Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Luke 9:23

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    Would you be willing to look at this image two?
    I have looked at the image, which does not contain sufficient reliable evidence to overrule or outweigh the witnesses that I posted here. Obviously, von Soden believed in counting witnesses rather than weighing witnesses. See here, wherein I misspoke when I said that 'The "Majority-text" is based on a fallacious premise'. What I should have said is that it is fallacious to compare the quantity of manuscript witnesses in the Byzantine/Majority text tradition to the quality of manuscript witnesses in other text traditions. I may still not saying that just right, but it's the best my poor aged brain can do at present. Ponder Carson's comment re the principle that I am trying to share.

    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    It isn't surprising that Von Soden's apparatus has errors either. There evidently isn't one expert who would deny it, but it is still used to determine what the common greek text is. And 'daily' isn't in it, since only Jerome quotes it as part of his Old Latin version, but the Old Latin version doesn't have it. One is hard pressed to find another Greek or Latin quote of it among the Church Fathers. I find it incredible that the Orthodox church bent over and accepted the interpolation.
    There isn't one expert who would deny what?

    What is used to determine what "the common greek text is"?

    What do you mean by "the common greek text"?

    The term rendered 'daily' is not a single word, it is two words: καθ᾿ ἡμέραν.

    Here are Old Latin versions that contain the term καθ᾿ ἡμέραν at Luke 9:23: aur (Vercellensis) f (Brixianus).

    Why do you think that neither Bruce Metzger nor Philip Comfort ― in their respective commentaries on the Greek text of the New Testament ― note the omission of καθ᾿ ἡμέραν as a textual variant at Luke 9:23?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by John Reece View Post
      I have looked at the image, which does not contain sufficient reliable evidence to overrule or outweigh the witnesses that I posted here. Obviously, von Soden believed in counting witnesses rather than weighing witnesses. See here, wherein I misspoke when I said that 'The "Majority-text" is based on a fallacious premise'. What I should have said is that it is fallacious to compare the quantity of manuscript witnesses in the Byzantine/Majority text tradition to the quality of manuscript witnesses in other text traditions. I may still not saying that just right, but it's the best my poor aged brain can do at present. Ponder Carson's comment re the principle that I am trying to share.



      There isn't one expert who would deny what?
      Everyone know Von Soden was sloppy.

      What is used to determine what "the common greek text is"?
      You didn't know Von Soden's German Greek New Testament is used by MT advocates? Specifically, volume 2. wonders never cease.

      What do you mean by "the common greek text"?
      The ones which were exact copies.

      The term rendered 'daily' is not a single word, it is two words: καθ᾿ ἡμέραν.
      I already knew.

      Here are Old Latin versions that contain the term καθ᾿ ἡμέραν at Luke 9:23: aur (Vercellensis) f (Brixianus).
      It absent from most old italic manuscripts, aka Old Latin.

      Why do you think that neither Bruce Metzger nor Philip Comfort ― in their respective commentaries on the Greek text of the New Testament ― note the omission of καθ᾿ ἡμέραν as a textual variant at Luke 9:23?
      Clarkes doesn't, and he doesn't pander to Catholic authority.

      Daily - Καθ' ἡμεραν is omitted by many reputable MSS., versions, and fathers. It is not found in the parallel places, Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34
      -- Adam Clarke's Commentary

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
        Everyone know Von Soden was sloppy.
        That is non-responsive and irrelevant to my point that von Soden merely indiscriminately counted manuscripts, rather than weighing the merits of manuscripts by means of principles used by up-to-date textual scholars.

        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
        You didn't know Von Soden's German Greek New Testament is used by MT advocates?
        Of course I know that von Soden's German Greek New Testament is used by MT advocates; however, your writing is often so opaque that I cannot tell for sure to what you are referring, as was true in this case, in which you did not mention von Soden's German Greek New Testament

        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
        The ones which were exact copies.
        That is your response to this question: 'What do you mean by "the common greek text"?' Do you not see that your response does not make sense, and does nothing to provide the clarification that I was seeking?

        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
        I already knew.
        Of course you did; you were just being careless when you referred to the two-word term as a single word.

        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
        It absent from most old italic manuscripts, aka Old Latin.
        Agreed.

        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
        Daily - Καθ' ἡμεραν is omitted by many reputable MSS., versions, and fathers. It is not found in the parallel places, Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34
        -- Adam Clarke's Commentary
        That is your response to my asking you this question: "Why do you think that neither Bruce Metzger nor Philip Comfort ― in their respective commentaries on the Greek text of the New Testament ― note the omission of καθ᾿ ἡμέραν as a textual variant at Luke 9:23?"

        My question was an effort to encourage you to think so as to understand the rationale of all the best up-to-date scholars of the Greek New Testament with regard to the occurrence of καθ᾿ ἡμέραν in Luke 9:23. Instead of thinking about and understanding the reason the omission of καθ᾿ ἡμέραν is considered not significant enough to warrant comment by the best current scholars of the ancient Greek NT manuscripts, you defensively reinforce your prejudice by quoting a theologian ― not a specialist in the study of the ancient NT manuscripts ― who died in 1832.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by John Reece View Post
          ... you defensively reinforce your prejudice by quoting a theologian ― not a specialist in the study of the ancient NT manuscripts ― who died in 1832.
          Your reference to Metzger and Bart Ehrman was equally lame. Ehrman doesn't even believe in the inspiration of scripture, and we can gather Metzger certainly didn't. What motivates the "scholarship" or those two, if they didn't believe scripture? Money, and pandering to big religion, perhaps? I don't doubt it anymore.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
            Your reference to Metzger and Bart Ehrman was equally lame. Ehrman doesn't even believe in the inspiration of scripture, and we can gather Metzger certainly didn't. What motivates the "scholarship" or those two, if they didn't believe scripture? Money, and pandering to big religion, perhaps? I don't doubt it anymore.
            With regard to the text of Luke 9:23 (the topic of this thread), I did not refer to Bart Ehrman, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the textual commentary by Metzger to which I referred here, here, and here. Likewise, the commentary by Comfort, to which I referred each time I referred to Metzger's textual commentary.

            My quote from Metzger's textbook ― The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, with regard to which Ehrman only collaborated with Metzger in the 4th edition ― was not specific to the topic of this thread, i.e., the occurrence of καθ᾿ ἡμέραν in Luke 9:23. Rather, the quote was with regard to the reputation of von Soden among textual scholars.

            I'll grant that Bart Ehrman is a self-confessed "happy agnostic", who does not believe in the inspiration of Scripture; however, to apply any such description or characterization to Metzger is rank, gross slander, for which you are not able to provide any evidence.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by John Reece View Post
              With regard to the text of Luke 9:23 (the topic of this thread), I did not refer to Bart Ehrman, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the textual commentary by Metzger to which I referred here, here, and here. Likewise, the commentary by Comfort, to which I referred each time I referred to Metzger's textual commentary.

              My quote from Metzger's textbook ― The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, with regard to which Ehrman only collaborated with Metzger in the 4th edition ― was not specific to the topic of this thread, i.e., the occurrence of καθ᾿ ἡμέραν in Luke 9:23. Rather, the quote was with regard to the reputation of von Soden among textual scholars.

              I'll grant that Bart Ehrman is a self-confessed "happy agnostic", who does not believe in the inspiration of Scripture; however, to apply any such description or characterization to Metzger is rank, gross slander, for which you are not able to provide any evidence.
              See here for reference to Metzger's "Christian devotion" in an obituary written by one of his students.

              Comment

              Related Threads

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by DesertBerean, 11-02-2020, 02:57 PM
              4 responses
              38 views
              0 likes
              Last Post DesertBerean  
              Working...
              X