Chris Weimer

feck. my final sigmas did not show up... :/

Steven Avery

Very good, Jeffrey. And I never said they did. I simply felt it was a good idea to keep that little section in focus as well, since the Hebrew is the other issue to which this discussion relates, and spin was saying the Greek is a good window to the Hebrew. You will notice they were under the siggy. You should try to have the tools necessary to not read into a post what is not said.

Oh, Chris and Jeffrey, did you check and see whether spin was hiding the Greek manuscript aspect of Judges 13, pulling out the Greek variant that he prefers ?

Do you have any concern when people refer to "the Greek" or "the Greek OT" inaccurately for purposes of arguement ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

Oh. That's what you were doing with it. Right. Of course you were.

The "siggy"??

So, something that's under a signature is not really there?

Yes, I did. Did you? It appears that you were wholly unaware until well after you began posting on this topic and not untll you posted just last week to the "vacuous and pedantic" B-Greek List, that there was a variant.

This question seems more than a little silly in the light of my recent messages to Richard Carrier and others. But since you seem to have failed to grasp the import of that exchange, the answer is yes. So why are you doing it?

More importantly, why are you unaware of what appears in Rahlfs? And why have you still not consulted it?

And why are you changing the subject from the fact that you are wrong -- and apparently incapable of knowing why you were wrong -- in your clam that the tense of εχειs was not the present?

Jeffrey Gibson

Steven Avery

You are welcome to make any details from Rahlfs available.

There is no Sinaticus or Ephaemi on Judges.
The two main ancient manuscripts are Vaticanus and Alexandrinus.

Vaticanus has the present tense, Alexandrinus supports the future.
And apparently the Latin agrees with Alexandrinus, although if
Rahlf's or another source has more detail feel free to share away.

Alexandrinus is a primary Greek OT manuscript, so the whole claim
that "the Greek" of Judges 13:5 is in the future is simply wrong.
And someone with the supposed "necessary tools" should have
caught and pointed out that spin-blunder earlier.

Textually speaking the evidence for the future reading is comparable
to the present, as this article shows. Discussing
the Greek OT manuscript issues on Judges.

http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?...s,%20Book%20of
Book of Judges.
7. Relation to Septuagint and Other Versions:
There are two early Greek translations of the Book of Jgs, which seem to be on the whole independent of one another. These are represented by the two great uncial manuscripts, B (Codex Vaticanus) and A (Codex Alexandrinus). With the former is associated a group of cursive manuscripts and the Sahidic or Upper Egyptian version. It is therefore probable that the translation is of Egyptian origin, and by some it has been identified with that of Hesychius. It has been shown, moreover, that in this book, and probably elsewhere, the ancient character of the text of B is not always maintained, but in parts at least betrays a later origin. The other version is contained in A and the majority of the uncial and cursive manuscripts of the Greek texts, and, while certainly a real and independent translation from the original, is thought by some to show acquaintance with the version of B. There is, however, no definite evidence that B's translation is really older. Some of the cursives which agree in general with A form sub-groups (snip) .... Of the other principal versions, the Old Latin and the Hexaplar Syriac, together with the Armenian and the Ethiopic, attach themselves to a sub-group of the manuscripts associated with A ....

Jeffrey or anybody else is welcome to share more details on manuscripts
of lesser significance than Alexandrinus or Vaticanus if he likes.
Or to share what is in the historical orthodox church Greek OT.
Incidentally my view of Vaticanus is very low, on NT and Tanach,
however that discussion would take us afield. For these purposes
we can stick with standard scholarship, which clearly shows a significant split.

Now I learned my way through much of this while exposing spin's
false claim of "the Greek" supporting the present tense (while
Jeffrey and others were silent). And I never discussed particular words.

In the midst of exposing the spin-error (whether ignorance or deception on his part) I made a similar error in reverse.

"Without saying that the Greek translates as a future tense
eg. "will be pregnant" ? or "shalt conceive" .

For which I accept correction and apologize.
I never discussed any Greek word, despite the false claim of Jeffrey.

Remember, though, that I based no theories on "the Greek".
You would expect the person who crafts such theories to
be accurate. Spin failed.

In review....

1) Spin defends his Hebrew understanding based on "the Greek"

2) There is no "the Greek"

3) Ancient Greeek and Latin textual evidence is close between
the two alternatives.

4) Those with the "necessary tools" missed Spin's error of claiming
"the Greek" or kept silent.

5) The individual who knows no Greek caught the error from spin (!)

6) And this error negates his whole 'going to the Greek' argument.

The substantive forum issue stands.
Spin was wrong, and he should abandon his Greek argument,
the appeal to the Hebrew through the Greek.

Spin might let us know if he was wrong in ignorance
(not knowing the manuscript evidence from Alexandrinus) or not.

Ironically, I am the only one who brought this error, fundamental
to his presentation, to the forum attention.

And apparently few here care about a false argument,
when it is being used against a Messianic prophecy interpretation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

C'mon Jeffrey. Please don't struggle to be obtuse. It was not being used to claim anything directly about the Greek translation and if it was directly connected the connection would be made. We all know that, generally speaking, the Masoretic Text is the base for Tanach translations (and those were Jewish translations, making it that much more well-known and clear).

The section was there for note on the more general discussion. Once the Greek argument of spin on Judges is discarded then one returns more directly to the Hebrew discussion, rather fascinating in its own right.

Actually I do not mind your asking why it was there, reasonable enough. The problem was your jumping to contusions in order to falsely accuse.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Just a little note, those were the words that spin used when I shared that his ideas should be floated on b-hebrew. He asked if I would run to post on a 'vacuous and and pedantic' list that he recommended. In fact, b-hebrew and b-greek are both excellent lists.

Good to hear. Then I do hope you will weigh in eventually with a statement about spin's usage of "the Greek" of Judges 13:5 to support the Hebrew. In agreement with spin, or a belated pointing out the problem with his assertion, simply something clear.

Yes, you did follow up properly with Richard Carrier after I brought his strange assertions into the virgin birth prophecy thread. (With my smidgen of rare sarcasm.) And that was well-done, Jeffrey, you even worked with some substantive helps for the discussion. You are welcome to do the same here and on the Josephus pronoun and translation threads.

Shalom,
Praxaluh

John Kesler

If Matthew thought that Mary became pregnant via an illicit union, and this is what he meant to transmit to his readers, why does he make it a point in verse 25 to state that, even after marriage, Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary? Matthew has already made clear early in the story that Joseph is not the father, so it seems unnecessary to tell readers again that Joseph couldn't be the father.

jgibson000

Why do you think that telling readers that Joseph couldn't be the father is the point of v. 25 (which, BTW, doesn't say what you say it says)?

JG

John Kesler

Okay, what do you think the point of verse 25 is? The latter part of v:24 states that Joseph and Mary married, then verse 25 says that Joseph "kept her a virgin" (NASB), "knew her not" (ASV), "had no marital relations with her" (NRSV) until after Jesus was born. So what does v:25 say that I don't realize?

jgibson000

It illustrates and underscores the Matthean theme of "righteousness" and the claim made at v.19 that Joseph was a "righteous man".

On this, see Keener (or via: amazon.co.uk) (why do so few people here ever consult commentaries?)

Fourth, Joseph values commitment to God above his own honor, another principle Matthew articulates elsewhere (compare 7:21–27; 23:5–11). When God reveals the truth to Joseph, he immediately believes and obeys God’s will, unbelievable as the truth would seem without a deep trust in God’s power (compare Lk 1:37). (By contrast, many unmarried men today refuse to take responsibility even when they are the father!)

Joseph trusted God enough to obey him. Yet such obedience was costly. Because Joseph married Mary, outsiders would assume that he had gotten Mary pregnant before the wedding. Joseph would remain an object of shame in a society dominated by the value of honor. This was a stressful way to begin a marriage! By waiting to have intercourse (1:25), hence failing to provide the bloody sheet that would prove Mary’s virginity on the wedding night (Deut 22:15; p. Ketubot 1:1, §§7–8; Eickelman 1989:174), Mary and Joseph also chose to embrace shame to preserve the sanctity of God’s call.

Jeffrey Gibson