spin

I see. We should take the word of someone who admittedly doesn't know anything about the language issues on this. I don't think you would take such a word.

No. You've made it the linchpin of my "case".

As you seem to understand the notion of "straw man", you'll understand its use here.

The only thing that is foolish is your efforts to avoid your responsibilities.

You won't deal with the issues, you don't know about the languages, you won't learn.


spin

Apikorus

I do understand your point here, praxeus. I reiterate my earlier assessment:

Vis-a-vis the Hebrew Urtext of Isaiah 7, it might be that the Hebrew Vorlage behind the LXX was more or less accurate than the MT. Absent future text discoveries, we can't know which. In addition, since the tense is not uniquely conveyed by the Hebrew text, the real question is to what extent the Greek tenses reflect authentic linguistic exegesis of the Hebrew. As I said in an earlier post, I don't think we can answer this question. Our only recourse is then a contextual exegesis, which, as I've said, I believe supports spin's conclusion that the almah was already pregnant.

The point raised by spin is this (if I understand correctly): if we accept, as experts like Tov, Cross, et al. claim, that the Vaticanus is the LXX text closest to the original Old Greek, with fewer Hexaplaric influences than Alexandrinus etc., then its verb tenses should best represent the linguistic exegesis of the Alexandrian Jewish scribes who first translated the Old Greek, and provide additional information than we can glean from contemporary (with the OG) or even older Hebrew texts from Qumran, since Hebrew verbs are aspectual. This seems to be a perfectly sound argument. However, as I wrote (and quoted myself above), it might have been that the Babylonian, Palestinian, and Alexandrian Jewish communities understood their texts slightly differently -- the texts themselves apparently differed -- and what holds for one tradition might not hold for another.

You insist that early translations of the proto-MT such as the Targumim and the Peshitta might give us a window into that particular text tradition, although you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the text of the Hebrew Bible was pluriform during the late 2nd Temple period, as the DSS show. At any rate, your argument is also sound, although we do have a problem with the Targumim being free and in many cases expansive and paraphrastic translations, and as Dirksen confirms, the Peshitta has an obscure composition and transmission history, and Peshitta mss -- even early ones -- contain numerous variants. Still, even accounting for all that, the Peshitta and the Targumim are not completely worthless for Hebrew Bible text criticism. One must, though, be quite circumspect in their application. Perhaps we will be reading more from Peshitta scholars now that a proper critical edition is underway, but at the moment Propp's description holds valid.

So I invite you once again to produce the Peshitta text and indicate how it supports your case. From what I understand, the Peshitta does not use the future tense in Judg 13:5, which seems to mitigate against your interpretation and in favor of spin. Lamsa's English translation of the Peshitta (which I'd guess is your principal source on the Peshitta) is often inconsistent in its rendering of the Syriac, from what I understand.

There are many Christian posters here who are held in high regard. I personally find Roger Pearse to be outstanding, and a true gentleman as well (though I rarely attend to the NT discussions). Andrew Criddle and "Notsri" are also highly dependable in terms of the quality of their contributions and the integrity of their dialog. The reason you are held in such low esteem is that rather than grappling with the issues, you constantly foul the air with smokescreens and engage in personal attacks. If you want to argue, as I do, that the Vaticanus doesn't necessarily provide reliable linguistic exegesis of the MT text type, that's fine. But to fail to acknowledge the scholarly consensus that the Vaticanus is the LXX ms closest to the OG is foolish and annoying. Experts like Emanuel Tov base their opinions on a detailed knowledge of the entire ms. Harping on some insertion in Psalms hardly invalidates their general conclusions.

Steven Avery

Good to hear. Since it negated spin's contention .. now modified to try to be closer to your ideas of finding the urtext as a viable concern. As a corrector to the Hebrew Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus since the tense is not uniquely conveyed by the Hebrew text, the real question is to what extent the Greek tenses reflect authentic linguistic exegesis of the Hebrew. As I said in an earlier post, I don't think we can answer this question.

And I agree. Making spin's insistence re: Judges 13 on essentially, Greek primacy, or major substantiveness, nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Our only recourse is then a contextual exegesis, which, as I've said, I believe supports spin's conclusion that the almah was already pregnant.

This would be a good discussion, however it cannot be had in a forum where spin is going Vaticanus-haywire.

In fact, Api, this is similar to what happened on Psalm 22 (I went back over the thread, and it had some fine points made on all sides). While you were fairly involved in considering alternative verbal readings spin was wildly denying that as a consideration. Deep-sizing real dialog. However at least there (unlike his belligerance here) spin could have a basis of sorts for his view - but the tone was meant to belittle and demean the actual discussion and study of the verbal readings issue (had between yourself, Notsri, myself, Phlox - good poster, now banned - and maybe one or two others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus [/i][/indent]The point raised by spin is this (if I understand correctly): if we accept, as experts like Tov, Cross, et al. claim, that the Vaticanus is the LXX text closest to the original Old Greek,

Quite dubious as relevant (even if true) since closest in this case can be a horseshoes type of closeness. Nothing can be shown to be close but by some theories Vaticanus may be a little less bad as related to .. something.. the unknown urtext(s).

On top of all the distances, we know about the foreign influences in the text. With Psalms 14 showing clearly that there was no solid textual integrity involved. The absolute worst sort of gross tampering.

It is interesting trying to find the LXX experts even discuss that tampering. When you get a chance you might share what Jobes and Silva, or Tov, says about Romans into Psalms. I did talk to Robert Kraft about it, so I am not asking you to do all the homework .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus with fewer Hexaplaric influences than Alexandrinus

Does that include Aquila influences ? How about the Jewish claim that they messed up the Greek OT translation ? How do we even know that there was an ancient Judges, if only Torah was done as the original LXX ?

The problems are huge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus etc., then its verb tenses should best represent the linguistic exegesis of the Alexandrian Jewish scribes who first translated the Old Greek,

The same scribes who put Romans into Psalms ? Who can tell ? Plus, what great wisdom in linguistic exegesis of the Hebrew would they have that Kimchi, or Api or Peter Kirk does not have ?

Where, why, how .. do you think the Peshitta or Targum or LXX translators would have some real extra insight into the Hebrew grammatical structure ? Can you try at least to answer this question ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus and provide additional information than we can glean from contemporary (with the OG) or even older Hebrew texts from Qumran, since Hebrew verbs are aspectual. This seems to be a perfectly sound argument.

Actually it is abysmally weak, and I have probably just scratched the surface above. It is selectivity upon conjecture upon supposition upon confusion simply to reach a hoped-for pre-ordained conclusion (find some support somewhere for my Hebrew theory). The most tawdry type of pseudo-scholastic junque and if a Christian came up with a similar edifice of nonsense you would (properly) rip it to shreds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus However, as I wrote (and quoted myself above), it might have been that the Babylonian, Palestinian, and Alexandrian Jewish communities understood their texts slightly differently -- the texts themselves apparently differed -- and what holds for one tradition might not hold for another.

That can qualify as about Theory Disaster #10.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus You insist that early translations of the proto-MT such as the Targumim and the Peshitta might give us a window into that particular text tradition, although you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the text of the Hebrew Bible was pluriform during the late 2nd Temple period, as the DSS show.

You must be kidding. Of course I acknowledge that that there were variant texts. And that is why translations that are done from the Masoretic Text tradition are far superior for knowing how the historic Bible was understood. And that would include the Targumim, the Peshitta and the Vulgate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus At any rate, your argument is also sound,

Thank you, Api. I will acknowledge that you tend to look at each issue separately.

I gave a link where a fellow savvy with Aramaic gave his view on the text. However I can't take any of this seriously when the aggressive poster on the thread is still playing the silly game of declaring Vatiancus as supremely important in interpretation because it is "directly derived from the Hebrew". At that point the thread is just a playground, of no seriousness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus ... Lamsa's English translation of the Peshitta (which I'd guess is your principal source on the Peshitta) is often inconsistent in its rendering of the Syriac, from what I understand.

The link I gave above discussed Judges in the Peshitta, and critiqued Lamsa, who (from memory) actually has a present tense throughout Judges 13, missing a future indicator in Judges 13:3.

As for your personal evaluation, that is expected since I expose nonsense like the stuff from spin on this thread and errors of Richard Carrier. Especially spin, whose aggressive stance in defending stupidities like this Vaticanus issue to "prove" Judges 13:5 develops a coterie of skeptic defenders.

I discuss about the abject corruption of Vaticanus (and Sinaticus) frequently with textcrit Christians. They are truly oddball and weird texts, Tanach and NT. Yet this type of corruption has a certain cachet in scholarly circles, more so in the NT world where the whole Bible was attempted to be changed based on the corruption of those two junque manuscripts. You may not know about those issues, understandably, and perhaps you could simply read the Dean John Burgon sections about their scribal condition.

What is amusing is to see the desperate attempts of spin to somehow make it a big issue on Judges 13. I understand that you tried to take it to some level of sensibility, and that is fine. The simple fact remains that it was one of the most absurd claims we have seen.

Spin even went on other threads to redefend how Vaticanus was "directly derived from the Hebrew" rather than simply closing out an embarrassing episode. With such obstinance dialog is well nigh impossible and theories so derived are good only for the trash.

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

spin

Yo A!

I'd recommend that you don't feed him. He's prepared to say anything.

This guy who now disavows the Greek as irrelevant said back in post 68 (responding to my statement ("the Greek is an important witness to the language involved.")

Fair enough. The Greek can be of some relevance.

and later:

The obvious sense you are putting forth is that the Greek is not representing a future action. And you are giving the Greek as a testimony to the meaning of Judges 13. However the Greek (and the Latin) is future tense.

Dig it? He is clueless about the Greek and is prepared to say anything. "[T]he Greek" -- notice he was happy enough to say "the Greek" and now doesn't remember: it's a convenient memory loss -- "is future tense." Good one praxeus. Clueless as ever was praxeus, but at the time his ignorance buoyed him up.

In post 73 speaking to jgibson000, praxeus writes

Spin probably has all the "tools" you desire yet writes as if Judges 13:5 is a present tense in the Greek OT.

Yup, there it is again. He thinks the Greek is not in the present tense.

He's subsequently dropped that because he's been shown to be blatantly wrong and is now amnesiac about it. He tried to use Codex Alexandrinus because he didn't like Vaticanus (eg post #84), but even that he's had to forget about. Instead he is totally hacking out the Greek that has betrayed him.

All the time, he has abandoned any pretense of dealing with either Jdg 13:5 or Isa 7:14. He needs a little focus.


Now A, of the 14 simple uses of HRH in the Hebrew bible, how many of these do you think refer to the act of conceiving and not the state after conception? If HRH is not inceptive in these cases, then can it be used with a future required for a phrase like "she will conceive and bear a son"?


spin

Steven Avery

Api
"It seems to me that the (Greek) versions are of
little help in establishing the implied tense of Isa 7:14."

Now to review why spin's attempt is one of the worst attempts at
methodology manipulation we have seen - attempted to be foisted
upon the unwary, caught and exposed.

The basic issue was fairly simple.
How should Judges 13:5 (and the auxiliary verses) best be translated
.. here is the KJB

Judges 13:3-7
And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman,
and said unto her,
Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not:
but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.
Now therefore beware,
I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink,
and eat not any unclean thing:
For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son;
and no razor shall come on his head:
for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb:
and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
Then the woman came and told her husband, saying,
A man of God came unto me,
and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God,
very terrible:
but I asked him not whence he was,
neither told he me his name:
But he said unto me
Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son;
and now drink no wine nor strong drink,
neither eat any unclean thing:
for the child shall be a Nazarite to God
from the womb to the day of his death.

Now putting aside the tenses that are above, it will clearly take very dynamic grammatical evidence for the angel's words not to be future-referent. However it is possible.

So what would be the sources for primary consideration.

#1 Hebrew grammar in the context of the chapter

and less significant...

#2 External translations and commentaries.

#2 has been our focus (due to the strange claims)
In reality it should be sub-divided -- here are the major players..

a) DSS - nonextant in the chapter
b) Targum - ancient interpretative Aramaic translations
c) Peshitta - early Aramaic translation
d) Greek OT - 4th century manuscripts that have an earlier lineage
e) Latin Vulgate - Fresh Hebrew--> Latin translation 400 AD in Israel
. with Jewish scholarly assistance to Jerome
f) Talmud & Midrash - ancient Hebraic understanding in first millennium
g) Rabbinics + - various commentary, Kimchi grammar & Masorah
h) Christian Translation - King James Bible & Geneva & commentary
i) Jewish Translation - Modern Jewish translations

Now, to avoid a big brouhaha we remove "g".
(those translations were from an age of 'Christian Hebraism").

So we have seven major categories left.

And if the seven speak in a clear, unified voice they would surely
have some weight, at least for consideration.

An honest appraisal would generally consider all seven fairly evenly,
although some might take the three Jewish/Hebraic viewpoints the
highest. In my view, the one that deserves the least weight is the
Greek (even if not split) however appraisals will vary. All seven have
some significance.

Generally these seven are weighed toward the future tense, although it would take some effort to fully determine the breakdown. (There may not be any Talmud & Midrash of significance, so there may be only six.)

All that would be the beginnings of a sound methodology.

And will answer spin's little question above
.. why we can consider the Greek of "some relevance".

(Somehow he thinks that justifies all his shenanigans.)

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

Then in contrast we have the -

Spin Methodology of Manipulation

Make the bulls-eye first, then look for an arrow that comes near.

a) We need Judges 13 to be present tense
b) We have a theory to have the Hebrew as present tense
c) We need evidence for same outside the Hebrew
d) We find that in "the Greek" (d) (without realizing "the Greek" is itself split)
e) Trumpet "the Greek" as the KEY external evidence
f) Insist on this belligerently and aggressively.
g) When shown to be fallacious, attack the messenger and
h) Make outrageously stupid assertions, like Codex Vaticanus is "directly derived from the Hebrew" and "translated from the Hebrew"
h) Rail and rant when the lack of balance and sense of the approach is brought to the forum.
i) Be sure to never acknowledge even the most blatant blunders, like the quotes above.

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

So.. choose ..

An honest & sensible methodology, as explained above,

or

The methodology of manipulation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

One has to catch praxeus on the right day:

One day he'll say that the Greek in Jdg 13:5 [echei] is the future tense and another he'll learn to stay silent.

One day he'll talk about the Greek and another he'll conveniently forget that he did.

One day he'll say the Greek "can be of some relevance" and another he'll go into denial about using the Greek.

One day he'll use the Codex Alexandrinus to defend his misunderstanding of the text and another he'll forget all about it because the Greek is a naughty text.

Which day, if either, do you trust praxeus?

He doesn't know anything about the languages involved, but still he knows what the Hebrew text means. Miraculous, isn't it? You can go to bed safe, now knowing that miracles do in fact happen.

The methodology policeman gives you a choice:

So.. choose ..

An honest & sensible methodology, as explained above,

or

The methodology of manipulation.



What have we learnt about the text from praxeus? Well, umm, ya know, it's like this, we learn nothing at all from him. It's like getting sense from a stone.


spin

Apikorus

This was discussed at length in this thread.

Here is the thread. You ran from it and never delivered on your promise to provide linguistic support for the reading "pierced" in Ps 22:17c.

Here are Jobes and Silva again:

Pride of place must be given to Codex Vaticanus (B), a fourth-century manuscript of exceptionally high quality. For most books of the Old Testament, this codex preserves a text relatively free from Hexaplaric influence...

Here's Tov:

B (Cod. Vat. Gr. 1209, indicated as "Vaticanus") dates from the fourth century. Codex B is the best complete manuscript of G, and therefore several editions are based on it. It is relatively free of corruptions and influences from the revisions of G...

No, because Romans wasn't around when the OG was written, obviously. Again, scholars (see above) say that B is relatively free of corruptions. That doesn't mean it is absolutely pristine, just relatively so. So your harping on about some corruption in Psalms isn't worth much.

This seems to be the opinion of unimpeachable experts like Tov, who say that largely the Vaticanus is closest to the Old Greek, whose Hebrew Vorlage was represented by texts like 4QExod^a.

But isn't it true that the Syriac itself doesn't use the future tense in Judg 13:5?

The state of the Vaticanus in the NT may have little or nothing in common with the state of the Vaticanus in the OT. Its sources may have been different.

My personal view is that the the conception and pregnancy are either in the future or in the very recent past in Judg 13:3-5, based largely on context. In verse 4 the angel warns Manoah's wife not to drink alcohol and not to eat impure foods. I think this warning makes most sense at or before the start of her pregnancy. Manoah's words in 13:8 suggest to me that his wife might already be pregnant. In fact, one might think that the pregnancy is what provoked the initial visit from the angel.

Finally, I think spin makes a valid point with regard to the Greek in Judges 13. You don't have to buy his argument, of course, but it is foolish for you to ridicule him, since he has language skills you lack.

Steven Avery

The fascinating difference is when I made that error, I was not silent.
I made a clear and direct and quick correction and apology.
Oh.. spin "forgets" to mention that .

When spin made that blunder, in contrast, he went haywire with blunder upon blunder as cover stories such as:
"Vaticanus .. is directly derived from the Hebrew"

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin One day he'll talk about the Greek and another he'll conveniently forget that he did.

Not at all.
Same sentence, remembered but long ago corrected.
Oh.. spin "forgets" to mention that again ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin One day he'll say the Greek "can be of some relevance" and another he'll go into denial about using the Greek.

More dogma <edit> for the forum from spin.

Above I clearly show that the Greek "can be of some relevance". And quite competently I show precisely how relevant. Something that spin 'omitted' .

When unsplit "the Greek" could be a small part of seven units that combined are a moderate secondary evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin One day he'll use the Codex Alexandrinus to defend his misunderstanding of the text and another he'll forget all about it because the Greek is a naughty text.

Spin is funny. Again he tries to bring forth the same long corrected single time error. I will thank him because it gives the forum a great example of the forum CPII..

"Comparitive Posting Integrity Index"

And of course Alexandrinus does essentially destroy any attempt to use "the Greek" since "the Greek" is divided. Even at most an undivided Greek would be of some relevance as a rather minor evidence. Oh, notice how spin 'forgot' to actually address the analysis of the external evidences. That was in fact one of the 'missing links' in the thread .. till yesterday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Which day, if either, do you trust praxeus?

Good question for the forum.

Do you trust somebody who corrects an error, quickly and clearly, without reservation and with an apology ?

And .. do you trust someone who denies and compounds his errors with blunder after blunder ? (spin in this thread). Painfully. And then comes up with very pitiful attempts like this attempted smokescreen post.

And after the underlying problem, the ..

Methodology of Manipulation

has been carefully exposed,
can anything that spin writes be trusted ?

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

PS.
The correction post is ..
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...9&postcount=84
The error was made on the previous day.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...1&postcount=68
"In the midst of exposing the spin-error (whether ignorance or deception on his part) I made a similar error in reverse.
"Without saying that the Greek translates as a future tense
eg. "will be pregnant" ? or "shalt conceive" .
For which I accept correction and apologize.

Truly the above post is a good indicator of how desperate is spin to not acknowledge the methodology manipulation, and the various blunders in the thread. In the big exegesis/grammatical picture the methodology of manipulation of course is the more significant. However all issues of integrity posting, and proper acknowledgment of errors, and smokescreen attempts should be of primary concern to forum readers.

jgibson000

You did? I apparently missed it. Could you point me to where this was done.

And an even bigger question: Why did you make the error in the first place, and persist in making it as long as you did?
As you do in not mentioning how long you persisted in your error and kept insisting, until I stepped in, that you were right.

How can you be competent (let alone "quite competent) in matters Greek when, as you've admitted, you don't know Greek?

Who is this person?

Moreover, shouldn't the question be: Why should we trust someone who makes the kinds and numbers of errors (especially about texts and languages) that you do (and with some frequency), even if he (but only after much prodding) admits that he was wrong?


JG

Steven Avery

I will look more at the earlier threads as time allows, although I enjoyed going over about 10 pages of two threads the other day.

However I know that I have a conviction not to make 'promises'. So perhaps you could quote me more accurately first ?

I would like to wait on any more detail on Syriac and Greek manuscripts and other sources that are being compared to each other and the Hebrew until you answer the following ...

Would you agree that my seven-fold group of external evidences for examination is a reasonable construct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus No, because Romans wasn't around when the OG was written, obviously. Again, scholars (see above) say that B is relatively free of corruptions. That doesn't mean it is absolutely pristine, just relatively so. So your harping on about some corruption in Psalms isn't worth much.

Remember you had been claiming Vaticanus "pristine" .. that is your word, more qualifications are being added now.

Also many times you talk about the fine skills of the ancient Jewish translators.

Without commenting on the:
a) tradition that the Jews claim to have placed in deliberate error
b) Aquila question - could his text have influenced the Vaticanus
c) missing proof, or even strong evidence, that Judges was in fact even translated early, ie. close to the 200 BC period. And if not, when.

I asked specificaly on Aquila whether that was considered a Hexaplaric influence, since his text was in the Hexpla, or whether Hexaplaric influence refers to the new text by Origen.

The Psalms tampering is the grossest and basest sort of manipulation of the text. I would add, eg. your five extra names in the Penteteuch as being quite possibly a similar 'Christian/alexandrian' textual fabrication. The Psalms tampering is not alone but it is unique in how transparent and ugly it is .. even more so in an ornate, supposedly scholarly, work.

This gross tampring corruption is largely bypassed in LXX scholarly circles - imho precisely because it undermines basic theories. (LXX scholars tend to be those who would augment or replace the Masoretic Text with the Greek OT). So, Api, per my request .. why not look for how much mention that Silva and Jobe and Tov give to this gross and blatant NT-->Psalms multi-verse tampering addition ? At least just check the index, s'il vous plait, and give an indication of how much attention it gets. No one can pretend that such a tampering should not be a major player in Greek OT analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus My personal view is that the the conception and pregnancy are either in the future or in the very recent past in Judg 13:3-5, based largely on context

That is a sensible stance. And a repudiation of the strident spin claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus In verse 4 the angel warns Manoah's wife not to drink alcohol and not to eat impure foods. I think this warning makes most sense at or before the start of her pregnancy. Manoah's words in 13:8 suggest to me that his wife might already be pregnant. In fact, one might think that the pregnancy is what provoked the initial visit from the angel.

Overall a minority view, based eg. on Jewish translations that hold otherwise. Albeit defendable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Finally, I think spin makes a valid point with regard to the Greek in Judges 13.

He expresses them aggressively and arrogantly, followed up the multiple blunders.

And even you don't buy what he is selling, even while you are trying to give him cover, to find some justification for his methodology of manipulation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus You don't have to buy his argument, of course, but it is foolish for you to ridicule him, since he has language skills you lack.

None of which had any relevance to his methodology of manipulation or his documented blunders.

The fact that Tules Nesser Sari and others didn't speak up to demolish his phoney argumentation, the methodology of manipulation, is a problem on this forum. If I am the only one willing to speak the truth and thereby will be insulted by spin, I will gladly look for my efforts to be rewarded in far higher and more regal realms.

Shalom,
Steven Avery