steph fisher

Ted Hoffman

You said there are no Caesarean manuscripts to be cited. You have not responded to questions regarding that claim. You have not cited what the Caesarean mss say and have not explained why.

I have asked you to show how or why Robert Grant is unreliable. You have failed to do so. Instead, you are asking why you should trust him. As if it is our job to tell yyou who to trust.

I asked you about whether you were being realistic to expect Michael to check all primary sources. You did not respond.

Is it the case that you are competent in both Greek, Latin and Hebrew? If not, how do you check all your primary sources? Or do you ignore possible losses of meaning during translation?

Did Michael specifically tell you that he took down his review because you pointed out to him that Grant was wrong? Please answer this because you appear ready to credit yourself with being the one that forced Michael to take down his own review.

You claim that he removed his review because of "erroneous claims - about manuscript references" among other things. Did he agree with you that the mss reference was wrong - or you just concluded by yourself that because he removed the review and you had claimed that the MSS areference was incorrect, it was a reason for the removal of the review?

Do you intend to show us how Grant was incorrect? If you wont, just say so so that we dont waste time on that.

Why Jim West? I wanted to show that someone who is not competent in Greek, hence cannot directly check documents that were originally written in Greek, can still claim to be a scholar in the field.

steph fisher

It appears that you didn't read all of my response.

Michael did agree with me in a personal e-mail that the manuscript references were wrong. That was not the only reason for removing the review.

I am a student of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. I don't need Latin in my area of interest.

Ted Hoffman

When you say the manuscript references were wrong, what do you mean?
1. That there are no Caesarean manuscripts?
2. That there are no manuscripts with variants of Mark 14:62?
3. That there are no Caesarean manuscripts with variants of Mark 14:62?
4. That there are manuscripts with variants of Mark 14:62 but they are not Caesarean?

Recall that you wrote:
Just clarify please.

darstec

I too would like a clairification. How altered must a text be to consider a passage a variant? If there were any differences, wouldn't that invalidate steph's claim?

To comply with steph fisher's request, I offer these:
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
ο δε ιησους ειπεν εγω ειμι και οψεσθε τον υιον του ανθρωπου καθημενον εκ δεξιων της δυναμεως και ερχομενον μετα των νεφελων του ουρανου

Alexandrian
Byzantine Majority
ο δε ιησους ειπεν εγω ειμι και οψεσθε τον υιον του ανθρωπου εκ δεξιων καθημενον της δυναμεως και ερχομενον μετα των νεφελων του ουρανου

I'll grant that there is nothing sustantive in that example. But there are variations.

Perhaps the variation is the differences among Mark, Matthew and Luke. The oily one is asked if he is son of the blessed in Mark and son of god in the others. Interestingly Mark's passage is the only place in the entire bible god is given the title of Blessed and the only place the christ is referred to as son of the blessed whereas the titles son of god and son of man are found throughout scripture.

Julian

There is lots of manuscript variation in Mark 14:62, as there is in any bible verse:

14:62
εἶπεν] Byz ς WH
ἀποκριθεὶς λέγει αὐτῷ] D it
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ] G W f1
εἶπεν συ εἴπας ὅτι] (see Matthew 26:64) (Θ 565 pc arm geo (f13 1071 2542supp ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ) 700 Origen ἀποκριθεὶς λέγει αὐτῷ)
14:62
ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον] Byz WH
καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν] ς

Julian

S.C.Carlson

In addition, D omits καὶ ἐρόμενον.

darstec

Is Westcott-Hort considered a manuscript in the same sense of the much older ones? I think technically it is not however it may be considered a "best guess" version based upon variations available to them. Are there any manuscripts they had that we do not?

Julian

No, not really. They made the best guesses they could based on certain preferences. But that is probably not too different from how many of the older manuscripts came to be. It is frequently included for historical reference purposes but does not add anything weight in text cirical issues. It is here just for completeness, even though I fell short of that as can be seen from Carlson's subsequent post. The problem is that there is no accurate complete apparatus available anywhere, electronic or otherwise.

BTW, I believe that συ ειπας οτι εγο ειμι is obviously the original reading. Any other reading seems goofy in light of the rest of the gospel and the our two copyists, Luke and Matthew.

Julian

yummyfur

Thanks Julian, just got back from the library, and looked at many Bible Commentary's, they referenced the cesearan texts: theta, family 13, 565, 700, similar to your reference. Also the unclassified/mixed classification miniscules 472 543 1071. Also one of the Bible commmentary's, "The Gospel of Mark: New International Commentary on the Greek Testament" by R. T France, seemed to note that the UBS Handbook left out mention of these texts for variants in Mark 14:62.

So it seems Robert Grant was correct, which I had a suspicion about, since the reference was in a popular introduction to the NT, was written in 1963 with multiple editions, and made an assertion, which if totally untrue, would have major repercussions to Grant, yet no change had been made to the text, nor could I find any outcry over such a gross error not being fixed. Once I found a footnote reference to "longer" variants, by someone who seemd to take the "I am" for granted, I thought it might be likely to exist.