aChristian

The point that you are missing Avi is that we do know that the mou was there. It is found in 95% of the manuscripts. There is no way to explain that away. Likewise we do know what the original manuscript said in 99% of the text because of the agreement among the thousands of manuscripts.

aChristian

It doesn't appear to have caused much of a problem. Sometimes Jesus said and John wrote 'the father' and sometimes 'my father' and you can tell when he said each by looking at the manuscripts. In John 14:28 he said 'my father' as it is found in 95% of the manuscripts.

spin

You haven't been listening. You don't know any such thing.

An image. Have you ever played the game Chinese Whispers? Seriously, have you? One person is given a message which they whisper to the next person, who in turn whispers what is heard to the next person and so on along a chain people until you get to the last, the person who must finally tell everyone what their understanding of the message is. It is invariably extremely different from the original. This is the imprecise nature of human understand and transmission of knowledge. The shorter the chain, the closer to the original is the last message.

The written word gives the transmission a lot more stability but the same issues come to play. The individual scribe brings his own understanding to the transmission process. Think of a scribe who was working on a Bezae type tradition in France, say at the St Irenaeus Monastery. The monk is sent off to northern Illyria and works on copies of a different manuscript tradition. The forms of the Bezae tradition will creep into the transmission process of this different tradition.

Say you are a scribe in Syria, working on copies within the Antiochene tradition. The Arabs invade and most christians are driven out including you. The Antiochene tradition suddenly disappears, though you as a refuge go to central Anatolia and work on another tradition inadvertently including your familiar Antiochene tradition into it. Cross-fertilization is evident in manuscript traditions. Why else do manuscripts that predominantly follow one tradition suddenly have a few features of another tradition?

The Antiochene tradition has been exterminated because of the Arab conquest. This means that although you have some early manuscripts, that tradition will have no later manuscripts, except perhaps for early escapees such as the Bezae variation, which has already gone to France and started absorbing features of western tradition, because of the background of the scribes who work upon it. But then Bezae isn't the common form there so it isn't afrequently used manuscript so it doesn't get much copying.

We expect places such as Egypt, Syria, North Africa and Anatolia to suffer from the Arab conquests, causing havoc amongst the manuscript traditions found in those areas. We also expect the secure monasteries of Europe to churn out their manuscript traditions, while the Egyptian, Syrian and other traditions stop producing to any quantity if any at all. Hence a profusion of European texts.

What is the relationship between those European produced manuscripts and the original? There is after all a vast number of manuscripts from Europe. That there is a vast number means nothing about the original. We just see the European survivor traditions reduplicating themselves.

Because there are very many German speakers can we assume that modern German better represents the original Germanic language than Gothic, Frankish or Lombard for which there are no speakers of those languages left in the world? Can we assume because there are more pizzerias in America than in Italy that American pizza is more genuine? The argument based on merely numbers is fallacious. You actually need to know the trajectory involved. All those pizza hut pizzas derive from a modern aberrant tradition.


spin

avi

You know, there is something admirable about a guy (or gal!) who ignores six pages of discussion, and holds firm to their "unshakeable" beliefs, articulated straightforwardly, without any pretense, without mincing words, just a straight shooter, and I guess that's one reason why I personally enjoy exchanging views with you. I find that your personality, your honesty, your openness, your candor, and yes, your naivete, are very refreshing.

I cannot say that you err. I can say that your conclusion is illogical. You may in fact, be absolutely correct, in asserting that the ink still drying from John's quill, as he/she/or they composed verses 10:30 and 14:28 indeed contained the suspect "mou". However, we possess ZERO credible evidence to support that view.

Oh, wait a minute, nope, aChristian argues that 99.999% (or 28%, or 62.7%--i.e. it doesn't matter how many, or how large or small the percentage of false copies--) of copies in which he/she has faith (in retaining their supposed fidelity to the original manuscript from "john's" hand) demonstrate conclusively, that "mou" was indeed present as the ink dried on the original manuscript.

We cannot solve this disharmony by reading from the scriptures. But, perhaps we can clarify why this method of thinking ("most extant manuscripts state ABC, rather than XYZ, therefore ABC is correct") is wrong.

Let us, for example, consider a neutral observer, not a member of Audubon Society, or GreenPeace. Just an ordinary human from the planet earth. Let's assign, arbitrarily, female gender to this person (or, if you prefer, male gender, it is not important). So this gal is just a neutral observer, living in the year 2009. She is intelligent, tolerably well educated, and literate in some language, maybe English.

She decides to visit New York City. She likes her hotel room, and is talking on the telephone to a friend back home:
"What kind of birds do you see in Manhatten"? the friend inquires.
"Well, she says," with great confidence and authority, "I have identified, thus far, three very unique, and very unusual species, species which we have never seen before, back home."
"Oh, gosh, wish I could have a photograph, what do they look like, what are their names?"
"umm, you know, I wondered that myself, and I inquired from one of the locals here, and they taught me the names of those three birds--I mean, these birds are EVERYWHERE. I just had no idea there would be so many birds in such a crowded city. The names given were Sparrow, Pigeon, and Blackbird."
"Wow. Guess the local people must be really happy, with so many birds around them".

******************
aChristian: do you think that when the Europeans first arrived in North America, they saw only those three species of birds on the island we call today, Manhatten? If not, why not? : for, after all, those three birds, in 2009 represent the vast majority of birds found in Manhatten, today.

The biblical sources still extant from ancient times are akin to the Ruby Throated Humingbird, Baltimore Oriole, Indigo Bunting, and Rose Breasted Grosbeak seen on very rare occasion, in Central Park. 99% of the time, one will find only sparrows, blackbirds, and pigeons. But that does not mean that originally, i.e. five hundred years ago, certainly not 2000 years ago, there were only those three species living on the island we call Manhatten. In fact, both starlings and sparrows were imported by the English. They are not even native species. They did not exist anywhere in North America, 2000 years ago. They represent a novel insertion into the habitat, not unlike the insertion of "mou" into John 14:28 and 10:30. When we look at photographs of birds in Manhatten from 1,500 years ago, we see no starlings. None. Zero. And similarly, when we examine photographs of Sinaiticus, on the internet, we find no "mou" in John 14:28, and 10:30.

The fact that we observe something today, a couple of thousand years later, does not mean that the same appearance was noted two millenia previously.

Your determination to adhere, at all costs, to the KJV, is admirable. However, you need to rethink the rationale for believing that KJV is faithful to the original gospel text, whatever that may have been. You are welcome to introduce alternative evidence, I am still waiting for someone to provide me with a date for the oldest extant Greek manuscript which contains "mou" in those two passages. If and when you do furnish such a reference, I believe that you will be disappointed to discover how recent its nativity, compared with the several ancient Greek texts, which do not contain "mou" in those two passages...

I suspect, as I indicated at the outset of this discussion, that for you, the existing KJV bible comes first, irrespective of evidence contradicting it...Your certainty that KJV represents the "word of god", prevents you from examining data contradicting KJV. Scrutiny of evidence is a necessary task for anyone who seeks to learn the truth, about any matter of inquiry. The evidence, aChristian, not the quantity of evidence, but the quality of the evidence, points away from KJV, as a reliable source of information.

spin

I thought you were interested in accuracy, rather than sweeping things under the carpet.

You chose well to refer to Jn 14:28, because at least it is one that can be found in the TR. A number of those mous were not even in the TR. The KJV got it wrong, because it wasn't even following the TR, but an erroneous earlier English version derived from Tyndale.

But then Tertullian testifies against Jn 14:28 and there is not a skerrick of evidence for it for the first six centuries. It creeps in as a 7th c. correction to Aleph and a 9th c. correction of Bezae.

It's no wonder that you seek solace of the vast number of late manuscripts: you can look at the quantity and ignore the quality.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

The sensible textual transmissional understandings of Professor Maurice Robinson would agree with this 100%. Professor Robinson indicates that you can demonstrate the Greek Byzantine readings even if you lop off all the manuscripts after the 11th century. With the wide geographical range of the Byzantine manuscripts, hand-copied, it would be impossible for a variant to take over the line unless it has strong representation into the earliest centuries (most variants arose by the 2nd century, this is agreed upon by virtually all, I cannot think of a single important variant that does not give strong evidence of being of such a nature) strong evidence for being the original. That is why discussing these elements with Professor Robinson, or reading the material, can be very helpful.

95% of the Greek manuscripts is strong evidence for any reading, more so, and a far lower threshold needed, if it is an omission reading which is the alternative, one which has an absurdly easy vector of creation. Then nowhere near 95% would be needed to be essentially a proof of the reading. Within those paramaters your analysis is correct. (Afaik, the conceptual difference between an omission/addition variant and a substitution variant is not addressed systematically in the Professor Robinson analysis.)

Often a sensible textual analysis is easiest in an addition/omission variant. A sensible analysis is precisely opposite that of modern textual criticism. And the Reformation Bible giants were very skilled, and aware of how even major variants were often caused by the scribal dropping of text, which is a trivially easy phenomenon. Even if a variant was deliberate, it is obvious that it would be far easier to accomplish if an omission rather than a creation of new text. And if a variant was accidental, even more so is omission far more likely. (Note that this is not strictly an either/or situation .. a variant could originally arise by omission and yet be maintained in the line by a conscious decision when manuscript comparison time comes along.)

Here are three quotes about these general manuscript issues, the first two give a representative overview manuscript viewing .. majority vs small minority .. and the first article has a lot more for consideration. Also available are quotes from other sources that specifically address the addition/omission probability aspects.

New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority
Maurice A. Robinson
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html
Chronologically "late" MSS are known to preserve earlier non-Byzantine texts well into the minuscule era; there is no reason to assume that minuscules preserving a Byzantine type of text fail to reflect a similar "early" character Where, indeed, might one make a demarcation? While some may prefer a fourth-century boundary, there is no compelling reason to disqualify the fifth or sixth century, or even the ninth or tenth century. The real issue appears to be an opposition to any authoritative inroad for the Byzantine Textform. There are valid reasons for considering all MSS extending into the late tenth or early eleventh century as "early" in regard to their texts.

Interview with Maurice Robinson (Part 2)
http://www.daveblackonline.com/inter..._robinson2.htm
“No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier forms of text. Even an official edition of the New Testament — promoted with ecclesiastical sanction throughout the known world — would have had great difficulty achieving this result as the history of Jerome's Vulgate amply demonstrates. But an unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination” (Hodges, Appendix C, in Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, 166).

Andrew Wilson
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.b...-question.html
Hort's genealogical theory was eventually seen to be hopelessly theoretical to the point of being irrelevant. As Colwell put it: 'sixty years of study since W&H indicate that it is doubtful if it (Hort's genealogical method) can be applied to NT mss in such a way as to advance our knowledge of the original text of the NT' (Colwell's Genealogical Method). Hort's wordy theorising was simply a front, a smokescreen, for his establishment of Vaticanus (virtually) as the original text of the NT.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

So which is good in your eyes the TR or Byz? If the Byz is OK, then why have you been trying to defend Acts 8:37? Either Hort and Byz are wrong over 8:37 or they aren't.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

The Textus Receptus, the Reformation Bible, starts with the Byzantine Greek Majority as the fountainhead for analysis. The superb scholars - Desiderius Erasmus & Robert Étienne (Stephanus) & Theodore Beza - realized the lacks within the Greek line, especially those places where verses, phrases or words had been omitted in many manuscripts (whether the cause was accidental or deliberate or a combo, this was easily the most likely textual variant) and their textual analysis correlated the preserved Greek and Latin into one masterful and providential Bible text, using sensible paradigms of Bible text transmission. What had been scattered was thus gathered. This is really very simple, although I understand that it is little discussed and explained today.

In Acts 8:37 the Greek line has only perhaps 25% of the manuscripts with the verse, yet the scholars understood both the ease of omission in copying and the early Acts 8:37 references through the early church writers, as well as the internal evidence. There was little or no controversy about the verse till much later. Erasmus included the verse in all his editions (as did every TR edition) and did have an annotation about the verse. Although the annotation may have only been about where he got the Greek text, since the actual Greek was from the margin of one of his manuscripts. Whether Beza or Stephanus had any additional notes, I am not sure.

There may be more information in the paper by Carson Cottrell

"Acts 8:37 - A Textual Reexamination," Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 1997 - Carson, Cottrel R.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

This is anachronistic rubbish. The notion of the Byzantine Greek Majority is a modern idea that has nothing directly to do with the TR or renaissance scholars.

And the point remains, Acts 8:37 is not in the Byzantine Majority Text. Why not if you're so convinced the verse should be in? Huh?

Waxing rhetorical without added content....

If it were so easy to omit full verses, you'd expect much more of this situation, but you don't, so "ease of omission" is plainly a crock of shite.

And I do appreciate that you want to smooth out this wrinkle, but you don't change anything.

So, will you answer the original question now? Either TR with, or Byz without, 8:37? You can't have both.


spin

spin

Please justify this 95% with some evidence.

If you look at the table I provided in this thread, you'll see five occasions in which the KJV "my" doesn't even have a mou in the TR. What percentage will you provide those examples?

What percentages will you give for

1. Acts 8:37, which is not found in the Byzantine Majority Text, or
2. Acts 9:5b-6a, also missing, or
3. Acts 15:34, yup also missing?

I can find a couple of thousand of examples where the Textus Receptus has a minority form. Will you give fantastic percentages for them or will you accept the notion that the TR isn't a majority text, but originally a collation based on texts of a late branch of the Byzantine tradition published in a hurry for profit by Johann Froben who succeeded in getting his text out in months to beat the publication of the Computensian Polyglot text?


spin