jgibson000

If not responding to questions posed can only be taken, as you seem to think this should be, as a mark of a weak case or a sign that a poster doesn't know what he or she is talking about, what shall we conclude from your silence in the face of the many questions put to you here and in other forums?

The right kind.

Leaving aside the obvious questions of "so what?" and "did Mischa Hooker consult" Origen interpretatio Latina", let me note that as far as I can recall, I have had no message from Mischa Hooker, let alone the one you mention. But since you seem to be privy to his words on the matter, perhaps you'd care to send them on to us so that I and the rest of us here can see what he had to say to me.

And by the way, it isn't in a homily on Luke in which the Origen quote is found. As is clear in the material from Tischendorf that I suppiled, it's in his Iobum homiliae. Obviously, your Latin is as good as your Greek and Hebrew.

Why should I have, since I don't recall seeing it and it doesn't appear to be an accurate or well informed caveat, let alone a major one.

Yes, so you wouldn't miss it, like you missed the reference to Origen's Homily on Job.

Um ... what is cryptic about it? And, ignoring the question of whether I knew about this reference having been questiond, what you say above regarding where your author looked and what he looked at brings into grave doubt your claim that the reference was legitimately questioned.

do you mean "skewed"?

How is it the Epipahnius quote skewed or the apparatus flawed, especially when one looks at Adversus Haer. 3:322 in context?

to wit:

Haer 3.322.1 to Haer 3.323.
3.322 "a(/gioj a(/gioj a(/gioj ku/rioj Sabaw/q". e)a\n de\ a)kou/svj o(/ti "tv= deci#= tou= qeou= u(ywqei\j th/n te e)paggeli/an tou= pneu/matoj labw\n para\ tou= patro\j" h)\ "perime/nein th\n e)paggeli/an tou= patro\j h(\n h)kou/sate": h)\ o(/ti "to\ pneu=ma au)to\n e)kba/llei ei)j th\n e)/rhmon", h)\ o(/ti au)to\j le/gei "mh\ merimnh/shte ti/ ei)/phte, o(/ti to\ pneu=ma tou= patro/j mou to\ lalou=n e)n u(mi=n", h)\ "ei) de\ e)n pneu/mati qeou= e)kba/llw ta\ daimo/nia", h)\ "o( de\ blasfhmw=n ei)j to\ pneu=ma to\ a(/gion ou)k a)feqh/setai au)t%=" kai\ ta\ e(ch=j, h)\ "pa/ter, ei)j xei=ra/j sou paraqh/somai to\ pneu=ma/ mou", h)\ "to\ paidi/on hu)/cane kai\ e)krataiou=to t%= pneu/mati", h)\ ")Ihsou=j de\ plh/rhj pneu/matoj a(gi/ou u(pe/streyen a)po\ tou= )Iorda/nou" h)\ "u(pe/streyen )Ihsou=j tv= duna/mei tou= pneu/matoj" h)\ "to\ gegennhme/non e)k tou= pneu/matoj pneu=ma/ e)stin", o(/moion t%= ei)pei=n"o(\ ge/gonen e)n au)t%= zwh\ h)=n" h)\ "ka)gw\ parakale/sw to\n pate/ra kai\ a)/llon para/klhton dw/sei u(mi=n, to\ pneu=ma th=j a)lhqei/aj" h)\ "dia\ ti/ e)plh/rwse th\n kardi/an sou o( Satana=j t%= )Anani/# Pe/trojk yeu/sasqai/ se to\ pneu=ma to\ a(/gion;" kai\ meta\ tau=ta "ou)k a)nqrw/poij e)yeu/sw, a)lla\ qe%=". a)/ra qeo\j e)k qeou= kai\ qeo\j to\ pneu=ma to\ a(/gion, %(= e)yeu/santo oi( tou= timh/-matoj tou= xwri/ou nosfisa/menoi, h)\ "qeo\j e)fanerw/qh e)n sarki/, e)dikaiw/qh e)n pneu/mati". tou/tou mei=zon ou)k e)/xw le/gein. qeo\j de\ o( ui(o/j: "e)c w(=n fhsi/nk o( Xristo\j to\ kata\ sa/rka, o( w)\n e)pi\ pa/ntwn qeo/j". "pi/steuson fhsi/nk ei)j to\n ku/rion )Ihsou=n, kai\ swqh/sv", kai\ "e)la/lhse fhsi/nk au)toi=j to\n lo/gon tou= kuri/ou", "a)nagagw/n te au)tou\j ei)j to\n oi)=kon pare/-qhken au)toi=j tra/pezan, kai\ h)gallia/sato panoiki\ pepisteukw\j t%= qe%=", h)\ o(/ti "e)n a)rxv= h)=n o( lo/goj, kai\ o( lo/goj h)=n pro\j to\n qeo/n, kai\ qeo\j h)=n o( lo/goj", h)\ "i(/na th\n didaskali/an tou= swth=roj h(mw=n qeou= kosmh/swsin", h)\ "e)pefa/nh ga\r h( xa/rij tou= qeou= kai\ swth=roj pa=sin a)nqrw/poij, paideu/ ousa h(ma=j", h)\ "prosdexo/menoi th\n makari/an e)lpi/da kai\ e)pifa/neian

3.323 th=j do/chj tou= mega/lou qeou= kai\ swth=roj h(mw=n )Ihsou= Xristou=". h( de\ au)th\ h( diakoni/a tou= pneu/matoj kai\ tou= lo/gou: "prose/xete fhsi/nk e(autoi=j kai\ panti\ t%= poimni/%, e)n %(= u(ma=j e)/qeto to\ pneu=ma to\ a(/gion e)pisko/poujpoimai/nein th\n e)kklhsi/an tou= qeou=", o(/moion t%= ei)pei=n "xa/rin e)/xw t%=e)ndunamw/santi/ me Xrist%= )Ihsou= t%= kuri/% h(mw=n, o(/ti pisto/n me h(gh/sato
qe/menoj ei)j diakoni/an".

And how can you ignore mentioning that I showed in the funbdebate "dialogue" that your claim about the Epiphanius text ignored all of the data in Epiphanius Haer.?

So where are they?

Could be called? Hippolytus either is or isn't. Which is it? If it is the former, why? What exactly does he say?

Where in Pseudo Dionysus is there a explicit and unquestionable citation of 1 Tim 3:16? Please give the refernce and the wording of this puprported citation..

Where in the AC does a citation of 1 Tim. 3:16 appear and what exactly is its wording?

Name them, please, and give exact dates for them, and please show us how, by giving us their context, that these "citations" are of 1 Tim 1:3:16 and not commentaries upon Jn 1:14.

And please give the dates for the earliest MSS that have the non TEOS reading of 1 Tim 3:16.


Your refusal to answer these specific questions will legitimately be taken to mean that you are stonewalling and that your case for your claims is weak.

JG

Chris Weimer

Praxeus, Jeffrey,

I'll be seeing Mischa Hooker tomorrow, actually. I'll be sure to ask him after class.

Chris

mountainman

I do not have my research concerning the detailed substance
of Sir Isaac Newton's problems with 1 Tim 3:16 scheduled until
early 2007, so you'll have to wait until then, or do it yourself,
in which case a secondary reference (provided) may be useful.



No.




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

Steven Avery

Please, Jeffrey. Apples and oranges.

a) You made the references.
b) You were asked to support more than a year ago. Multiple times.
c) You left the forum.
d) You hid or lost some actual information.
e) Now you are posting misinformation and non-information (eg. Jerome)

That is the nature of the question at hand.

It is a trick on these forums of many to simply throw out a barrage of questions while offering little of substance. And then claim "you didn't answer every question".

You do diversionary questioning very well, Jeffrey.
Even in this post you come up with a new one.

That is not what happened here. You made a specific claim and left the forum when the request was made to support your references. And you still have not responded on Jerome. Not even to say "I dunno".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Leaving aside the obvious questions of "so what?" and "did Mischa Hooker consult" Origen interpretatio Latina", let me note that as far as I can recall, I have had no message from Mischa Hooker, let alone the one you mention. But since you seem to be privy to his words on the matter, perhaps you'd care to send them on to us so that I and the rest of us here can see what he had to say to me.

Sure. It is amazing that you have forgotten your own attempts to confirm references that you are now reposting.

http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/m...05/03/0037.php
Re: texts from Latin Origen (3/18/05)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 it isn't in a homily on Luke in which the Origen quote is found. ... it's in his Iobum homiliae.

Thanks for the correction. Now, did you find the Job homily to actually check? Clearly you were concerned about the quotes and there is a concern for difficulties. Now it can still be evidence if you don't go to the primary source but you could better acknowledge that you made such attempts and they were not successful. A year-plus late, but better than nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Why should I have, since I don't recall seeing it and it doesn't appear to be an accurate or well informed caveat, let alone a major one.

You were the one who was looking for the actual primary source references. And a good part of the Fundebate discussion in general had been about the accuracy and completeness of the standard apparatus with various examples being given of errors. So for you to simply quote in bold the Matthew reference even after your own research raised questions shows a very strange sense of scholarship. If you want to plead bad memory and sloppiness, fine, then we go on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 How is it the Epipahnius quote skewed or the apparatus flawed, especially when one looks at Adversus Haer. 3:322 in context?

Oh please, Jeffrey. it is obvious your 'context' is simply an attempt to divert from the clear QEOS reference. Even you defacto acknowledged that Epiphanius is a mixed witness.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fundebate/message/16297
kai meta tauta "ouk anqrwpois eyeusw, alla qew. ara qeos ek qeou kai qeos to pneuma to agion, eyeusanto oi tou timhmatos tou xwriou nosfisamenoi, h "qeos efanerwqh en sarki, edikaiwqh en pneumati". toutou meizon ouk exw legein. qeos de o uios:

The first text, explicitly identified as something said to Timothy, has hOS, not QEOS. The second has QEOS, but then goes on to clarify that this is God the SON that is being spoken of.

Jeffrey this is the height of diversion. A non-sequitur. The question is what did the text say, not how was it interpreted. If Epiphanius is referring to Wisdom, or the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, or a family of God, this would not change the evidence of the actual words, which is the discussion.

Here is a summary of the Epiphanius references.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fundebate/message/16297
EPIPHANIUS - CITATIONS

In review, the facts are simple.
a) Ephiphanius is a mixed witness giving evidence for both readings
b) Your apparatus only gives one side
c) That is a skewed reference.
d) Scott Jones pointed out the error.
e) You amazingly refuse to acknowledge that the UBS apparatus is flawed

You want to divert and make Scott Jones the topic. If Scott did not realize or state that the evidence was mixed .. that is fine to point out. However it does not change (a-e) at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 And how can you ignore mentioning that I showed in the funbdebate "dialogue" that your claim about the Epiphanius text ignored all of the data in Epiphanius?

My posts are clear. Epiphanius is a mixed witness. The NA/UBS apparatus is wrong to give him as one side. That is the critical issue. And apparently Scott Jones is the only one who has pointed out the apparatus error on the web.

The fact that the original claim from Scott did not realize (or realized and did not state) the evidence is mixed rather than all-Theos has already been acknowledged in the Fundebate thread. I have agreed that Scott's article could be improved and have made efforts to contact him, unsuccessful as yet.

It doesn't mitigate at all your blunder of simply reposting the Tischendorf error here picked up by the UBS apparatus. You should try to keep up with the actual dialog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 So where are they?

See the post above. Job, it would be good if Tischendorf is verified. Possibly Romans. The strongest possibilities so far. Although it is very helpful to see the exact words used in the context of the conversation. What was written before the quote can be important in understanding the use of a pronoun. Sometimes a pronoun is a simple substitution to avoid immediate redundancy in which case its evidentiary value is reduced. And on the Romans quote you have the difficulty that the Latin word does not match the desired Greek. Looking at every Origen quote would be the best way to view the evidences. I do not know if anybody has ever done that and published the results.

So we do have evidence. Enough to include Origen as one of the early writers against "God was manifest in the flesh...". A year and more after your original claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Could be called? Hippolytus either is or isn't. Which is it? If it is the former, why? What exactly does he say?

Please Jeffrey. You know that a lot of early writers references are debatable, ranging from allusion to direct citation quoting with names and books. The ecatena sight reflects this very well. And that the earlier the centuries, the more debate.

I already gave the link with the four Hippolytus references.

Here was my summary on Fundebate.

================================================== ===========
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"

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Where in Pseudo Dionysus is there a explicit and unquestionable citation of 1 Tim 3:16?

When did that become the evidentiary standard ? Earlier you referenced 'testimony' as the issue. Please. Consistency.

This was on the earlier link.

"For God was manifest in the flesh, made of woman, born out of God the Father, out of the womb before the morning star." Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD), Concilia, i. 853a

Scott Jones -
quotes this passage in Greek WORD FOR WORD, inserting only the copula “gar.” (Concilia i. 858a)

It is clear that pseudo-Dionysius is a 'testimony' for the Theos reading.
Please don't move the goalposts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Where in the AC does a citation of 1 Tim. 3:16 appear and what exactly is its wording?

Apostolic Constitutions - (4th century, earlier tradition),
http://www.piney.com/DocAposConstitu2.html
http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefait...postolic09.cfm
Thou, O God, who art powerful, faithful, and true, and without deceit in thy promises; who didst send upon earth Jesus thy Christ to live with men, as a man, when he was God the Word, and man, to take away error by the roots: . . . “Hosanna to the Son of David. Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord” �*God the Lord, who was manifested to us in the flesh.
Apostolical Constitutions. Book 7.Section XXVI

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Name them, please, and give exact dates for them,

Thats a dumb request. I already said that some of these writings have disagreements on dates. That was part of the discussion. And that the Apostolic Constitutions is considered a compilation of earlier writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 and please show us how, by giving us their context, that these "citations" are of 1 Tim 1:3:16 and not commentaries upon Jn 1:14.

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.

When you have a phrase like "God was manifest ..." it is simple logic that 1 Timothy 3:16 is far more likely in view rather than John 1:14 (or both could be in view). Like the Apostolic Constitutions ..
"God the Lord, who was manifested to us in the flesh"

However if you feel that is not the case on a particular example, it would be worthwhile to look at. Share away.

Jeffrey, have you done the exercise you request above for every non-Theos reference you have posted ? Can we see the results ? If not, then the request is biased and diversionary out of the box, not meant as real scholarship, but simply Jeffrey-argumentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 And please give the dates for the earliest MSS that have the non TEOS reading of 1 Tim 3:16.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are generally dated to mid-to-late 4th century. If there are earlier, share away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Your refusal to answer these specific questions will legitimately be taken to mean that you are stonewalling and that your case for your claims is weak.

Jeffrey, your ability to try to put out the idea that I am 'stonewalling' on references already given is quite humorous.

Politics could be your middle name.

And your ability to come with secondary-at-best essay challenges that you do not apply to your own evidences shows that consistent argumentation and level playing fields are not part of your discussion repetoire.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus Here was your original Origen 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 Patristic citation of QEOS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 You are putting words in my mouth.

Amazing. How am I "putting words in your mouth" when I give the exact and full quote ?

And that was your last quote about Origen and 1 Timothy 3:16 until this thread more than a year later.

Very strange.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 it's not evidence I'm asking you to counter. It's my claim.

You specifically asked for counter-evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 In any case, you would counter it -- my claim -- by showing either (a) that there is no qoutaion (sic) of 1 Tim 3:16 in Origen or (b) what quetes (sic) there are do not use hOS.

On (b) I gave multiple examples of evidences, testimonies for the QEOS reading in the same time period. You can move goal posts all you want. At this point folks can simply read and leave it at that.

And I agreed that the evidence for Origen on (a) is decent. He will be included on the negative-side of any presentation I make of the comparative evidences.

You still have not responded on Jerome.

Oh, don't ferget that there were other big problems in your presentation already documented. Such as Theodoret and Cyril and Liberatus of Carthage.

The discussion at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fundebate/message/16263
Re: 1 Timothy 3:16 - God was manifest in the flesh

Your response was to say something about the Greek of Theodore and Cyril and the Latin text of Liberatus' Breviarium. You want me to translate the Latin and Greek. Yet I see no need to have that done unless a legitimate concern has been raised as to the English translation. (That sometimes does occur, as in a recent discussion of 'dudum' in the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles in the Vulgate.)

So perhaps you claim that the quotes in English are wrong or something. Yet you have shared nothing specific - you just skedaddled instead.

Why not simply handle the discussion properly and share any objection you have to the citation documentation given, if you in fact have any. To harumph the way you do (give me the Latin and Greek or I won't respond) may fly on some forums, including the ones that you moderate and control, but here it just looks petty as if you are hiding from open examination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 But in the thread started by you on Fudebate, you were the one who made the claim that there was "lots of nice evidence for "God was manifest" before and contemporaneous to the first manuscript evidence against. There is virtually no ECW evidence against at any time."

And after that I agreed that there is *some* referencing. My last phrase was an overstatement and correction is accepted, with thanks for the counterpoint. And my apologies for not saying so specifically and clearly earlier.

The corrected statement would be ..

"lots of nice evidence for "God was manifest" before and contemporaneous to the first manuscript evidence against. "God was manifest.." is far better attested in the ECW than the various alternatives."

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Chris Weimer

I just spoke with Mischa Hooker minutes ago, and he said though he'll have to re-look up what he was talking about, he does not in any way support Praxeus' conclusions. More to come soon.

Steven Avery

Chris please -

What did you tell Mischa were my "conclusions" ?

And how were those "conclusions" germane to the actual discussion of what Mischa wrote about and I referenced ?

Did I ever use Mischa as a reference for my overall views on 1 Timothy 3:16 ?
Or simply as a reference on some detail points of apparatus accuracy.

btw, he seems like a very competent Professor, based on web stuff.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Chris Weimer

I printed out and gave him this entire thread. It is actually rather obvious what your "conclusions" are.

I think you misunderstand what he wrote. He's going to review what he wrote and get back to me.

This *is* hilarious.

Indeed.

mountainman

If by chance anyone has already assimilated the written material
prepared by Isaac Newton, in regard to 1 Tim 3:16, or have
access to JSTOR (which I dont) in which there are a number
of artilces related to this issue, could they post some assessment
or summary assessment.

Has this been discussed here before? Toto?

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Steven Avery

In summary ...

Mischa gives a decent reference for Romans with his opinion agreeing with Tischendorf, a reference from Contra Celsum that he mentions without comment either way, and he mentions a couple of references from Biblia Patristics that did not show up on his checking.

Is there anything unclear on that ?

My main interest would be about the reference given from Tischendorf from Matthew and similarly one from Luke -- can we determine why they did not show up.

Also there are a few totally unchecked citations. It would be very good to check those to help on a final Origin evidentiary conlusion.

By your comments you seemed to misunderstand my referencing Misha's letter. My conclusions about 1 Timothy 3:16 are only very mildly influenced by anything having to do with the Origen references. That is one sub-component of about 20 or more early church writers to review. Is it a significant reference but one you would tend to expect to be alexandrian.

Shalom,
Steven