Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

oh yeah, spin does not have a textual understanding, for variants spin takes the Metzger stuff (where 500 ms can be condensed to one entry and the early church writers are consistently wrong) and spin never reads Dean Burgon (instead he rails against him) or anything else. spin read Hort a decade pr more ago, Lucian recension and primitive corruptions and all, and today simply is one of the many Metzger clones - ho-hum.

Tertullian - De Baptismo
http://books.google.com/books?id=M7s...age&q=&f=false

If it seemeth a strange thing, that an Angel should interpose in the waters, an example of what was to be hath gone before. An angel interposing troubled the pool at Bethsaida.

btw, if your really want to learn, I believe Professor Maurice Robinson wrote a nice piece on these verses, internal considerations and external.

One thread here is:

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

And that includes another url for Tertullian, with a different translation.

Notice how Metzger misled you.
Hmm .. omitted Tertullian. What else ?

This is funny. spin is asked to weigh Tertullian vs. Aleph -B ..
so spin gives a source that doesn't even reference Tertullian.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Your implication is erroneous. As I will tell you again a bunch of manuscripts that are many hundreds of years after the time of writing simply doesn't have the weight of ones written much earlier. Tertullian was writing perhaps 100 years or more after the time of the autographs. We are talking of only the same again for the earliest manuscripts.

All early church fathers citing biblical verses are important. How important depends on the individual case.

The possibility in your first sentence doesn't follow from anything I said. It is purely your own invention.

Tertullian should be considered hard.

You're a long time practitioner of vague and otherwise evasive responses.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

spinning in wonderland, watch this logic .. 200 AD is sort of the same as 350-400 AD.

And all the references by 500 AD are "only the same again" (or if you use the timing from authorship to Aleph-B you can get to 650 AD or later !)

Why do you think Metzger omitted Tertullian ? How many errors and omissions do you think are in his presentation that you copied without thinking ? So far we have one huge blunder. (huge because of the way he presented his "evidence")

Do you also support the poet Nonnus (c. 400 AD) as one of the "earliest and best evidences" ? Why is he the only writer evidence ?

Why does he trump Tertullian ?
Why does he get mentioned but not the Diatessoran and other text lines
(surely 100 times more important than Nonnus.)
Where are the Old Latin manuscripts ?

And where are :

Ambrose - Chrysostom - Gregory of Nazianzus - Hilary

from around the time period of your two manuscripts or shortly later.

Oops .. Metzger-swaggled again !

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

You didn't have to read the Metzger comment, and you didn't read it. I merely used his comment as an example of weighing up issues.

You bled like a stuck pig over the snake comment, yet here you are up proffering clone comments. Mote from the eye...

Thanks. I looked at it and it seems kosher to the Latin.

Robinson's thought in that thread was logical, but not in itself convincing and the others don't say much other than attestations for it in different language traditions.

No cupey, boyo. You're stating the obvious so I can't say "how observant!" Notice how Robinson misled for not mentioning Tertullian in what you pointed me to? (But then I'm not serious with my comment, while you are.)


spin

spin

Probably for similar reasons to Robinson. So your comments here are simply you going off the rails.

P66, which dates to the same period as Tertullian, lacks the material, as does similarly dated P75.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

You "weigh" an issue by looking at one side ?

And then you simply do not even know the evidence on the other side !

Amazing. More spin skeptic in textual wonderland.



Truly amazing.

And spin was left totally clueless about the Diatessoran, Tertullian, the Old Latin ms etc. etc.

Proverbs 18:17
He that is first in his own cause seemeth just;
but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks

Lest anybody be perplexed by this silly comment, Professor Robinson (url above) mentioned nothing about any manuscript or writer evidences, his paragraph was only about internal consistency.

Metzger claimed to be informing his readers of
"the earliest and best witnesses"

Can spin pull the wool ? Naaaah.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Whoosh went the papyrus testimony mentioned in the same post Steven Avery is pretending to respond to. Totally ignored. He ignores what he isn't prepared for, right? Well, that's the track record: remember that crap argument about Irenaeus and Cyprian?

Tertullian must be considered, so must P66 and P75. Most of the other church fathers you cited are later than many early manuscripts.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

spin, I asked you not to discuss stuff that should be in mod-land. And if you don't like "Metzger-clone" you can take it up with them. You could even send me a note, and I would check with a mod, or I might even just change it with thanks. Afaik, it was totally within bounds, and rather a normal description for the cut-and-paste crew. (Especially in this case, where you called a one-side presentation "weighing" .. twice.) However if not .. I am happy to learn.

No, a solid evidence. While papyri are often egyptian dessert garbage-heap manuscripts, and wild, P66 and P75 are early,. We have a good thread on those two.

Origin, dating and meaning of P66 and P75
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...d.php?t=153731

Nothing new in pointing it out, they were already given in Metzger, it was the other side spin and Metzger omitted while talking about weighing the evidence !.

Oh, btw - these papyri frequently support Byzantine readings over the far later Aleph and B.

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

Now I was pointing out how Metzger clearly deceived you and the forum (assuming spin posted his whole presentation) by omitting lots of early evidences, especially :

Tertullian
Diatessoran
Old Latin line mss.

Early church writers in the apparatus
Other text lines in the apparatus

while including .. among other things .. Nonnus !

And you considered this weighing the evidence !!

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

You are a legend in your own mind, spin. That "crap argument" is given in the apparatus of Münster, which while quite incomplete has for Acts 8:37:

Irenaeus Cyprian Chromatius Speculum

Oh, what does Bruce Metzger say ? Hmm.. maybe you are not a Metzger-clone, since you do not even check the basics, you wing it .. your methodology is argument first .. think and research .. maybe later, or best simply to try to grunt and laugh, as above.

Here is the "crap argument" (per spin) given by Bruce Metzger

the sixth century (ms. E), the tradition of the Ethiopian's confession of faith in Christ was current as early as the latter part of the second century, for Irenaeus quotes part of it (Against Heresies, III.xii.8).
(A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger, 360)

Oh, no. Now according to spin it is Bruce Metzger that gave a "crap argument" reference for Irenaeus (Metzger omits Cyprian here, whose citation is even more direct).

So now Bruce Metzger has to be "corrected" by spin.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS
Any students of the early writers here ? I will be happy to post the full Irenaeus and Cyprian citations on request (spin was incomplete, although what he posted was conclusive anyway). Or if spin still wants to attack Metzger's "crap argument" that Irenaeus quotes Acts 8:37, also then I will post the full material.