Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto KJV comments split off

The first four posts were not at all King James Bible posts, they were 100% directed to Joe's claims on the ending of Mark in this thread. Thus I will repost the basic information here, although I will try to condense them into one post under the ISSD : Internet Space Savers Directive

Shalom,
Steven Avery

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 and the manuscript 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. There is a full section in Acts that is radically different than our NT. Now, 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. Overall, trying to use Codex Bezae as a fulcrum for analysis for a 3rd century writer or manuscript is a joke.

The Works of John Owen - Of Various Lections in the Greek copy of the New Testament
http://books.google.com.au/books?q=bezae&pg=RA2-PA471
2. Beza ... hath professedly stigmatized his own MS. that he sent unto Cambridge, as so corrupt in the gospel of Luke that he durst not publish the various lections of it, for fear of offence and scandal, however he thought it had not fallen into the hands of heretics, that had designedly depraved it; we have here, if I mistake not, all the corruptions of that copy given us as various readings;

Dean John Burgon looked closely at the Scrivener work on this manuscript, here are some of his comments, for many specific verse references simply read the rest.

The traditional text of the Holy Gospels vindicated and established - John William Burgon
http://books.google.com/books?id=Be5JAAAAMAAJ
http://www.archive.org/details/tradi...exto00burgrich

Codex D, or Codex Bezae, now in the Cambridge Library, having been bequeathed to the University by Theodore Beza, whose name it bears. It ends at Acts xxii. 29.

§ 2. Codex D

No one can pretend fully to understand the character of this Codex who has not been at the pains to collate every word of it with attention. Such an one will discover that it omits in the Gospels alone no less than 3,704 words ; adds to the genuine text 2,213; substitutes 2,121 ; transposes 3,471, and modifies 1,772. By the time he has made this discovery his esteem for Cod. D will, it is presumed, have experienced serious modification. The total of 13,281 deflections from the Received Text is a formidable objection to explain away. Even Dr. Hort speaks of ' the prodigious amount of error which D contains'

But the intimate acquaintance with the Codex which he has thus acquired has conducted him to certain other results, which it is of the utmost importance that we should particularize and explain. (p.176)

These passages are surely enough to represent to the reader the interpolations of Codex D, whether arising from assimilation or otherwise. The description given by the very learned editor of this MS. is in the following words:— ' No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations (six hundred, it is said, in the Acts alone), countenanced, where they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old Latin and the Curetonian version.' (p. 179 quoting F.H.A. Scrivener, who collated the Codex)

II. There are also traces of extreme licentiousness in this copy of the Gospels which call for distinct notice. Sometimes words or expressions are substituted : sometimes the sense is changed, and utter confusion introduced: delicate terms or forms are ignored : and a general corruption ensues. (p. 179)

Constantly to substitute the wrong word for the right one ; or at all events to introduce a less significant expression : on countless occasions to mar the details of some precious incident ; and to obscure the purpose of the Evangelist by tastelessly and senselessly disturbing the inspired text, — this will be found to be the rule with Cod. D throughout. (p. 183)

The phenomenon however which perplexes me most in Cod. D is that it abounds in fabricated readings which have nothing whatever to recommend them. (p. 186)

These passages afford expressions of a feature in this Manuscript to which we must again invite particular attention. It reveals to close observation frequent indications of an attempt, not to supply a faithful representation of the very words of Holy Scripture and nothing more than those words, but to interpret, to illustrate, — in a word,—to be a Targum. Of course, such a design or tendency is absolutely fatal to the accuracy of a transcriber. Yet the habit is too strongly marked upon the pages of Codex D to admit of any doubt whether it existed or not. (p. 187-188)

In speaking of the character of a MS. one is often constrained to distinguish between the readings and the scribe. The readings may be clearly fabricated : but there may be evidence that the copyist was an accurate and painstaking person. On the other hand, obviously the scribe may have been a considerable blunderer, and yet it may be clear that he was furnished with an admirable archetype. In the case of D we are presented with the alarming concurrence of a fabricated archetype and either a blundering scribe, or a course of blundering scribes.

But then further,—One is often obliged (if one would be accurate) to distinguish between the penman who actually produced the MS., and the critical reader for whom he toiled. It would really seem however as if the actual transcriber of D, or the transcribers of the ancestors of D, had invented some of those monstrous readings as they went on. The Latin version which is found in this MS. exactly reflects, as a rule, the Greek on the opposite page: but sometimes it bears witness to the admitted truth of Scripture, while the Greek goes off in alia omnia ' (p. 188)

Enough has been surely said to prove amply that the text of Codex D is utterly untrustworthy. Indeed, the habit of interpolation found in it, the constant tendency to explain rather than to report, the licentiousness exhibited throughout, and the isolation in which this MS. is found, except in cases where some of the Low-Latin Versions and Cureton's Syriac, and perhaps the Lewis, bear it company, render the text found in it the foulest in existence. What then is to be thought of those critics who upon the exclusive authority of this unstable offender and of a few of the Italic copies occasionally allied with it, endeavour to introduce changes in face of the opposition of all other authorities ? And since their ability is unquestioned, must we not seek for the causes of their singular action in the theory to which they are devoted ? (p. 189-190)

Note that we have never seen these corruptions in the Irenaeus citations, making any comparison and supposed connection even more ludicrous, if not ignorant.

Also note that such a level of abject corruption will make this manuscript a darling of the textual criticism crowd, behind the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaticus, and receiving frequent special attention from men like Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in attempting to come up with support for strange alternative readings to the Traditional Text. (e.g. their attempt to have Jesus "angry" in Mark 1:41).

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,

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

CODEX BEZAE CONTINUED ... AND THE HOMER VERSE

One of the only modern authors involved in the textual criticism theories who even comments on the abject corruption of Codex Bezae is Wilbur Pickering.

For those who find Codex Bezae material interesting, and the JW attempt to connect Irenaeus with this manuscript a smidgen unusual, or wonder about the textual critics fascination with such a corrupt manuscript, Wilbur Pickering adds a note in Scrivener referencing James Rendel Harris, A Study of the Codex Bezae (1891) which is also titled Codex Bezae : a study of the so-called Western text of the New Testament.

The Identity of the New Testament Text II - Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD
http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/..._6.html#_ftn26
Mr. Harris from curious internal evidence, such as the existence in the text of a vitiated rendering of a verse of Homer which bears signs of having been retranslated from a Latin translation, infers that the Greek has been made up from the Latin.

A verse of Homer ?

The Expository times, Volume 3 - (1892)
http://books.google.com/books?id=kZbNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA102
Notes of Recent Exposition
"It is clear, then, that the scribe of Codex Bezae, or, if we prefer it, an ancestor of his, has deliberately incorporated into his text a verse of Latin poetry, which he has then turned into Greek, following closely the order of the Latin verse" (p. 102)

This is working from p.48 of the Harris book.

Ahh, we are now in the wonderland of the skeptics.

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

JOE WALLACK STUDY OF IRENAEUS CITATIONS !

After bumbling around Codex Bezae, Joe Wallack actually continues with his amazing Irenaeus review by referencing as support his own vague, unpublished and invisible and ethereal study. No methodology, no quotes, no examples .. here we go ..

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 !

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

JOE WALLACK WANTS IRENAEUS TO GIVE A "DETERING ANALYSIS"

This next is truly an amazing line of argument. Since Irenaeus actually has sensible ideas about the NT authorship, and does not write about the authors like a modern cornfusenik, a skeptic, higher critic or mythicist ... Joe tries to attack Irenaeus !!!!!

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

spin

The name of Steven Avery's post was: Irenaeus "tied to" Codex Bezae ? leaping time machines !

Did Joe Wallack say that Irenaeus was tied to Codex Bezae? He quotes Joe below:

It is plain that Joe didn't say that Irenaeus was tied to Codex Bezae at all. He said that Irenaeus's readings "tend to agree with Codex Bezae" "So it would seem that its ancestor may have been what Irenaeus used."

Perhaps Steven Avery was using short hand. He was quite definitely short of the facts and plainly misrepresented Joe Wallack with the title of the post. "[L]eaping time machines" was Steven Avery waxing logorrhoeic.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

However you parse Joe's comments they are a puerile non-relationship of convenience. From a textual analysis standpoint they are puzzling at best, nonsensical more accurately. Why try to defend them when they are simply absurd ?

Look at the obscurity wording. (Honestly I would prefer a different term <Avery edit> every word is significant so no food or animals or monsters, lest we have similes that do not smile.)

How can you tie ("we can tie" !!) one early writer to a whole questionable/inferior manuscript tradition (?) based on what "tends to agree" and "would seem" to "may have been" ?

Even putting aside 3 centuries one way and then 3 centuries return and all sorts of language and text difficulties ? This is science ? This is sense ? Or is this humor. (Perhaps JW does have a future there, unlike the present writer.)

Why try to forward Irenaeus forward 300 years to then try to go backwards 300 years. Only because you don't want to acknowledge the obvious significance of Irenaeus as an early church writer and you are desperate for any obfuscation possible, hoping that a dumbed-down readership might let it go by. (Successful, up to a point.)

Why compare Irenaeus, a late 2rd century early church writer, with Codex Bezae, an oddball 5th or 6th century manuscript with 100+ corruptions that have absolutely nothing at all to do with Irenaeus. Zilch, nada. (Based on a relationship with missing, non-extant yet conjectured progenitors.) All that .. simply to try to taint Irenaeus with the multitude corruptions of Bezae, that do not exist in the Ireneaus writings. Amazing. This is the modern textual "science" of spin & company.

Even beyond all the logical absurdities in the JW exposition, the native language of Irenaeus was Greek, so his verse references would most reflect the Greek manuscripts of his day. Bezae was hundreds of years later, a totally corrupt Latin manuscript (Targum per Burgon) that had a back-translation to Greek included. This is not even worthy of the phrase "apples and oranges".

To try to connect Irenaeus to any tradition through Codex Bezae is totally absurd, and does in fact require misusing the JW time machine.

Sometimes nonsense is defended just by rote and rot, as part of a rah-rah approach. If anything, my earlier post was a bit soft when you look at the JW shenanigans on Irenaeus, so I decided to get to the nitty-gritty a bit clearer here. So -- how many posts are we going to waste now on this silly JW blunder ? With spin, any blunder is worthy of a good dozen.

=====

Oh, wait. Joe indicated he did a study that focused on 16 citations from Irenaeus. Maybe that will help. Oh, wait, JoeW gave us absolutely no details.

How many references did you look at ? How many are Bezae corruptions, Joe ? How many are scripture citations ? What are the references ?

Hmmmm....

======

There are a few manuscripts that you might want to actually give the description: "questionable/inferior manuscript tradition" due to corruptness everywhere, that have a direct say in the discussion of the resurrection account of Mark. Vaticanus and Sinaticus obviously, where blunders and corrections and errors abound (and even the blank space issue for the ending) .. also the Old Syriac. If you want to directly knock out some manuscripts down to minor consideration .. those are the ones. And yes... Codex Bezae (which afaik does have the Markan ending) should also be lopped off. The oddball endpieces of the manuscript lines, full of obvious errors created by blundering scribes, are worthless to any sensible and real textual analysis. (The Reformation textual giants understood this obvious truism.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

Do you think that these colorful insults help you make your case?

No one else seems to think that Joe Wallace claimed anything more than that Irenaeus's readings "tend to agree with Codex Bezae."

How exactly does this relate to the longer ending of Mark? Shall I split this off again?

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

"We can tie Irenaeus to a questionable/inferior manuscript tradition." - JW

You did not read that, Toto ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS
Stuff like that does bring out my writing skills (or unskills if your prefer). Time to move on to some other gems, here or in other realms and universes, now more relaxed and and having a beautiful summer evening.

"Wallack" - Wallace can be an anglicization of the Litvak Wallack or Wallach.

Toto

No need to shout. "Inferior manuscript tradition" is just that, not a claim that Irenaeus relied on the later Codex Bezae.

Take care.

Amaleq13

Not in isolation as you apparently do. In context, his meaning was clear and not the straw man you tried to use instead.

I suggest you spend less time trying to be clever and more time reading carefully. That might save you from making an ass of yourself insulting a nonexistent position in the future. :thumbs:

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

So you understood and agreed with the nonsense argument of Joe, while Toto at first claimed he did not even see it (Toto - No one else seems to think that Joe Wallace claimed anything more than that Irenaeus's readings "tend to agree with Codex Bezae." ) then he switched to another attempt. Amaleq tells us he is that no else else.

Point made. More significant now that it was demolished above, since Irenaeus is not "tied to" any inferior tradition, not in any sensible textual universe.

"How can you tie ("we can tie" !!) one early writer to a whole questionable/inferior manuscript tradition (?) based on what "tends to agree" and "would seem" to "may have been" ? "

And that jumps hundreds of years and languages.

The New Skeptic Logic.

This definitely relates to the resurrection account because JW made it an issue. In a sensible and reasoned presentation the whole issue would simply never arise. The last few posts are the rebuttal and refutation. Maybe Joe wants to remove the claim -- and then the whole discussion can post facto split off.

Readers can decide to whom any smiley animal simile applies, if anyone, such seems a bit on the unseemly side.

Anyone still head scratching .. try this again, one more time.

"we can tie" to a "questionable/inferior manuscript tradition" based on what "tends to agree" and "would seem" to "may have been"

Say it three times fast.

Then sip some herb tea and clear your head.

Shalom,
Steven Avery