mountainman

While I agree with all you write above, we do not have all the data
at our disposal. We do not have the general description of how he
is taking the "thousands of samples". It is likely, as you say, an
unscientific methodology, but we do not know this until we have
examined it, in English.

I prefer not to make an assessment in methodology until I understand
what the methodology actually is. That there exists an entire spectrum
of methodologies, from the worst to the best, is not in dispute.

I am forced to rely upon an experienced and knowledgable translator
of the Greek to the English whose reputation I may respect as a
translator from Greek into English. Many specialists make light work.
Horses for courses. Each to their own. You get the drift.

jgibson000

So .. how often do you actually check claims about Greek with this translator?

And what, if anything, has this translator said about Torrens' understanding of how Simon is spelled in Greek?

JG

jgibson000

Do we really have to know how scientific or unscientific his "methodology" is to see that it doesn't show what he claims it shows?

And in any case, how "scientific" can it be if, as is plainly the case even without a traslation of his "work", Torrens doesn't know how Simon is spelled in Greek and, as it allows him to claim, as it is certain, even without an English translation of his "work", that he has claimed, that he has "found" "Simon" where it plainly does not occur, even granting that his means of "finding" it, what ever it is, has some merit?

But do you agree or not (1) that the sample of his work you provided us (the image) shows that Torrens doesn't know how Simon is spelled in Greek and (2) that Torrens held up as concrete evidence for, and a demonstration of, the existence in the NT of his purported acrostic something that is not what he claims it is, but is actually something that contradicts his claims and shows he doesn't know what he is talking about?

JG

Ben C Smith

His text of Matthew 1.18-19a reads γεννησις (instead of γενεσις) with the Byzantine group and family 13, but δειγματισαι (instead of παραδειγματισαι) against the Byzantine group and family 13. Miniscule 33 appears from my copy of Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, which uses the Nestle-Aland text, to fit both readings. According to my UBS edition 4, codex L also has γεννησις, and according to the SQE L would also have δειγματισαι, so it too may qualify. (The SQE does not specify L under the first variant.)

I doubt anybody would use either 33 or L to the exclusion of the earlier codices, so the text looks eclectic to me. But my ability to search out these textual variants is fairly limited, so I may be missing a trick or two here.

Ben.

mountainman

When I build up a number of questions to justify a visit,
and this will depend upon my areas of research and how
many greek phrases put their hands up in my travels.

As yet nothing, because it was only yesterday that I revisted
Fernando Torrens' website to learn he had at last placed some
further material there, by which one may learn of his claims
and his methodology.

In this case, however, I would rely on your assessment.
So, thanks for providing it.

mountainman

Well his claims do say "thousands of instances" and he has only
one single sample on display at his website. I am happy to try
and see a few more, in order to determine what method he has
used to identify "thousands of instances".

I would still find it interesting that a consistently mispelt "Simon"
were somehow acrostically embedded - without bias - thousands
of times in the NT.

I agree that it appears that way for (1), however I would like to see a
further few examples of the method for item (2) before passing any
final judgement on the matter. However, if further data is not revealed
that is presently not known to us, in favor of the author's position, I
would be inclined to agree that your assessment is valid.

So again, thanks for it.

mountainman

Thanks for your contribution. I would have liked the author
in such a field of knowledge to be able to provide "the proofs"
openly and freely for ratification by the academic community.
That this is not the case, is disappointing.
Nevertheless, life goes on.

mountainman

Opportunely an email response from the author indicates
that he is using for his sources the papyrus Bormer II,
Bodmer XIV-XV in Ginebra/Geneve France, the papyrus
Chester Beatty from Dublin, part of the codex Bezae, and
3 modern text greek-spanish for reading "apparatus" with
variations.

At the same time, in the email, the author admits that his
"situation is not strong, since most part of the signatures
have been contested and he is looking for a solution".

Therefore, its likely we can cross this off the list of possibilities
for the moment. But thanks for the contribution Ben.

Thomas II

He is saying that for the last 8 years he's been teaching Engineering related
subjects at the University of La Rioja.