Steven Avery

So spin's defense of Vaticanus as "the Greek" phrase:

"Vaticanus .. is directly derived from the Hebrew"

is in fact inoperative. Your only evidence for this claim of derivation
is that Vaticanus fits your theory of a present tense pregnancy in
the one verse at issue.

Hmmmm.
Talk about circular illogic.

Folks should note how casually spin throws around a phrase like the
above, without a scintilla of real evidence, and without even taking
the proper path, when it is highlighted, of saying ..

"I was wrong .. there is no evidence that -

Vaticanus is directly derived from the Hebrew.

And in that one verse at issue my only 'evidence' is that it fits
my grammatical schema, there is no tangible textual or historical
or manuscript transmission evidence that I offer."

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin which is the only issue regarding Vaticanus that I have attempted to handle with you.

Really ?
Weren't you claiming that Vaticanus qualifies as "the Greek" ?
What happenned ? So soon you forget ?

Look at the context of the very place where spin used the phrase,
the context was the supposed overall superiority of Vaticanus !

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin the Codex Alexandrinus .. is a doctored text and you use it, hoping that it has been doctored in your favor, but hoping in vain, as I have shown that the Vaticanus, which is the preferred text of Rahlfs, is directly derived from the Hebrew and not simply touched up. But the later text, known to have been doctored, supports your reading.

Error begets error.
Error plus pride begets arrogance.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

While noting in amazement the spinning and dodging and weaving,
it is good to remember the underlying issue, spin's going to go to "the Greek" for the defense of his view of the Hebrew of Judges 3:5. The purpose of the amazing (a) was the simply false (b) all for the defense of his claim of (c) :

a) "Vaticanus derived from Hebrew" -->
b) Vaticanus is "the Greek" -->
c) "the Greek" supports the present tense understanding of the Hebrew

I cannot think of a more classic case of "error begets error" -

C is wrong.
The attempt to defend c begat b,
The attempt to defend b begat a.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Oh the irony!

spin

Doh! Obviously. It is a translation of the Hebrew after all.

Obviously. I don't see any reason to support a younger text over an older one, especially a younger one which has been doctored.

Obviously. HRH is the state of the woman at the time of deictic reference, the time of the speaking, hence in the Greek it's present.

Fortunately, you don't have to listen to yourself.

You can't even comment meaningfully. You don't know anything about the languages.


spin

spin

Yo, A!
Hey, useful quote ... oh, but not useful enough: it doesn't fit the necessary a priori value system ... how could Codex Vaticanus be of "exceptionally high quality", when it doesn't feature the original future tense?


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,
It is interesting to see that spin even now defends three blunders !
And adds a new one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Doh! Obviously. It is a translation of the Hebrew after all. Obviously.

Hmmm..
Spin is now claiming that Vaticanus is
"a translation of the Hebrew?" !!!!

A classic.
How wrong and unscholarly can you get ?
Error begets error begets error. Amazing.

Oh, note, Spin originally gave us
"directly derived from the Hebrew." (not just 'derived').
Making TWO gross blunders on the very same topic.

And AFTER he corrects the two blunders (don't hold your breath please),
spin still has the problem that every Greek text is "indirectly derived" from
the Hebrew, making such an assertion of no import in comparing one Greek
manuscript to another. Spin was just deceiving in the original assertion,
since Alexandrinus would be similarly derived, based on his own new
explanation. There was a long Greek textual transmission process involved
in both, I know of no evidence that either manuscript was done with
direct recourse to the Hebrew, despite the spin blunderama above.

Actually there are two ancient texts that are directly derived from the
Hebrew, the Latin Vulgate and the Aramaic Peshitta. They would actually
be directly relevant to spin's claims. And he would use them, if they
matched his theories. If they don't however, then by spin-logic they
are "doctored".

Rarely do you get 'scholarship' this bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin I don't see any reason to support a younger text over an older one, especially a younger one which has been doctored. Obviously.

Spin's evidence for the "doctoring" is the actual verse Judges 3:5, simply
because it doesn't fit into his original theory ! (Offered when he was
apparently unaware that Alexandrinus has the future tense. In LXX
circles the future tense is a viable reading.)

Spin continues even still with the most fundamental circular reasoning fallacy !
And this is kindergarten blunder is pawned off as scholarship here ??
Amazing.

Also, by spin-'logic' every time the DSS disagrees with the Masoretic Text the
DSS becomes "the Hebrew" while the Masoretic Text is irrelevant. Amazing.

(This could be contradicted if someone claimed that Alexandrinus is a direct
descendent of Vaticanus, however that is not real scholarship, only the
implied claims in spin-land.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin HRH is the state of the woman at the time of deictic reference, the time of the speaking, hence in the Greek it's present.

And if I made a comment like that spin would start ranting about how HRH
is not Greek ! What a post.. a classic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Fortunately, you don't have to listen to yourself.You can't even comment meaningfully. You don't know anything about the languages. n

What you have proven conclusively with this fiasco spin is that knowing
the languages is no protection from giving the forum postings full of errors
and blunders, and arrogance to boot. Pyramiding one error upon another.
What web one spins when one is out to deceive.

What was quite unusual here, and notable, was three errors,
one on top of another. Now four. And the inability for spin
to simply cut bait and acknowledge he was wrong. He got
himself in too deep.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Apikorus

Alas, praxeus has sworn off engaging with me, on account of my lack of "integrity in dialog". You can read all about it starting here (go back a page for context -- you'll get a chuckle out of it).

FWIW, Emanuel Tov writes (in his LXX chapter in Mulder and Sysling's collection, Mikra (or via: amazon.co.uk)),

The collection of LXX books contains both literal and free translations. Typical examples of free (and sometimes paraphrastic) translations are Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, Daniel and Esther; literal translations are the books of Judges (B text), Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles, as well as those parts of Samuel-Kings which are ascribed to the kaige-Theodotion revision. All other books, and they form the majority, are found somewhere between these two extremes.

gregor

Call down to the warehouse for another irony meter.

jgibson000

Perhaps you'd tell us what you think Vaticanus is a translation of if, as you seem to be saying, it's not of "the Hebrew".

JG

Apikorus

I think praxeus is splitting hairs here. Perhaps he means to say that the codex Vaticanus itself was itself not directly translated from the Hebrew, but rather copied from an earlier Greek exemplar. This is probably correct. Here's Tov again:

"It is reasonable to assume with de Lagarde that behind the majority of the books of the LXX (if not all of them) there was one translation... [T]he following four stages can be recognized in the development of the text of the LXX:

• The original translation.
• A multitude of textual traditions, resulting in corrections (mainly toward the Hebrew) in all known individual scrolls in the pre-Christian period, and to a later extent in the first century C.E.
• Textual stabilization in the first and second centuries C.E., due to the perpetuation of some textual traditions and the discontinuation of others.
• The creation of new textual groups and the corruption of existing ones through the influence of the revisions of Origen and Lucian in the third and fourth centuries C.E."

It seems to me that praxeus is <edit> misinterpreting spin. When spin says that "the Vaticanus is directly derived from the Hebrew" I take him to mean that the text of the Vaticanus is directly derived from the Hebrew (in the case of Judges 13:5), incurring little or no corruption. Tov himself remarks that the Vaticanus (B text) of Judges is among the most literal of LXX translations. By contrast, the Alexandrinus (A) evinces numerous Hexaplaric influences. (Of additional relevance may be the fact that scholars judge the A text of Isaiah to be preferable to that in B. Still, it is commonly accepted that Isaiah is among the least literal translations in the LXX.)

Praxeus, whose arguments have been shredded by spin, is digging himself in an ever-deeper hole with his responses.