although a few Patristic commentators still identify the issue or even favor the short ending as Original.

We can summarize the above as follows. Through the fifth century the Patristic evidence indicates that most Manuscripts ended at 16:8 and Christian Textual critics to that time recognized 16:8 as likely Original. This coordinates with the observation that most extant manuscript evidence for this period is 16:8 (surprise). By the end of the sixth century the Ending of "Mark" made a Jew turn down a One God Way path with most Manuscripts having the Long ending.



Joseph

"How wonderful it must be to be so utterly free from the ravages of reason." - The Evil Genius

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