Steven Avery

A little added on thought.

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.

One thing about Jeffrey and this verse is that Jeffrey is well aware that the difference in the variants is very substantive. The Christian textcrit scholars who support the alexandrian text and one of another of the pronoun readings often try to paper over the difference as relatively inconsequential. Usually they start with the "He" rather than "which" or "who". And say that the "He" must be God by connecting it backwards. Ergo, no difference.

However it does not connect well as the previous verse only has "house of God" and "the church of the living God". So the argument is based on a dubious double extrapolation, one textual, the other contextual.

So I believe Jeffrey is far more consistent in exegesis when he offers totally different meanings from the text using a pronoun reading, unusual as those interps may be. While I believe his text is wrong, if you use that text you do in fact get a radically different sense of the verse. Whether Jeffrey's emphasis on military-related mystery or some other unusual idea, or an idea that the subject is Jesus without giving direct support to the Deity of Messiah. The first might prefer the actual alexandrian text ('who' or 'which') the second would work with the translation emendation of convenience 'he'.

Shalom,
Steven

mountainman

Rufinus admits having to alter the text of Origen,
because it was not the customary doctrine (of Origen)
being expressed, and the text had obviously been
tampered with by "heretics".

Rufinus quotes a long letter by Origen himself, explaining
for posterities sake, how his writings had been altered
during his own lifetime, by mischievous heretics, so he
documented the modus operandi of the crooks.

See this thread, in which is the text
Rufinus's Epilogue to
Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen
Otherwise
the Book Concerning the Adulteration
of the Works of Origen.
Addressed to Macarius at Pinetum (397 CE)
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169596

Rufinus is correcting ecclesiastical doctrine,
and at the same time translating to Latin.
He freely admits this, and provides a reason.

IMO the problem was that there were certain writings
of Origen and Pamphilus, which were not in accord
to christianity, which Eusebius had not gotten to,
and made the writings the writings of christians.

These (unchristian) writings of Origen (and Pamphilus)
caused problems for the new and strange religion,
and were corrected, as described by Rufinus.



Pete Brown
Authors of Antiquity
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm

jgibson000

Are you saying that you youirself read through the entirety of the writings of the early church fathers and counted up the "references"? If so, did you do this with the Greek and Latin text of the fathers or only English translations of them?

Or are you relying both on what someone else (Scott?) said not only for where the "references" are to be found, but what constitutes a "reference"?

The latter is what your postings on this matter on Fundebate indicate and demonstrate.

See, e.g. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fundebate/message/16251

So are you now denying that you drew your list from someone else's work -- particularly work by a "someone else" who is a staunch KJV "onlyist" -- and that in making assertions about the number of :"eferences" and where they are to be found, you have trusted that person's assertions about what are and are not references?

JG

jgibson000

Ooops my sweet aunt fannie!

Despite what you claim, there are no quotes of 1 Timothy 3:16 in Hippolytus. Nothing in Hippolytus comes as close to the grammar and the wording of 1 Tim 3:16 so as to warrant the claim of being a quotation of that verse.

But if you want to prove me wrong here, then provide for us the actual Greek text of what you claim is/ are the quotation(s) of 1 Tim 3:16 in Hippolytus and place it against the Greek text of the TR reading of 1 Tim 3:16.

What I wager we'll see is that once we have the data in front of us, you'll play fast and loose with the meaning of "quotation" and the syntactical and lexical features that an expression has to have to qualify as a quotation; and then you will ignore or distort or dismiss the evidence in the features in the alleged quotes in Hippolytus that show that the passages you allege as quotes are not so.


Nice selective quotation.

As anyone can see who actually goes to look at what I wrote in that message, the full text of which reads:

Quote:

Re: [bibexegesis] Re: Exegetical implications of the 3 textual variant in I Timothy 3:16 "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote: > > But if you want an exegetical conclusion from the QEOS reading -- how > about the fact that it makes nonsense of the last of the affirmations > in 1 Tim 3:16? Part of the mystery of EUSHBIA that we confess is that > God was raised (presumably by himself) up to glory? > FWIW, apart from 1 Tim 3:16 the aorist passive ANELHMYQH [sic]occurs only 4 other times in the NT -- accepting the longer ending of Mark (at Marc 16.19; Acts 1.2, 22 & Acts 10.16). Never is it used of God. But it is used of Jesus in three of these instances. And in the only time that any Church father quotes this section of 1 Tim 3:16 -- Didymus Caecus in his Commentarii in Psalmos 73.8 -- he tells us that it is Jesus not God who is being raised up. Jeffrey

I was not claiming there what you say I was.

What I was claiming in that message was that Didymus Caecus was the only Church father who quotes the section of 1 Tim 3:16 that reads ANELHMFQN EN DOXA , which is far different claim than the one you falsely (intentionally?) attribute to me as having made there.

So, no. I would not agree now or at any time that I was wrong to claim that Didymus Caecus was the only church writer to quote 1 Timothy 3:16, not only since that is not what I claimed in the message of mine (above) that you selectively quote, but since you have wholly misrepresented what I said in claiming that I did.

And FWIW, I still maintain that Didymus Caecus is the only church father who quotes the section of 1 Tim 3:16 that reads ANELAHMFQN EN DOXA. Not a single one of the fathers you list above ever does. If you can show that I am wrong in this, please do so.

In any case, I noted earlier in another thread that the main reason I did not care to discuss 1 Tim 3:16 with you was that in our previous "discussion" with you on Fundebate and elsewhere on this topic, you constantly

(1) played fast and loose with the idea of what constituted a quotation (and an "allusions") to suit your claims and actually manufactured evidence that isn't there;

(2) kept shifting the burden of proof;

(3) showed yourself totally reliant for your claims upon authors of web pages (like Scott) who were not only extremely biased when it came to matters text critical, but were demonstrably liars and dissemblers, as well as incompetents when it came to assessing both the textual evidence and the text critical scholarship on 1 Tim 3:16.

I also noted that that you

(4) are yourself are Greekless and are therefore incapable of understanding what the text critical evidence is and what it imports;

(5) work not on the basis of evidence, but on a theological apriori which you will never admit can be falsified;

(6) engage over and over again in petitio principii when you argue your case;

(7) cook the evidence that you bring to the table;

(8) have no idea of what a good argument is and how yours often violate the rules of logic; and

(9) ignore, distort, and unduly dismiss any evidence that falsifies your case.

In the message above, as well as all throughout this new thread, you not only have done all of the above again, but give every indication that you will continue to engage in this despicable behaviour.

To continue this exchange only perpetuates and facilitates <edit> your nonsense. So I'm agreeing with spin that you should be left to talk to yourself, even though this doubtless means that you'll feel like -- and go on to crow that -- I've "run away".

But think what you like. And claim what you like. As has been made plain to me both on list and off, no one takes seriously or listens to what you have to say or cares in any way about what you think.


JG

Steven Avery

Thanks, Pete. This is incredibly helpful.

So this would make using the Greek text of Origen translated into Latin through Rufinus for 1 Timothy 3:16 of very limited value. And of virtually no value as an Origen citation. And Jeffrey should acknowledge that his using Origen (quite aggressively) to claim support for hOS 100 years before Nicea was simply a blunder.

Possible exceptions - he could challenge your Rufinus/Origen explanation.

Another possible exception, perhaps Jeffrey can find an Origen quote (eg. there are some other fragments, apparently in Greek) that is -

a) actually matching hOS in the Greek rather than needing emendation
b) not through Rufinus

Otherwise, the original claim..

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fundebate/message/16259
Re: [Fundebate] 1 Timothy 3:16 - God was manifest in the flesh
Origen (d. 254) testifies to hOS more than a century before the earliest

Should simply be withdrawn.

Also, if Jeffrey does have any valid early church writers in the first four centuries who he believes offer strong testimony for a prounoun reading of "who" or "which" (or "he") over Theos, he should offer the names. If he does not, he should agree that he has none.

Granted he could offer Rufinus with emendation using quia passing through Origen through textual mishegas .. but is that it ?

Generally Jeffrey's policy has been not to answer a simple request like this.

Jeffrey .. how about it.. Every early church writer of the fourth four centuries that you will say offer strong evidence as requested.

Shalom,
Steven

Chris Weimer

I'm surprised, Steven, that you are so easily compelled to call this into question. You see, it was Origen, not Rufinus, who was condemned as a heretic, and thus, if we were to expect anything orthodox in Origen via Rufinus, it would surely have been QEOS and not hOS, since the former is the more orthodox of the two. Since we see hOS and not QEOS, then we have no basis for the assumption that Rufinus would have altered QEOS to hOS since that would be contrary to the statement that "mountainman" provided. Simply put, your argument against this one fails devastatingly.

Steven Avery

Jeffrey, did you even read what i said ?

"The irony is that Jeffrey never acknowledges that these quotes from Hippolytus and others strongly mitigate against his "Nicean" claim, even if they were not taken from 1 Timothy 3:16."

The word "quotes" refers to a number of quotes from Hippolytus have been referenced, not that I am saying that Hippolytus "quoted" 1 Timothy 3:16. This is kindergarten reading, Jeffrey, since I actually point out in the sentence that one can say that they were not taken from 1 Timothy 3:16. Readers will vary as to their connection with 1 Timothy 3:16, here are the quotes.

==============================================
Hippolytus (170-236 AD)

Psalm 2 - http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...xegetical.html
On Psalm II
When he came into the world, He was manifested as God and man.

Noetus - http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ogmatical.html
Against Noetus 17:5
"He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body."

Appendix - http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-20.htm
Appendix 1
"Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world."

Appendix 22
For our God sojourned with us in the flesh."

HIPPOLYTUS SUMMARY
Four verses that strongly reflect "God was manifest in the flesh"

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

As to the Greek, we were having the discussion on Fundebate.
The last post was here...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fundebate/message/16279
You are welcome to respond to that post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 What I wager we'll see is that once we have the data in front of us, you'll play fast and loose with the meaning of "quotation" ...

Wow.. this is a humorous morning irony. You even misread my use of the word 'quotation' and then you go into a whole shtick about what the word means. Amazing.

The Didymus unclarity was yours. Further explanation accepted.

Now, I have given many of the references in the four centuries supporting Theos. Where are yours for "who" or "which" or "He". What early church writers are you marshalling to balance the (partial) list above.

Oh, will you acknowledge that the one reference you did give, that I had for awhile on this forum accepted as a reasonable evidence, is really of virtually no evidentiary value (Origen through translation by Rufinus with an unusual reading), especially not your claim of 100 years before Nicea supporting hOS.

Your various reasons why you leave such simple discussions behind are quite transparent.
Your position is full of holes, so you rant and leave the discussion.

Reminds me a bit of the discussions about Vietnam.. Westmoreland..
declare victory and leave.

So readers can note that Jeffrey is cutting yet again, twice now on a sympathetic forum.

Without ever presenting his early church writer evidences,
Without acknowledging the problems in his presentation (eg. Origen)
Without acknowledging the *many* apparatus problems.
Without even acknowledging that there is a wealth of
"God was manifest in the flesh .."
quoting by the times of the early manuscripts.

And without getting into the relationship of his unusual interps which are based on a "who" or "which" reading.

Bye, Jeffrey.

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

Steven Avery

Chris, such arguments as you give are conjectural to the max. 'This fellow would do this if it weren't for that because I think he looked at it this way ...' Generally, not just in your case above, I found such arguments vastly overrated and overstated.

Yet this case is even more special.

The simple issue is that the Origen text we are working with is at least triply unreliable. Origen claimed that copies were not accurate even at his time. Rufinus stated he made changes. And the Latin does not match hOS or any known manuscript.

To try to claim a strong argument for the supposed original version of Origen being a specific reading, while adding your own back-emendation, while travelling through such mishegas, is simply improper, a weak claim at best.

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

Chris Weimer

I fail to see you having anything better on your side, except late manuscripts and a conjecture that Rufinus edited this section, or that Origen's "unreliable" manuscripts were unreliable in this very spot. Pot, meet kettle.

What it does boil down to is what side is most probable. Since you advocate relying on late manuscripts, no early church fathers, and emendation contrary to known principles of textual criticism and logic, and that the trajectory is better explained in by going hOS to QEOS, Rufinus as it stands logically favors hOS to QEOS, and Mathetes to Diognetus also has hOS and not QEOS, I think you're a bit washed up on this one.

Steven Avery

Hi Chris, let us start with your one new reference to an early church writer.

(We will put aside that there is a claim that this section is a later addition to his work. That may easily be a doctrinal-type claim of little substance because of the high Messiahology of Mathetes.)

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf0...tm#P724_135726
http://zarahemla.awardspace.com/texts/mathetes.html
For who that is rightly taught and begotten by the loving Word, would not seek to learn accurately the things which have been clearly shown by the Word to His disciples, to whom the Word being manifested has revealed them... the disciples... acquired a knowledge of the mysteries of the Father? For which reason He sent the Word, that He might be manifested to the world; and He, being despised by the people [of the Jews], was, when preached by the Apostles, believed on by the Gentiles.

Chris, are you saying that this translation is wrong ?
That there is hOS and it should read
"who might be manifested to the world" ?

If there is no error, the subject of the He is clearly "the Father".
This would make Mathetes more an evidence for -
"God was manifest ..."
than
"who was manifest..." or
"which was manifest..."

Please note that Mathetes has a general context of the manifestation of God.

For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them... truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts...send to men .....the very Creator and Fashioner of all things-by whom He made the heavens...As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him ...This does not seem to be the work of man: this is the power of God; these are the evidences of His manifestation.

The whole section is a good read.

Thanks for pointing out the reference Chris.
I plan to add it to my summaries of early references.

Shalom,
Steven Avery