Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

it would seem .. may have been ..

Joe, have you actually done any study on the Irenaeus usages other than your wikipedia hodge-podge quote-fest ? Which itself is a masterpiece of nothing. Would you like to line up the Irenaeus quotes ? Have you even looked at the Dean John Burgon material ?

To tie the Irenaeus text in the 3rd century to one oddball 6th century dual-language manuscript is rather an amazing trick ! And then you try to work backwards !

Bezae has a whole section in Acts that is basically nowhere else. It has about nine correctors. Theodore Beza himself spoke about it negatively, advising against its use. It has basically nothing to do with anything vis-a-vis Irenaeus. Codez Bezae may agree with some Old Latin readings and some Irenaeus readings as well as some Byzantine readings and some Alexandrian. It may arguably be the mainstay of its own texttype under modern textcrit mishegas. Trying to use Codex Bezae as a fulcrum for analysis for a 3rd century writer or manuscript is a joke.

The reverse is (reasonably properly) done in the Wikipedia article, an attempt is made to tie Codex Bezae to the early Old Latin line. If Joe thinks that 3rd-century Latin citations are looked upon as of little value because Codex Bezae in the 6th-century is sort-of related to the Old Latin line, then Joe is creating a whole new textcrit theory. And should write it up in a paper so it can be read and considered.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
Joe might be opening up a whole new field of criticisms. The folks who don't like the King James Bible will rail against Erasmus and Tyndale because they are connected to the KJB. The folks who don't like "The Message" will rail at Westcott and Hort. <edit>

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

This sounds like a great study. Would you include the quotes, and indicate which ones are specifically said to be from Scripture or a Gospel account.

Also that way we can tell the "degree of difficulty". A word, a turn of phrase, or a totally different text.

Surely you understand that the information we have so far from you is not anything substantive, since it can mean almost anything.

Thanks, Joe !

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Uhhh.. Joe, could you tell us what Ireneaus could have written about these that would not be "seriously disputed". You want a Detering treatise ?

And surely you realize the incredible circularity of appealing to "modern scholarship" to try to impugn Irenaeus (they would do better to learn from his closeness to the time). And even worse to use recent confused late dating theories that the Bible believer rejects (after he is done laughing) to try to attack Irenaeus who lived in those times.

Are you coming down with skeptic-sickness? Assume as true just about everything you can from the supposed "scholarship consensus" out of left-field to fabricate arguments of desperation.

Irenaeus actually seemed to have a very solid understanding of the NT authorship.

While we are still waiting for you, JW, to give your dating and authorship of Mark. See the posts above.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Sometimes Joe, I just have to quote you to get a laugh as to how hard you try to come up strained and weak NT exegesis. Emphasis added.

'exact opposite ' ?? Joe, the women said nothing to any authorities or people they met, for fear .. they would only share with the disciples, after they made it back to the upper room, a bit of a schlep even with all the special excitement.

Joe, this took me about 10 seconds, and I was thinking a little slow. If you can't figure that out, then go to John Gill.

Matthew 28:8
with fear and great joy:
a mixture of both these; with fear and dread, because of the vision they had seen, and with joy at the news of Christ's resurrection; and yet in this their faith might not be so confirmed, as to have no doubt about it: they might fear the body was taken away, and removed to some other place, and that this they had seen might be a deception and a delusion. However, between both joy and fear, they set out,

and did run to bring his disciples word;
as Mary Magdalene ran to Peter, (John 20:2) , nor is running unusual for women, or unbecoming them on certain occasions; see (Genesis 24:20,28) (29:12) . Their fright, as well as their joy, and their regard to the angel's order, might cause them to run, and make the quicker dispatch.

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

Mark 16:8
for they trembled and were amazed;
at what they saw and heard, and yet this dread and fear were mixed with joy at the news of Christ's resurrection, as Matthew relates, (Matthew 28:8) .
Neither said they any thing to any man;
they met with by the way, till they came to the disciples; to whom they told all, otherwise they would not have acted according to the angel's orders

for they were afraid;
not only affrighted with what they had seen and heard, but the were afraid to tell any but the disciples of these things, for fear of the Jews; lest they should be thought to have stolen the body of Christ, and so be taken up on that account, and punished.

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

Gratuitous and purposeless skeptic-apologetic nonsense like this is better left out of the discussion. If you want to try to make some sort of point about dependency, that is clearly your right, no matter how weak. Please .. try not to be deliberately obtuse about simple passages. I know the choir here listens to such singing, but it is so out of tune when it is so transparent.

Joe, I am going to try to take a break from working through your stuff. Some is a little puzzling, some is barely relevant, and when I hit something semi-substantive I end up having to bring it back to reality, so one post of yours ends up supplying multi-fodder.

So, if nothing else, could you help with the actual debate parameters. What are you actually asserting, as I asked above.

Mark 1 - 16:8
Authorship
Date written
Date first circulated to churches
Authority

Mark 16:9 - 16:20
Authorship
Date written
Date first circulated to churches
Authority

Thanks. I just want to see if you and James Snapp are debating in the same textual cosmic universe, or talking about apples and pineapples. The way the debate was structured was exceedingly vague. If you want to pass upon authority .. I understand .. although that is part of the debate title. Maybe you are assuming a "pretend" authority position for the purpose of debating, then it would be proper to so indicate.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Greetings spin, the immediate fact-question was the KJB .. so let's us continue..

Could you indicate the edition of that "KJB" - like I asked in the original post, is it a New Scofield or a NKJV or something like that ?

It looks like you might even be calling an ASV or an RV, from the Westcott-Hort text, from the 'revisions', the total opponent of the TR/KJB, a KJB. That would be quite inaccurate . Those are the versions that claim to believe it is a forgery (or unauthentic if you prefer) and leave it in the text anyway, with the footnote.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Oops, you're right.

You'll have to wait for George Hathaway on the KJV.

Give up with this forgery rot. It's the publishing habit to leave in secondary material but mark it as such, because many readers know the material.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Right, a common error. The folks outside the NT belief environment are far less aware of the battle we have for the pure Bible. (Yes, that is our understanding, the Reformation Bible if you will.)

We differ, however it is not really a big issue in our discussion. Understand that a lot of the theories certainly sound like forgery, or fraud to me and also to the people who don't believe the NT.

There are really difficult problems with secondary material, such as waiting till the person is deceased to give 1st person accounts and greetings and personal instructions about books ? This simply does not make sense. The NT seems quite tight (in a good way) in those interralationships, one might say providentially. I have seen other ideas, but they have not been very persuasive. Granted there are various nuances .. which is why I mentioned the allonymity idea of Ian Howard Marshall. Which is probably as nice a face as can be put on to the supposed practice.

I forgot we are on the wrong threadaroony for this part. oops

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Within the context of this debate, every statement of Joe's here is circular or grossly misshapen.

Simply put, Joe is taking the decrepit Westcott-Hort mentality and text as his starting point, circularity to the max. Clearly anybody in the W-H NA mentality will oppose the long ending, like the way the verses are handled in the horrid NRSV more than say even the NIV or Holman, and fight any Bible that simply has the historic Scripture, as does every true Reformation Bible, including the King James Bible .. the most read and appreciated and embraced Bible in the world.

Thus the strange view of Joe is especially true in his rather weird and even bitter comment about the English Holy Bible (KJB) which is (almost) universally acknowledged as a masterpiece English Bible -- even by those who do not accept the underlying Reformation Bible text. Accurate in translation and majestic in language. When the Bible text represents authority and truth, those who oppose the text tend to lose their minds a bit, as one textual theorist explained.

Now those who accept the resurrection account of Mark as scripture view the W-H theories as nonsense, to put it gently. Generally while the attackers will be the modernist W-H textcrit crew, the defenders will be either Reformation Bible believers (appreciating the Geneva and KJB and the TR and the Reformation Bible in dozens of languages) or Majority Text, appreciating the scholarship of Professor Robinson and Pickering and others. Or truly eclectic, like James Snapp, mixing texts and theories in their own personal way and in conclusions simply deciding against the (snipping) of the Markan resurrection account from their particular, personal eclectic view.

As to the idea that a person in this debate would declare the NRSV some sort of ideal Bible, everything is in reverse, Alice is in Wonderland, and circularity, thou art a spin.

So the relevance of Joe's last post is that he shows he can handle politics very well, while logic is a bit of a struggle.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

This is a typical misrepresentation by those in denial of the issue surrounding the use of an outmoded translation. Modern scholars do not use the KJV because it is simply inaccurate. An old translation which used inadequate representations of the earliest texts and whose language is that of an English which is no longer used.

What's the point in using a translation with built in errors? Obviously nothing to do with accuracy.

Notions of forgery that you are retrojecting onto the past reflect modern money-grubbing society with its alienation of individuals, so that one is conned into the notion of the fruit of one's hands must be clung to as the individual's and not a part of the community that one belongs to. You are obscuring the works you are trying to understand when you approach them with such an attitude. This is also a problem of those infidel who generally approach the books of the bible with such negativity.

We don't seem to be talking about the same collection.

What's wrong with the word "pseudonymity"?


spin

spin

This navel display is something you get from people who willfully turn their backs on modern scholarship. Hort, using now well-known methodology, tended to favor readings from the oldest manuscripts that generally reflect the oldest traditions of the christian texts and they lead to many differences to be noted with the KJV. Steven Avery thus argues like a YEC facing the evils of evolution when confronted with anyone using modern bible translations.

A fairly literal translation (with a few noted political exceptions, such as reading "brothers and sisters" when the Greek only says "brothers"), but the NRSV makes use of the oldest manuscript traditions. Shock, horror!

The "historical scripture", a great turn of phrase for an outmoded text which is unrepresentative of the oldest manuscript traditions.

Wonderful poetic translation for its time it was too, 1611. The average person reading the book will not understand its language though.

Well, one out of two.

They're bad.

They're good.

(Note the siege mentality?)

Actually, Hort was quite eclectic. He didn't always favor the oldest manuscripts. But he was on new ground, fumbling for a modern approach to a disparate manuscript tradition and doing a good job as a trailblazer, as seen in the way that modern translation tends to follow his lead. Trailblazers tend not to be appreciated by YEC-type mentalities.


spin