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

  • John Reece
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omniskeptical
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omniskeptical
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Omniskeptical
    replied
    I think John Burgeon summarizes the fraudulent inclusion best:
    Its origin is not far to seek. Chrysostom, in a certain place, after quoting our Lord’s
    saying about taking up the cross and following Him, remarks that the words ‘do not mean
    that we are actually to bear the wood upon our shoulders, but to keep the prospect of death
    steadily before us, and like St. Paul to “die daily”376.’ The same Father, in the two other
    places already quoted from his writings, is observed similarly to connect the Saviour’s
    mention of ‘bearing the Cross’ with the Apostle’s announcement—‘I die daily.’ Add, that
    Ephraem Syrus377, and Jerome quoted already,—persistently connect the same two places
    together; the last named Father even citing them in immediate succession;—and the inference
    is unavoidable. The phrase in St. Luke ix. 23 must needs be a very ancient as well as very
    interesting expository gloss, imported into the Gospel from 1 Cor. xv. 31,—as Mill378 and
    Matthaei379 long since suggested.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omniskeptical
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Omniskeptical; 05-17-2015, 06:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    Or, this?

    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    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.
    Last edited by John Reece; 05-16-2015, 07:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    Originally posted by Omniskeptical; emphasis added
    Wow, Reece's failure to respond adequately is most surprising.
    To this?

    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Omniskeptical
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omniskeptical
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by Omniskeptical; 05-14-2015, 05:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by John Reece; 04-13-2015, 09:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    ... 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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

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