spin

Most telling is that Hort is now seen as pioneering important analysis of biblical manuscripts on which modern scholarly studies in the field are built on and Burgon is teetering on oblivion, barely kept alive by anti-scholarly types that he would have rejected.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

We know you read Hort a decade and more ago. Did you ever read Dean John Burgon ? Did you ever study any of the variants he goes into in depth ? (Oh, wait, I just remember spin analysis .. .. ferget about it, you develop your own system ad hoc.)

As for Westcott and Hort, it is funny watching modernists try to distance themselves from them theoretically, yet essentially accepting the "handiwork". Quite humorous and sad.

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

Now, when we see skeptics lauding W&H it is not surprising, after all they have left a legacy of Bible uncertainty and confusion among their minions, along with the destruction of tangible inerrancy (its only the message that counts, not the words) to their followers. And especially nice, a sweet gift to the skeptics ... a very corrupt text deliberately designed to be full of blunders and errors. This is the skeptics playground, the duckshoot text.

In fact, just about the only people I see actually fighting for the Westcott and Hort methodology and text (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus über alles) these days are the skeptics ! Rather savvy.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Have you compared the many newer manuscripts with Burgon's study of variants?

Fathers and children.

Burgon is almost childless, now unheeded except for those sad KJVOnlyers who he'd disown and a few underachievering academics.

Each new early manuscript bolsters the methodological breakthroughs of Hort. Burgon is a conservative who apparently let his beliefs get the better of his scholarship.

You might whinge and bleat about Hort and his errors, but that's how scholarly progress is made. Someone has an impact and that impact is analysed, its benefits developed upon and its errors extracted as uncovered and rejected. You yourself point out the many new bible translations based on the advances from Hort's time. Each of these involve scholars of the field voting for their choice between Hort's legacy and Burgon's. You point to them all as those who you consider in error because they don't agree with you. Ultimately, KJVOnly is driven by ignorance.

And not one consideration for scholarship in Steven Avery's psalm of lament.

As delusional a position as ever.

Meanwhile, the problems of the KJV, which isn't even true to the Textus Receptus, remain clear and evident for all to see,... well all except the navel contemplators.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Yes, I have looked at a lot of variants where the papyri fragments weigh in. Here is a simple question for you, like the one you did not answer about supposed eclectic W-H variants away from Aleph-B .. list three, or even one, verse where you feel papyrus makes a probative, or even substantive, difference in the variation considerations between the Traditional Text and the. Westcott Hort alexandrian text.

________________________
________________________
________________________

Thanks.

If this is a way of saying that modern "scholarship" is totally confused about textual basics, I would agree. As for the Dean, his legacy is doing quite fine.

"Methodological breakthrough" of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus über alles ? You are welcome to indicate which verses you know they would have changed as well. Oh, you are aware .. or maybe not since you haven't read in the last decade .. than even the Egyptian paypri often gives support against the Westcott-Hort text toward the Traditional Text (Dean Burgon's term).

Hort was a confused seance table-tapper who apparently let his vitriol against 'the vile TR' get the better of his scholarship.

Would you list a few of those errors ?

Burgon's legacy already has a wonderful, majestic and accurate Bible text, so Greek--> English translators do not get much new mileage. Yet they "vote" for the stipend and the position, the lucre and the status they get as translators and consultants and stylists and theorists "correcting" the Bible daily. One clear example of this is the group of translators on the New King James Version, many of whom, for $, were happy to translate a text that they themselves thought was corrupt.

Not at all. You will find the textcrits always seeking to distance themselves from Westcott and Hort, trying to accentuate the differences today. Like you, they are reluctant to get to the nitty-gritty, discussing the verses where the theory has supposedly changed. Sometimes they have proposed changes (eg. Ehrman and Wallace on Mark 1:41) that are even worse than Westcott and Hort's text.

However in my experience only the skeptics have been extremely vociferous for the Westcott-Hort text and methodology, trying to insist it must be used. And I have watched a good number of discussions.

It is a bit comical when those who daily attack and diss the Bible try to tell the Bible believer what Bible he must use, by their reckoning. Even the Christian and secular textcrits don't go haywire in that manner.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

I guess this you trying to say that you don't remember how they compare.

This is projecting onto modern scholarship your own mores.

Looking at the oldest manuscripts means more than slavish acceptance of a corrupt text.

We've seen with the case of mou how the KJV doesn't even stick to the TR. You could start with those deviations.

You simply haven't read what I've said to you in the past for you have ignored my comments that indicate that there are errors in Hort's text because he didn't have access to manuscripts that have since become available.

Wow. This is scholarly on your part. Everyone can see you have no perspective on the issue, but this is rather a fine display of the fact.

You sure drop your pile when I tell you that Burgon has been passed over in the scholarly world and that Hort is seen as providing the way ahead, ie sticking to the textual evidence and using the oldest manuscripts available.

We tend to use the Aland edition of the NT Greek rather than Hort's. Check it out.

Burgon's legacy is a bunch of mainly non-scholars clinging to a corrupt text.

People have moved on since Westcott and Hort because we have many more newly discovered ancient manuscripts. They would have loved to see P45, P66 and P75.

But you have changed topic from what my comment was referring to. You were blabbing about how the only people who follow the benefits of Westcott and Hort's work were skeptics, which as I indicated was delusional.

Not too much theory has changed. It's been refined. The big change is the manuscripts available.

How does their proposal on Mk 1:41 differ from the presentation in NA27? ie what is the manuscript evidence for it?

I don't care about Westcott and Hort. They have their place in the history of the text, which your whinging and the other poor KJVOnlyers certainly will not change. You come here to a skeptic site looking to pick fights with your crap about the state of the Greek text when you cannot even read Greek. This should show you how crap your position is, but yours isn't one of logic but of belief. And we get it clearly with this half-ass comment:
Why do you feel you have to come to a "skeptic" discussion forum to unburden yourself about your belief in KJVOnlyism? Can't you do it with people who at least share some of your strange beliefs? -- you know, christians? Why do you want to tell us that you think we are using the wrong bible version, when you are simply incapable of demonstrating the fact? Steven Avery I'm sorry that you have to push your zeal for your book so much that you have to come here. You won't find fellowship here for that.

Many people here think the bible is a pile of junk and will tell you so. So do you want to try to convince them that they are wrong? It doesn't appear so from your actions. You are here strictly because you have your own drum to beat, a drum that means almost nothing to most people here, except for your simple loudness. See if you can explain your point in coming here with your burdens meaningfully.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
From: CARM Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?

JoeWallack

JW:
My opponent reveals his strategy for the External evidence here:

He is not willing to concede any evidence for the AE before the 4th century. I have previously demonstrated though that "Matthew"/"Luke"/"John" are not only 2nd century (1st century per my opponent) witness against the LE, they are the earliest of any external evidence. The weakness of “Matthew”/”Luke”/"John" here as evidence is it is indirect but this is offset by the width (scope) of the evidence:

1) Generally follows “Mark's” Passion.

2) Specifically follows what comes before LE (16:1-8) closely.

3) Does not follow 16:9-20.

This is evidence that “Matthew”/”Luke”/"John" did not follow the LE because it was not there at the time they copied from “Mark”.

I will now call The Gospel of Peter to the witness stand and demonstrate 2) and 3) above:

Mark. Mark 16	Peter Peter 50-57
16.1-8. The visit to the tomb.	50-57. The visit to the tomb.
16.1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 16.2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.	50 Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), 51 having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. 52 And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things.
16.3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?	53 But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? 54 For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let is throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes.'
16.4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.	55 And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened.
16.5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.	And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them:
16.6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!	56 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here.
16.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.	For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.'
16.8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.	57 Then the women fled frightened.

JW:
It's clear that "Peter" follows "Mark" reMarkably well for 16:1-8. Most of the additions in Peter are commentary on "Mark's" basic narrative.

Regarding the LE though, what "Peter" has after following 16:1-8 is completely different so there is no need for a table:

LE http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

Verses:

Peter http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ter-brown.html

Nothing in common. And so The Gospel of Peter, like “Matthew”/”Luke”/"John", follows "Mark" well to 16:8 but not well as to the LE, and thus can be added to the other earliest Patristic evidence against LE. Note especially the cumulative lack of awareness of the LE here. What other Gospels might we add to the mix?

Bonus material = Regarding my argument that "Mark" 14:28 and 16:7 are Forged, http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...78#post4048578 note that when the Gospel of Peter uses "Mark" 16:7, 2nd century:

There is no mention of any prediction by Jesus that they would meet in Galilee or even any explicit mention that Jesus had even gone to Galilee. Yet extant Peter concludes with disciples going back to Galilee and an unknown ending which could allow Jesus to meet them there. More evidence that "Mark" 14:28 & 16:7 are Late.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
From: CARM Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?

JoeWallack

JW:
My opponent claims The Epistula Apostolorum as second century evidence for LE. The objective student should note by now the relationship between how closely a writing follows "Mark" to 16:8 and the expectation that it would continue to follow "Mark" after 16:8 if there was anything to follow. The first criteria of evidence here is than how closely does a writing follow to 16:8? To the extent it does not we should not expect following after 16:8 even if the author was aware of the LE. Let's look at this criteria for The Epistula Apostolorum

Mark. Mark 16	The Epistula Apostolorum The Epistula Apostolorum 9-10
16.1-8. The visit to the tomb.	9-10. The visit to the tomb.
16.1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.	9...And thither went three women, Mary, she that was kin to Martha, and Mary Magdalene (Sarrha, Martha, and Mary, Eth.), and took ointments to pour upon the body, weeping and mourning over that which was come to pass
16.2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.
16.3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?
16.4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.	And when they drew near to the sepulchre, they looked in and found not the body (Eth. they found the stone rolled away and opened the entrance).
16.5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.	10 And as they mourned and wept, the Lord showed himself unto them
16.6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!	and said to them: For whom weep ye? weep no more. I am he whom ye seek.
16.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.	But let one of you go to your brethren and say: Come ye, the Master is risen from the dead.
16.8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.

JW:
The EPA (The Epistula Apostolorum) follows "Mark" well for 16:1-8 with the basics:

1) Three women come to the tomb.

2) They come to anoint Jesus.

3) The stone is moved.

4) A man surprises them.

5) The man tells the women that Jesus is risen.

6) The man tells the women to tell other men.

The major change here is that the man has now morphed into Jesus and The Empty Tomb has now morphed into Thunderdove:

Two men enter, one son of man leaves!
Two men enter, one son of man leaves!

Note though the remaining dependence on "Mark's" original as Jesus now refers to himself in the 3rd person (evidence of the trinity?) just as the angel did in the original:

"For whom weep ye? weep no more. I am he whom ye seek."

"But let one of you go to your brethren and say: Come ye, the Master is risen from the dead."

Under the circumstances these lines would seem as necessary as telling the women to breath. They are used though because the source attributed the lines to not Jesus who referred to Jesus in the 3rd person.

Next is a comparison of how well the EPA follows the LE.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
We have seen that the EPA follows the basics of "Mark's" Empty Tomb story to 16:8. Let's see how well it than follows the LE:

Mark. Mark 16	EPA EPA
16.9-20. LE.	9-51. Resurrection Sighting.
16.8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.
16.9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
16.10 She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.	10...Martha (Mary, Eth.) came and told us.
16.11 And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved.	We said unto her: What haw we to do with thee, woman ? He that is dead and buried, is it possible that he should live? And we believed her not that the Saviour was risen from the dead.
-	Then she returned unto the Lord and said unto him: None of them hath believed me, that thou livest. He said: Let another of you go unto them and tell them again. Mary (Sarrha, Eth.) came and told us again, and we believed her not; and she returned unto thc Lord and she also told him.
16.12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.
16.13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them.
16.14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen.	11 Then said the Lord unto Mary and her sisters: Let us go unto them. And he came and found us within (sitting veiled or fishing, Eth.), and called us out; but we thought that it was a phantom and believed not that it was the Lord. Then said he unto us: Come, fear ye not. I am your master, even he, O Peter, whom thou didst deny thrice; and dost thou now deny again? And we came unto him, doubting in our hearts whether it were he. Then said he unto us: Wherefore doubt ye still, and are unbelieving? I am he that spake unto you of my flesh and my death and my resurrection.
-	But that ye may know that I am he, do thou, Peter, put thy finger into the print of the nails in mine hands, and thou also, Thomas, put thy finger into the wound of the spear in my side; but thou, Andrew, look on my feet and see whether they press the earth; for it is written in the prophet: A phantom of a devil maketh no footprint on the earth. 12 And we touched him, that we might learn of a truth whether he were risen in the flesh; and we fell on our faces (and worshipped him) confessing our sin, that we had been unbelieving.
-	Then said our Lord and Saviour unto us: Rise up, and I will reveal unto you that which is above the heaven and in the heaven, and your rest which is in the kingdom of heaven. For my Father hath given me power (sent me, Eth.) to take you up thither, and them also that believe on me.
-	13 Now that which he revealed unto us is this, which he spake: It came to pass when I was about (minded) to come hither from the Father of all things, and passed through the heavens, then did I put on the wisdom of the Father, and I put on the power of his might. I was in heaven, and I passed by the archangels and the angels in their likeness, like as if I were one of them, among the princedoms and powers. I passed through them because I possessed the wisdom of him that had sent me. Now the chief captain of the angels, [is] Michael, and Gabriel and Uriel and Raphael followed me unto the fifth firmament (heaven), for they thought in their heart that I was one of them; such power was given me of my Father. And on that day did I adorn the archangels with a wonderful voice (so Copt.: Eth., Lat., I made them quake--amazed them), so that they should go unto the altar of the Father and serve and fulfil the ministry until I should return unto him. And so wrought I the likeness by my wisdom; for I became all things in all, that I might praise the dispensation of the Father and fulfil the glory of him that sent me (the verbs might well be transposed) and return unto him. (Here the Latin omits a considerable portion of text without notice, to near the beginning of c. 17.)
-	14-17 [blah,blah,blah]
-	18 But it came to pass after he was crucified, and dead and arisen again, when the work was fulfilled which was accomplished in the flesh, and he was crucified and the ascension come to pass at the end of the days, then said he thus, &c. It is an interpolation, in place of words which the translator did not understand, or found heretical.) But the whole fulfilment of the fulfilment shall ye see after the redemption which hath come to pass by me, and ye shall see me, how I go up unto my Father which is in heaven. But behold, now, I give unto you a new commandment: Love one another and [a leaf lost in Copt.] obey one another, that peace may rule alway among you. Love your enemies, and what ye would not that man do unto you, that do unto no man.
16.15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.	19 And this preach ye also and teach them that believe on me, and preach the kingdom of heaven of my Father, and how my Father hath given me the power, that ye may bring near the children of my heavenly Father. Preach ye, and they shall obtain faith, that ye may be they for whom it is ordained that they shall bring his children unto heaven.
-	20-21 [blah, blah]
16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.	22 When he had thus said, we said unto him: Lord, is it true that the flesh shall be judged together with the soul and the spirit, and that the one part shall rest in heaven and the other part be punished everlastingly yet living? And he said unto us: (Copt. resumes) How long will ye inquire and doubt?
-	23-29 [blah,blah,blah,blah]
16.17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; 16.18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.	30 But he said unto us: Go ye and preach unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen, and to all the land of Israel from the east to the west and from the south unto the north, and many shall believe on <me> the Son of God. But we said unto him: Lord, who will believe us, or hearken unto us, or (how shall we be able, Eth.) to teach the powers and signs and wonders which thou hast done ? Then answered he and said to us: Go ye and preach the mercifulness of my Father, and that which he hath done through me will I myself do through you, for I am in you, and I will give you my peace, and I will give you a power of my spirit, that ye may prophesy to them unto life eternal. And unto the others also will I give my power, that they may teach the residue of the peoples.
-	31-50 [blah,blah,Paul, blah,blah]
16.19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.	51 And when he had said this, and had finished his discourse with us, he said unto us again: Behold, on the third day and at the third hour shall he come which hath sent me, that I may depart with him. And as he so spake, there was thunder and lightning and an earthquake, and the heavens parted asunder, and there appeared a light (bright) cloud which bore him up. And there came voices of many angels, rejoicing and singing praises and saying: Gather us, O Priest, unto the light of the majesty. And when they drew nigh unto the firmament, we heard his voice saying unto us: Depart hence in peace.
16.20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.	-

JW:
The obvious observation here is that the EPA consists primarily of supposed resurrection sighting communications. This looks like a reaction to existing resurrection sighting stories with no/little related narrative. The scope of the EPA here by itself indicates that the LE was not the primary source. The question is was it any source? The lack of matching language is evidence that it was not.

Here is my opponent's related evidence:

"In one scene, resembling 16:10-11, a woman meets the risen Jesus, reports to the apostles, and her account is not believed. The apostles say, “We believed her not that the Savior was risen from the dead. Then she returned unto the Lord and said to Him, ‘None of them hath believed me, that you live.’”"

JW:
In the LE this is Mary M. and in the EPA it's not. In the LE the woman does not report back to Jesus. In "Luke" the disciples do not believe the women either. There is nothing in the excerpt above that is unique to the LE and the expanded resurrection accounts in "Luke" and "John" much of which the EPA refers to, make it likely that in general EPA's sources are "Luke"/"John" (or the EPA is a source for "John") rather than LE.

"In chapter 30, Jesus is pictured saying to the apostles, “Go ye and preach unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen, and to all the land of Israel from the east to the west and from the south unto the north.” This appears to be based on Mark 16:15."

JW:
Let's look at a table comparison:

Mark 16:15	EPA 30
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.	But he said unto us: Go ye and preach unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen, and to all the land of Israel from the east to the west and from the south unto the north,

I previously identified 5 criteria for questionable Patristic witness:

1. Similarity in language. The obvious one.

My opponent has not identified any remarkable similarities in language.

2. Applicability. Direct versus indirect.

No explicit identification of "Mark" as a source.

3. Scope. The extent of the support.

The author of the EPA, apparently and understandably dissatisfied with the brevity of existing resurrections sighting stories, has expanded his version to 32 chapters, so this claimed parallel is minor/insignificant in comparison.

4. Similarity in context.

The disciples are instructed to preach the Gospel in pretty much all resurrection sighting stories so there is no unique match there. Note this is also my opponent's claimed evidence in Justin. Not a coincidence. Looking at context at the next lower level, the LE context is preaching to the whole world with an implication that this means to go outside of Israel. The EPA makes a point of preaching especially to Israel and also to the Gentiles.

5. Consistency. Coordination with other evidence.

The EPA has the most in common with "John", the last Canonical Gospel. I date both to c. 160. As I've demonstrated, "John" does not have quality parallels to the LE. Nothing else before 160 does either. Hence the EPA follows the chronology of not being evidence for the LE.

In conclusion my opponent's claimed evidence here rates low on all five of my criteria and therefore probably does not refer to the LE.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page