S.C.Carlson

For the record, I did not say that I like D when it agrees with me. I said I give D (more) weight when it agrees with witnesses on an independent branch of the stemma (basically the Alexandrians except where they seem contaminated by Western readings (e.g. 01 in John and B in Paul) are not therefore independent). You can reverse it too: I give the Alexandrians more weight when they agree with D.

This is straightforward stemmatics, and, in terms of contemporary eclecticism, I'm talking about D's weight for purposes of external evidence.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

The stemma is based only on the evidence of John 4. To the extent that John 5 has a similar textual history as John 4 (which reasonable except in cases of block mixture), the hypothesis of textual history described by the John 4 can be tested, to some extent, with evidence from John 5.

I think you're getting the picture.

Thanks.

Yes, you are very much right.

Happy Birthday. You seem to grasp the fundamental concepts, and I'm not just saying so because of your birthday.

Stephen

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Returning to the OP.

Big Jim is actually making a very valid point, one that was made by Professor Maurice Robinson and noted on IIDB in February. These verses are powerful testimony that the Received Text is original and the alexandrian manuscripts are corrupt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJim Why is this passage removed from some translations? ... It seems very important to the context of vs. 7.... ..but without it, verse 7 is meaningless. Why would the lame man try to get in the water when it's stirred (or "troubled" KJV)? Also why would the lame & cripled hang out around the pool without the explanation?...

The earlier thread was

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=198298
John 5:1-7

Please note specifically the Maurice Robinson quote.
Your original sense of this was spot-on.

Shalom,
Steven

Julian

Well, I do hope that you realize that I said that somewhat tongue-in-cheek. That being said, the above paragraph could be condensed down to, "I agree with any text that agrees with the Alexandrian text type."
To be sure, considering the unique nature of the ms, any agreement adds more weight than a 'normal' manuscript. Does this mean I can put your name down in the 'disagree' column when it comes to W+H's Western Non-interpolations? I am rather curious where you stand on that issue.

Julian

P.S. I do truly agree that any Alexandrian support from D is significant, we are not really at odds here.

S.C.Carlson

Actually, I lean toward Hort's position on the Western Non-Interpolations.

Stephen

Julian

Cover me, guys, I'm going in...
No, they really aren't. Very few qualified people will agree with that statement. How come that general/prior knowledge can be assumed on the part of the audience when it suits you, while other sentences make no sense when the text conflicts with the majority text? By the way, which text do you support, Steven? Majority? Byzantine? Textus Receptus? You do know that they are not identical, right?
Yeah, I am noting it. I hate to attack Robinson because I consider him knowledgable and an asset to the field. That doesn't change the fact, however, that his knowledge and skill are sometimes twisted by that bizarre, twisted religious bias that relegates him to wearing the jester's cap. Let's look at his confused uttering.
Here he is arguing that it is a deliberate omission by the orthodox to prevent the worship of angels and paying heed to superstitious healing pools and so forth. Yeah, they would never want worship of angels, or saints, or relics, holy spirits, or doctrinal inventions. Now, in all fairness Robinson's point is not entirely invalid if he places the omission early enough but doing that he runs out of evidence. Tough break, Maurice.
A look inside Robinson's disciplined mind. Some 'only omit 4' while others 'include 3b and omit 4.' Do they seem COMPLETELY IDENTICAL? Prax, I am glad you drew attention to this statement, it shows his razor sharp mind at work. And who, exactly, is it that keeps 3b and omits 4? That would be D, 33, and W^sup. Aren't those the witnesses that TR/Maj/Bz people love to hate when it suits them? Robinson's argument is heartfelt, I am sure, but he has no significant evidence to back up his deluded ideas. I am thinking that one basic scientific methodology course would have done him a world of good.
More silliness. Why does it have to explain verse 7? And if you feel it should, can I point out hundreds of other verses where assumptions are made? You know, culture, environment, common knowledge, and many other things may have changed a bit... Can I point those out? No? Didn't think so... Then don't start down this road.
Too bad, Maurice, that almost all actual EVIDENCE is against you. This may hurt you but your opinions aren't really evidence.
Riiiight, straight from the expert. Apparently, wholly rational arguments aren't necessary. Why aren't god helping him out here?
What is really sad is that a fanatical christian like Robinson cannot see the christian message in this story, being blinded by his byzantine neurons mis-firing all over the place. The point is that Jesus simply heals. He doesn't need superstition, healing pools, artificial whatchamacallit. This theme appears again and again. He is god and can do whatever he needs to do without theatrics. (This isn't actually my opinion, just an observation, albeit an obvious one).

Julian

Chili

The angel of the Lord is not the Holy Spirit. The passage in red spells out the way things go in charismatic movements where the Sheep Pool is the 'hotseat' (prayer chair) where the sick (cowards) get done one by each as moved by their own desire to be healed and counted among the righteous.

Notice that the one man was 38 and he had no one to 'push' him onto the prayer chair except God and therefore was healed and also became a precinct man like Jesus was. And what follows? Sabbath arrived for him as if it was the the seventh day of creation whereon sin is no more = religion has come to an end and he is not to return to his vomit lest things get worse for him and he becomes just another one like the rest of them.

Ecrasez L'infame

Thank you to Stephen Carlson and Julian for explaining about cladistics. This was the first I'd heard about the method being applied to BC&H, and it rocks. So much of the debate in BC&H could have been had a hundred years ago (some of it was), and now here's something genuinely new and exciting.

I can see cladistics in BC&H differs from cladistics in evolution in two ways. (a) There's no a priori reason for living creatures to arrange themselves in the tidy tree-like structure we observe in nature - indeed, it's exactly because they do that we need the theory of evolution. But there IS an invincible a priori reason why manuscripts should arrange themselves in a tree - simply, people copied them with alternations. Because of this difference some of the more philosophical problems with using the method in biology don't apply here, and it would seem to be even more robust. (b) On the other hand, Biblical Critics have to cope with "hybrids", manuscripts of mixed descent - unlike biologists (or animal biologists, at least). The possibility of hybrids introduces more degrees of freedom, and I can't see parsimony alone can eliminate that... I predict that BC&H cladistics will still be half-science, half-black-art for some time.... Still, at least it makes predictions and can be tested, unlike most other methodologies.

Julian

The danger of cladistics lies in the application of parsimony principles to human beings. While nature would seem to do things in a generally parsimonious manner the same does not always hold true for people. Now, it can certainly be observed that cladistics mostly hold true for human endeavors and that parsimony is a valid approach. Cladistics, however, cannot account well for such things as zeal, ineptitude, doctrine, politics, ambition, and many other factors, all of which could deviate from the parsimonious principle. That being said, the law of large numbers will eventually carry the day. It always does...

Julian