Luke 9:23

[Omniskeptical]

There is more invested into the interpolation than I had previously thought. It is rarely admitted as not in the M-text, but the reading is never in the other gospels' indirect quoting the words. The only time is in Luke 9:23, and the Greek interpolation show signs of Modern Greek, and english influences. Kata does not mean each but rather according to, down from, or after.

[John Reece]

There is more invested into the interpolation than I had previously thought. It is rarely admitted as not in the M-text, but the reading is never in the other gospels' indirect quoting the words. The only time is in Luke 9:23, and the Greek interpolation show signs of Modern Greek, and english influences. Kata does not mean each but rather according to, down from, or after.

Where to begin?

Let's take this one assertion at a time; otherwise, I will not be able to make sense of your many strange expressions.

First, please explain what you mean by "the reading is never in the other gospels' indirect quoting the words"? To what are you referring?

[DesertBerean]

John, he's been put on vacation for a while due to his behavior elsewhere...

[John Reece]

John, he's been put on vacation for a while due to his behavior elsewhere...

Thanks for the notice!

I'll just add some information that seems relevant to some of his assertions.

[John Reece]

Kata does not mean each but rather according to, down from, or after.

Little do you know.

Here is the entry for κατά in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature Third Edition (BDAG):

κατάc. distributively (cp. 1d): x period by x period: κατ᾿ ἔτος every year (s. ἔτος) Lk 2:41. Also κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτόν (s. ἐνιαυτός 1) Hb 9:25; 10:1, 3. καθ᾿ ἡμέραν daily, every day

[John Reece]

[snip] ... the reading is never in the other gospels' indirect quoting the words. The only time is in Luke 9:23, and the Greek interpolation show signs of Modern Greek, and english influences.

I do not know what you mean by "indirect quoting of the words", nor do I know what you mean by "signs of Modern Greek and [E]nglish influences". However, here are all the occurrences of the term in the NT; if you ever get back to this thread, perhaps the following will serve as a point of reference.

καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἐκαθεζόμην διδάσκων καὶ οὐκ ἐκρατήσατέ με.
Mark 14:49 καθ᾿ ἡμέρανκαθ᾿ ἡμέραν καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι.
Luke 11:3 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέρανκαθ᾿ ἡμέραν λαμπρῶς.
Luke 19:47 Καὶ ἦν διδάσκων τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ. οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀπολέσαι καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ λαοῦ,
Luke 22:53 καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ὄντος μου μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ οὐκ ἐξετείνατε τὰς χεῖρας ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ, ἀλλ᾿ αὕτη ἐστὶν ὑμῶν ἡ ὥρα καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους.
Acts 2:46 καθ᾿ ἡμέραν τε προσκαρτεροῦντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, κλῶντές τε κατ᾿ οἶκον ἄρτον, μετελάμβανον τροφῆς ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ ἀφελότητι καρδίας 47 αἰνοῦντες τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἔχοντες χάριν πρὸς ὅλον τὸν λαόν. ὁ δὲ κύριος προσετίθει τοὺς σῳζομένους καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό.
Acts 3:2 καί τις ἀνὴρ χωλὸς ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων ἐβαστάζετο, ὃν ἐτίθουν καθ᾿ ἡμέρανκαθ᾿ ἡμέραν.
Acts 17:11 οὗτοι δὲ ἦσαν εὐγενέστεροι τῶν ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ, οἵτινες ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀνακρίνοντες τὰς γραφὰς εἰ ἔχοι ταῦτα οὕτως.
Acts 19:9 ὡς δέ τινες ἐσκληρύνοντο καὶ ἠπείθουν κακολογοῦντες τὴν ὁδὸν ἐνώπιον τοῦ πλήθους, ἀποστὰς ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀφώρισεν τοὺς μαθητὰς καθ᾿ ἡμέραν διαλεγόμενος ἐν τῇ σχολῇ Τυράννου.
1Cor. 15:31 καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀποθνὴσκω, νὴ τὴν ὑμετέραν καύχησιν, [ἀδελφοί] ἣν ἔχω ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν.
2Cor. 11:28 χωρὶς τῶν παρεκτὸς ἡ ἐπίστασίς μοι ἡ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν, ἡ μέριμνα πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν.
Heb. 7:27 ὃς οὐκ ἔχει καθ᾿ ἡμέρανκαθ᾿ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκις προσφέρων θυσίας, αἵτινες οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας,

Do all the above occurrences show "signs of Modern Greek, and [E]nglish influences"? If not, how do the others differ in that regard from the one in Luke 9:23?

[John Reece]

... It is rarely admitted as not in the M[ajority]-text ...

The "Majority-text" is based on a fallacious premise; that is, it violates the principle explained in the first two paragraphs of Chapter 4 ― titled Some Criteria for Making Textual Choices ― of The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, 1779), by D. A. Carson; pages 29-30.[emphasis added]:

Before turning to the nub of the debate, I propose now to sketch in some of the criteria scholars use to determine what reading is most likely closest to the original. The evidence may conveniently be divided into two sorts, the external and the internal.

The external evidence includes the date of a particular manuscript witness, the geographical distribution of the witnesses that agree on a reading, and the genealogical relationship of the witness to the text-types. None of these considerations is considered decisive; all have to be weighed. Other things being equal, an older document may be more authoritative than a more recent one. But the date of the text-type is more important than the date of a particular witness. For example, if it can be established that at the close of the second century Irenaeus used a text-type found in a tenth-century minuscule, that minuscule will be considered more important than a fifth-century uncial whose text-type cannot be traced back further than the fourth century. Geographical distribution is also important, for if a particular reading is found in several widely separated areas, it is correspondingly less likely to be the idiosyncratic error of a geographically contained region. The relationship of the witnesses to the text-types is extremely important, because if all the witnesses that support a particular reading are from one text-type, then they may all be copies of copies of copies that spring from one manuscript. Manuscripts must therefore be weighed rather than counted. Of course, if all those manuscripts came from one textual transition, that tradition may in fact preserve the original reading; but this cannot be presumed from the number of manuscript witnesses per se. If the other three text types agree on another reading, even though they collectively embrace a smaller number of actual manuscripts, then it is in principle more likely that they preserve the original reading, other things being equal.

[John Reece]

Post repeated to correct a spelling error

Editorial note: I must have inadvertently misspelled the first of two occurrences of the word "tradition" between the last two lines of colored text near the bottom of the post, and my spell checker then changed the word to "transition". I have corrected that spelling error below. I have also refined the wording of the opening paragraph.

The "Majority-text" is based on a flawed premise; that is, it does not take into account the principle explained in the first two paragraphs of Chapter 4 ― titled Some Criteria for Making Textual Choices ― of The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, 1779), by D. A. Carson; pages 29-30.[emphasis added]:

Before turning to the nub of the debate, I propose now to sketch in some of the criteria scholars use to determine what reading is most likely closest to the original. The evidence may conveniently be divided into two sorts, the external and the internal.

The external evidence includes the date of a particular manuscript witness, the geographical distribution of the witnesses that agree on a reading, and the genealogical relationship of the witness to the text-types. None of these considerations is considered decisive; all have to be weighed. Other things being equal, an older document may be more authoritative than a more recent one. But the date of the text-type is more important than the date of a particular witness. For example, if it can be established that at the close of the second century Irenaeus used a text-type found in a tenth-century minuscule, that minuscule will be considered more important than a fifth-century uncial whose text-type cannot be traced back further than the fourth century. Geographical distribution is also important, for if a particular reading is found in several widely separated areas, it is correspondingly less likely to be the idiosyncratic error of a geographically contained region. The relationship of the witnesses to the text-types is extremely important, because if all the witnesses that support a particular reading are from one text-type, then they may all be copies of copies of copies that spring from one manuscript. Manuscripts must therefore be weighed rather than counted. Of course, if all those manuscripts came from one textual tradition, that tradition may in fact preserve the original reading; but this cannot be presumed from the number of manuscript witnesses per se. If the other three text types agree on another reading, even though they collectively embrace a smaller number of actual manuscripts, then it is in principle more likely that they preserve the original reading, other things being equal.

[Omniskeptical]

Footnote.jpgThis is the footnote in Von Soden's second volume. Lachmann doesn't have it included among his critical test. Beza admitted that only 5 out of 20 of his copies of Luke had it. Jerome testifies against his own Old Latin version as having but strangely doesn't discuss the words, suggesting those being placed in Jerome writing is a forgery. It is never mentioned by any other the church fathers, which it would be if daily self-crucifixion were a must.

[Omniskeptical]

The "Majority-text" is based on a fallacious premise; that is, it violates the principle explained in the first two paragraphs of Chapter 4 ― titled Some Criteria for Making Textual Choices ― of The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, 1779), by D. A. Carson; pages 29-30.[emphasis added]:

Before turning to the nub of the debate, I propose now to sketch in some of the criteria scholars use to determine what reading is most likely closest to the original. The evidence may conveniently be divided into two sorts, the external and the internal.

The external evidence includes the date of a particular manuscript witness, the geographical distribution of the witnesses that agree on a reading, and the genealogical relationship of the witness to the text-types. None of these considerations is considered decisive; all have to be weighed. Other things being equal, an older document may be more authoritative than a more recent one. But the date of the text-type is more important than the date of a particular witness. For example, if it can be established that at the close of the second century Irenaeus used a text-type found in a tenth-century minuscule, that minuscule will be considered more important than a fifth-century uncial whose text-type cannot be traced back further than the fourth century. Geographical distribution is also important, for if a particular reading is found in several widely separated areas, it is correspondingly less likely to be the idiosyncratic error of a geographically contained region. The relationship of the witnesses to the text-types is extremely important, because if all the witnesses that support a particular reading are from one text-type, then they may all be copies of copies of copies that spring from one manuscript. Manuscripts must therefore be weighed rather than counted. Of course, if all those manuscripts came from one textual transition, that tradition may in fact preserve the original reading; but this cannot be presumed from the number of manuscript witnesses per se. If the other three text types agree on another reading, even though they collectively embrace a smaller number of actual manuscripts, then it is in principle more likely that they preserve the original reading, other things being equal.

The Majority Text is about correction of typos, and Vulgate interpolations put into the Textus Receptus. There is nothing about advocating the King James Version, or the Beza specific form of the text which in itself is like any 15th-16th century printed greek new testament of the time-- seriously flawed, though not as seriously as the 1914 Patriarchate Orthodox bible. It would seem that the critical text is even worse on all that, even. Abbot Jean Gregor is ignored in favor of Tischendorf, Wescott, and Hort.

[Omniskeptical]

Wow, Reece's failure to respond adequately is most surprising.

[John Reece]

Wow, Reece's failure to respond adequately is most surprising.

To this?

The Majority Text is about correction of typos, and Vulgate interpolations put into the Textus Receptus. There is nothing about advocating the King James Version, or the Beza specific form of the text which in itself is like any 15th-16th century printed greek new testament of the time-- seriously flawed, though not as seriously as the 1914 Patriarchate Orthodox bible. It would seem that the critical text is even worse on all that, even. Abbot Jean Gregor is ignored in favor of Tischendorf, Wescott, and Hort.

[John Reece]

Or, this?

According to Von Soden, Hodges-Farstad, Robison-Pierpont, and the Complutensian Polyglot, the words didn't exist. The other gospels don't add them either. The Family of Nuns and Priests and their children need to bleed like that in monetary terms.

See here, here, here, and here.

Also, from page 189 of The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford University Press, 2005), by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman:

Though absolute accuracy in an extensive critical apparatus is probably unattainable, where von Soden's work can be tested, it has been found to contain a higher percentage of errors than is usually considered to be consistent with trustworthy scholarship.

[Omniskeptical]

Or, this?



See here, here, here, and here.

Also, from page 189 of The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford University Press, 2005), by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman:

Though absolute accuracy in an extensive critical apparatus is probably unattainable, where von Soden's work can be tested, it has been found to contain a higher percentage of errors than is usually considered to be consistent with trustworthy scholarship.

Would you be willing to look at this image two? Scrivener Citation.jpgIt 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.

[Omniskeptical]

I think John Burgeon summarizes the fraudulent inclusion best:

_376377378 and
Matthaei₃₇₉ long since suggested.