avi

Wow. Epiphany. I understand. First time. Wonderful. Thank you very much. I just did not comprehend the "th" business. Your explanation was perfect. I may be finally able to commence tackling chapter 4.

Yeah, but what about Mounce's book? Holy Cow. He should have had something in there, I guess, maybe it was written before Ascii characters? Nope, copyright 1993. Hmm. Seems to have been accompanied by a CDROM, so there is some notion of computer literacy, hmm.

Any way, thanks very much for explaining that. It is so obvious now.

:notworthy:

avi

where, "tal'itha cu'mi" is Aramaic. Ok. fine, but all that means, to me, is that the little girl understood Aramaic. It does not express, to me, the notion that Aramaic was the only language which the mythical Jesus spoke. If he can raise the dead, is there any doubt that he can read, write, and speak Greek?

bacht

Sure, just like Kris Kringle. But as you know Koine Greek was the common language of the eastern Mediterranean, thus we have the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Josephus, and the New Testament. I don't see any mystery here.

Kapyong

Gday,

That's not right at all.

In fact, not counting tiny fragments, every single Bible manuscript is DIFFERENT from every other.

There are many change and differences in the MSS.


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

See?
You just disproved your claim that all the MSS agree.

In fact, the MSS are NOT all the same at all.


K.

avi

Thank you Kapyong for your comment, much appreciated. I am not sure that it is either polite or proper for me to respond, but I don't think that aChristian was suggesting that all manuscripts are the same. As I understood his/her argument, a majority of texts employ "mou", and those that do not, in his opinion, if I have understood him/her correctly, deleted the "mou", whereas, I maintain, on the contrary, that the "mou" represents a later addition, i.e. that it is NOT part of the original text written by the author(s) of John.

avi

I too like logic, so, there is no disagreement on that part of your reply. Here's where we disagree:

I believe there is ample history to back up my assertion that "moy" was added to John 14:28, many decades, even several centuries, after the ink had dried on the original author(s) quill. I regret that I am ignorant of all matters theological, so I cannot argue the point from its most important perspective, i.e. the implications of the difference between "my father", and "the father". However, I believe that many on this forum do know theology very well, and may have something to add on that point. My argument is simple. The oldest extant copies don't have "mou". Even the Latin Vulgate doesn't have it. I, of course, as a follower of the mythical camp, attribute the absence of "mou" to the notion that at the time of Constantine, Jesus was ONLY a prophet, not a "god". The trinitarian, and anti-Arian crusade followed, and in the ensuing decades, folks lined up on both sides of the aisle, killing one another in the process. "Mou" first arrived on the scene, I guess, don't know for sure, in the sixth or seventh century, at the time of Mohammed. It makes sense to me, that Muslims, viewing Jesus, as did Constantine, when he assigned Jesus' birthdate to the winter solstice, as a prophet second in importance only to John the Baptist, would want Jesus to say to his disciples: "MY father", and not "The father", which is more ambiguous about Jesus' lineage.

In any event, regardless of the historicity of the claim that "mou" was introduced, rather than deleted, it would be interesting, I think, to learn the age of the oldest extant copy of any Greek document with "mou" in John 14:28. Keeping that in mind, I wonder if Tatian's Diatesseron makes any reference to this episode, and whether or not he has Jesus saying "my father", or "the father". I write this, because I understand, perhaps in error, that Tatian's work combined all four gospels into a single narrative, with some important omissions, deletions, and editorial changes.... Perhaps Tatian wrote "my father"? Is there still an extant copy of his work, unredacted by later generations of religious fanatics?

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

This is simply false, of course. spin's "memory" needs a little jogging. Maybe he is confusing the Vulgate with the Peshitta.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Keep in mind that the early church writers have a writing age and a manuscript age. I think you will find the early writers somewhat split on this. As I recall, Tertullian is given as "my father" and Cyprian as "the father" in the English translation. On a smaller variant though, the error quotient is greater, you have the variants of checking the original language, of possible translation over time (are the documents in the writers native language) and later manuscripts that had their own copying process, and all over an article/pronoun analysis. The ECW evidence is a lot less clear than say .. Acts 8:37. In general the massive Greek manuscript evidence tells the tale, ie. when combined with the simple fact that omissions are far more common and easy to explain and expect in the copying process .. which all led to the Reformation Bible taking the sensible and accurate "my father". While a small dropout in the Greek made it over to the Latin Vulgate (I dunno if the Latin lines are split, to me the issue on a scholarly analysis level was decided clearly by the Greek vast majority combined with the ease of omission. Sufficient and more.) However I understand you are looking at the evidences differently.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

avi

I apologize Steven, for having written either too tersely, or too imprecisely.

I am not seeking to learn anything about Tertullian, because I don't imagine that he has reproduced John 14:28. Please correct me, if I am in error on this point. I have never read anything by Tertullian, I am not even sure there was such a person. I know that he was supposed to have been a heretic, at one point in his career....

No, what I hope to learn is the age of the oldest extant manuscript which presents
"oti o pathr mou meizwn"
for John 14:28.

We know the approximate age of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, i.e. about mid fifth century CE, give or take a hundred years...I am laboring under the impression that the "Byzantine Majority" group of Greek documents date from 7th-12th centuries, i.e. not simply (much) more numerous than the smaller collection of Westcott-Hort, but also, significantly more youthful than that latter group. That's why I inquired about Tatian's Diatesseron.

Did Tertullian quote from John 14:28? Is his writing unredacted? What is the age of his oldest extant manuscript? I know almost nothing about Cyprian, I guess he was a North African Bishop in the middle of the third Century CE, I am unaware of any of his writings, and in particular, unaware of his having written anything in Greek. He used Latin, so far as I recall...
Did Cyprian write out John 14:28 in some epistle or other...?

I ask again whether you Steven, or anyone else, knows why the fifth century, Vulgate version of the New Testment, edited by Jerome follows Sinaiticus/Vaticanus rather than the more plentiful "Byzantine Majority"? One would think, wouldn't one, that the "official" book, ought to be faithful, even in translation from the original Greek, to the founding authors' deposition?

Steven, I hope that you and aChristian can revisit this issue.