Why don't the MV's keep their principle, the Oldest the Best?

[annsni]

ALL of Bible translating has involved man's decision as to what is supposed to be there and what is not. Man makes errors. It is clear in the manuscripts that there are errors. It is most likely that the earlier the manuscript, the less chance of errors there will be but that is not always the case. It takes wisdom to be able to decipher what is supposed to be there and what is not - and every single person who ever translated the Bible has had to do this. God didn't give us an autograph in English where we can say "This is how it's supposed to be" so we need to be wise, use our God given hearts and brains and translate it as best we know how. As time goes on, and we gain more and more insight into the textual criticism issue, we may fine-tune the translations we have to better reflect what is true.

I have never seen a person say "oldest is best" when it comes to textual criticism. I HAVE seen "oldest is closer to the originals and therefore had less of a chance of passing on error". So I think the premise of this thread is false.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Again, Human decisions are maded, depending on the situation, and they change the theory from time to time.

That's true with all versions and texts.

So, what is your conviction about those 2 paragraphs? Do they have to be in the Bible? or they should not be there in the Bible?

I already answered this.

How do you teach the people?

Generally, we open the Bible and go verse by verse. Occasionally we do it topically.

What does the Holy Spirit in you teach you?

Nothing that isn't in the text already.

 

[Eliyahu]

ALL of Bible translating has involved man's decision as to what is supposed to be there and what is not. Man makes errors. It is clear in the manuscripts that there are errors. It is most likely that the earlier the manuscript, the less chance of errors there will be but that is not always the case. It takes wisdom to be able to decipher what is supposed to be there and what is not - and every single person who ever translated the Bible has had to do this.

So I think the premise of this thread is false.

MV's vehemently assert that Mark's Longer Ending and Pericope Adulturae are not the part of the Bible, then they include them in the Bible. Isn't this a contradiction? If they admit that those paragraphs are the parts of the Bible, they should simply admit that the oldest mss are wrong in these cases! They must admit that first, then they may include them in the Bible.

This thread is not false or wrong, but nevertheless MV supporters do not admit either way. They should admit the Oldest are false in this case or they should still insist " the Oldest are correct and therefore we delete them !"

If you think the decision cannot be made only by one criterion and you find the other reasons to accept those 2 paragraphs as the Bible, then you should admit that those Oldest mss were wrong in those 2 issues.
By this kind of approach, we can clarify the controversial issues, one by one.

So, would you admit that the Oldest mss were wrong in case of Marks 16 and of John 7:53- 8:11 ?

 

[Eliyahu]

That's true with all versions and texts.

I already answered this.
Generally, we open the Bible and go verse by verse. Occasionally we do it topically.

Can you help me to verify once more? Do you teach 2 paragraphs are the Bible? Do you accept them as the part of the genuine Bible?

Nothing that isn't in the text already.

Strange. I thought you receive the guidance from the Holy Spirit to discern what is right or what is wrong. Doesn't He teach you to discern the veracity of the Bible there?

Simple question:
Do you believe 2 Paragraphs( Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11) are the Bible?

 

[Pastor Larry]

MV's vehemently assert that Mark's Longer Ending and Pericope Adulturae are not the part of the Bible

No they don't.

They should admit the Oldest are false in this case or they should still insist " the Oldest are correct and therefore we delete them !"

I don't think you have the standing (or the understanding) to tell these highly studied men what to do. They all acknowledge that in some cases the oldest are incorrect and they go against them.

If you think the decision cannot be made only by one criterion and you find the other reasons to accept those 2 paragraphs as the Bible, then you should admit that those Oldest mss were wrong in those 2 issues.

That is certainly a legitimate conclusion. If there are other reasons to accept them, then we can easily say that the oldest are wrong. The question is if there are other reasons to accept these passages.

Can you help me to verify once more? Do you teach 2 paragraphs are the Bible? Do you accept them as the part of the genuine Bible?

As I said on page 1, "I haven't studied those in depth so I don't have a firm conclusion."

Strange.

No, it's the historical position of the church.

I thought you receive the guidance from the Holy Spirit to discern what is right or what is wrong.

Yes, he gives this guidance from the Scriptures.

Doesn't He teach you to discern the veracity of the Bible there?

No. The Bible is always true. We don't have to discern the veracity of it.

Do you believe 2 Paragraphs( Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11) are the Bible?

As I said, "I haven't studied those in depth so I don't have a firm conclusion." My inclination is that they are not original, based on my understanding of the evidence in the Textual Commentary. There are reasons to doubt their authenticity.

Why don't you give that a read tonight and then let's interact on the substance of it rather than all this blather you are putting out.

Here are some highlights from a fairly long paragraph on the pericopae:

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as P66, 75 א B L N T W X Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al.

______________________

When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.
______________________

Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses that contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials.

So if you want to interact on the substance, perhaps there is more to be said. If you want to continue as you have been, there is not much more to be said.

 

[Eliyahu]

No they don't.

I don't think you have the standing (or the understanding) to tell these highly studied men what to do. They all acknowledge that in some cases the oldest are incorrect and they go against them.

That is certainly a legitimate conclusion. If there are other reasons to accept them, then we can easily say that the oldest are wrong. The question is if there are other reasons to accept these passages.


As I said on page 1, "I haven't studied those in depth so I don't have a firm conclusion."

No, it's the historical position of the church.

Yes, he gives this guidance from the Scriptures.

No. The Bible is always true. We don't have to discern the veracity of it.

As I said, "I haven't studied those in depth so I don't have a firm conclusion." My inclination is that they are not original, based on my understanding of the evidence in the Textual Commentary. There are reasons to doubt their authenticity.

Why don't you give that a read tonight and then let's interact on the substance of it rather than all this blather you are putting out.

Here are some highlights from a fairly long paragraph on the pericopae:
So if you want to interact on the substance, perhaps there is more to be said. If you want to continue as you have been, there is not much more to be said.

Thank you very much for your endeavor to answer my questions, one by one. But please allow me to repeat the questions or to ask the clarification as a whole, to save my time. Sorry not to respond to you for each point.

Basically, my questions are these.

If they don't assert the claim that the Mark's longer ending is not the part of the genuine Bible, then they should admit that the Oldest mss are wrong in that case. The same applies to Pericope Adulturae as well. ( I know ca. 20 omit it while ca. 900 have it)
If we admit these types problems one by one, then we can reach a good consensus. We may check many controversial verses, then reach a certain conclusion, and that has been my conclusion too. My conclusion is that Aleph is too much erroneous, and B is a little systematic but wrong in many spots too.
The later manuscripts are not the newer inventions, but their ancestor mss were much older than the Oldest ones which are extant now.

Eventually, I believe that one should admit the Oldest mss are wrong in those 2 paragraphs, and otherwise delete them from the Bible completely.

In case of John 7:39, there is no reason to support MV there because even the Oldest mss p66 support KJV in addition to the absolute majority supporting KJV. Therefore MV are wrong there.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Basically, my questions are these.

There are no questions in this whole post.

If they don't assert the claim that the Mark's longer ending is not the part of the genuine Bible, then they should admit that the Oldest mss are wrong in that case The same applies to Pericope Adulturae as well.

This is a bit of a convoluted sentence. "They" have no problem admitting that the oldest manuscripts are wrong in some cases. I am not sure why you keep going back to that, apart from a woeful misunderstanding of the principles of textual criticism.

I know ca. 20 omit it while ca. 900 have it.

I am not sure your numbers are right here. But it doesn't matter. The issue is not numbers but accuracy. 900 copies of a an error is still an error.

If we admit these types problems one by one, then we can reach a good consensus.

That's what the textual commentary does. You didn't interact with anything in the textual commentary. Why not? Let's deal with the issues.

The later manuscripts are not the newer inventions, but their ancestor mss were much older than the Oldest ones which are extant now.

This is something with absolutely no proof. It is mere conjecture.

Eventually, I believe that one should admit the Oldest mss are wrong in those 2 paragraphs, and otherwise delete them from the Bible completely.

If you read the textual commentary, you will see why they put them in and how.

In case of John 7:39, there is no reason to support MV there because even the Oldest mss p66 support KJV in addition to the absolute majority supporting KJV. Therefore MV are wrong there.

There are no substantial differences here. On "believers" there is a variant between an aorist participle and a present participle, and there is a variant on whether "Holy" should be added before "Spirit" (which was a common scribal addition that should likely be rejected). Perhaps you should actually read the MVs in this verse.

 

[Eliyahu]

There are no questions in this whole post.

This is a bit of a convoluted sentence. "They" have no problem admitting that the oldest manuscripts are wrong in some cases. I am not sure why you keep going back to that, apart from a woeful misunderstanding of the principles of textual criticism.

In this way we will reach no conclusion. The problem is that MV supporters are not honest in admitting the problems with the Oldest mss. If they concluded that the Oldest mss are right, they should omit the paragraphs from the Bible. Otherwise, they should admit the Oldest mss are wrong. They are not clear and still hold on the theory that the Oldest are the Best. If we check the verses, one by one, they are almost always WRONG!
Maybe, isn't the principle of criticism a technique of deception deceiving the readers?

I am not sure your numbers are right here. But it doesn't matter. The issue is not numbers but accuracy. 900 copies of a an error is still an error.

That's what the textual commentary does. You didn't interact with anything in the textual commentary. Why not? Let's deal with the issues.

I don't want to be involved in the Criticism as their approach itself is not Biblical. The numbers are given just for understanding the great difference in numbers of the supporting mss. I admit the Rule of Majority doesn't work at all when there are sufficient reasons for the scarce number of supporters. But the verses in John 7:53-8:11 also shows the Johannine Style, and the time of dawn coincides with the proclamation by Lord Jesus when He said " I am the Light of the world" You may have to study from different angle, about these issues.

There are no substantial differences here. On "believers" there is a variant between an aorist participle and a present participle, and there is a variant on whether "Holy" should be added before "Spirit" (which was a common scribal addition that should likely be rejected). Perhaps you should actually read the MVs in this verse.

Have you seen the photo copy of p66? It clearly has hagion.
Also, except Aleph and p75, no other mss omitting hagion has been brought so far, and even Vatican B states " dedomenon hagion"

I think Modern Versions are too much stubborn to reject the minority texts because they belong to Roman Catholic. I often questioned what if those minority texts were not preserved or claimed by RCC, will the modern versions still stick to the minority texts?

Behind this whole argument, there is a matter of following the pagan religion.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The problem is that MV supporters are not honest in admitting the problems with the Oldest mss.

Can you show any MV supporter (who knows what he is talking about) who denies that there are problems with all manuscripts, including the oldest? I don't know of any. If you read the marginal notes of the MVs, most are honest enough to say that the manuscripts differ.

If they concluded that the Oldest mss are right, they should omit the paragraphs from the Bible. Otherwise, they should admit the Oldest mss are wrong.

Again, read the textual commentary and educate yourself before saying stuff like this.s

They are not clear and still hold on the theory that the Oldest are the Best.

They don't hold to that theory. I have corrected you several times on that already. Please adjust your beliefs accordingly.

I don't want to be involved in the Criticism as their approach itself is not Biblical.

You are involved in criticism. You simply do it by another standard, and apparently don't understand the standard you are trying to criticize (no pun intended).

The numbers are given just for understanding the great difference in numbers of the supporting mss.

I realize that, but no matter how many times you repeat an error, it is still an error.

But the verses in John 7:53-8:11 also shows the Johannine Style

Actually, they don't. As the textual commentary says, "When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive." So you are not right about that either.

Borchert, in the NAC says this:

But in spite of the confusing textual state of this pericope’s placement, the style is closer to that of a Synoptic pericope, particularly a Lukan story, than one attributable to John.

There are several reasons why I find this pericope to be more akin to that of Luke than of John. Although the Synoptics are quite similar, the stories of Luke in particular tend to focus on the poor, the dispossessed, the rejects of society, and helpless women. Moreover, a number of clues argue against the story being Johannine. The term “scribes” (grammateis, 8:3) appears nowhere else in John. The same is true of the place designation “the Mount of Olives” (8:1). In addition, the identification of Jesus as “Teacher” (didaskale, 8:4) is not used elsewhere in John except as a definition for the term “rabbi” (cf. John 1:38). Accordingly, the story would be better aligned with one of the Synoptic contexts where Jesus met people regularly in the temple and taught them during the closing days of his ministry, such as in Luke 20–21. It is not surprising to me, therefore, that some manuscript copyists chose to place this story in Luke 21 in a conflictual teaching setting (p. 370).​

So you are here, quite factually incorrect.

and the time of dawn coincides with the proclamation by Lord Jesus when He said " I am the Light of the world"

Actually, it refers to the time of day.

You may have to study from different angle, about these issues.

I think it is you who needs to study from a different angle. Read a few commentaries, study the issues. The evidence against the authenticity of this passage is fairly significant (certainly more than I realized a few days ago when this conversation started).

Have you seen the photo copy of p66? It clearly has hagion.

Not all copies of p66 do.

Also, except Aleph and p75, no other mss omitting hagion has been brought so far, and even Vatican B states " dedomenon hagion"

Factually incorrect: "The reading that best explains the origin of the others is πνεῦμα, supported by P66c, 75 א K T Θ Π Ψ 1079 al. " (Textual commentary ... Seriously, Eliyahu ... you can look this stuff up yourself.)

I think Modern Versions are too much stubborn to reject the minority texts because they belong to Roman Catholic. I often questioned what if those minority texts were not preserved or claimed by RCC, will the modern versions still stick to the minority texts?

That's pure nonsense. These texts predate the Catholic church, and the Catholic church was also involved in the copying of many manuscripts from other families. Guilt by association is a horrible argument.

Behind this whole argument, there is a matter of following the pagan religion.

No one here is suggesting following a pagan religion, so there no "matter" there.

 

[EdSutton]

I think Modern Versions are too much stubborn to reject the minority texts because they belong to Roman Catholic. I often questioned what if those minority texts were not preserved or claimed by RCC, will the modern versions still stick to the minority texts?

Behind this whole argument, there is a matter of following the pagan religion.

While you (or anyone) is free to think what any will, what I have underlined is, IMO, a false implication, that I am not going to let stand unchallenged.

To my knowledge, none of the important Biblical papyrii out of more than 70, are even located anywhere near the Roman Catholic Church, much less do they belong to her.

And of the major uncials usually cited, ONLY B is at Rome. If one were to assume that location equals 'belonging' to any church, the largest number of the major lettered uncials 'belong' to the Church of England, as most of Aleph, A, D, and E(a), are in London, Oxford, or Cambridge. Some less often cited MSS, including L(ap), S & T are located at Rome, as well, but this number of the uncials is far fewer than the number that are located in areas of (and ostensibly influenced by) various "Protestant" or other "Orthodox" Churches, such as in England (including F(p), G(e), H(e),Y,Γ, Λ, & Ξ), France, Russia, Germany, Greece, (each of whom also possess a half dozen or so, of these major lettered uncials), and others, and not so much by the Church at Rome, where she was not historically overly concerned with these various Greek MSS.

WHY is this likely?

The believed and taught that they already possessed the perfect and flawless translation of the written Word of God (Where have we heard this claim, before?) , namely the Vulgate, thus did not need any further versions or MSS. I really did not want to actually get into this thread, so I will now back out once again, after refuting the historical inaccuracy implied.

Ed

 

[jonathan.borland]

I have no desire to join in KJVO argumentation.

But, for what it's worth, there is at least one Johannine trait in the Pericope Adulterae. See, e.g., Alan F. Johnson, "A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae?" Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 9:2 (1966): 91–96. He notes in his article a personal correspondence from E.C. Colwell, one of the more influential American textual critics of the 20th century, apparently confirming the observation.

 

[Eliyahu]

While you (or anyone) is free to think what any will, what I have underlined is, IMO, a false implication, that I am not going to let stand unchallenged.

To my knowledge, none of the important Biblical papyrii out of more than 70, are even located anywhere near the Roman Catholic Church, much less do they belong to her.

And of the major uncials usually cited, ONLY B is at Rome. If one were to assume that location equals 'belonging' to any church, the largest number of the major lettered uncials 'belong' to the Church of England, as most of Aleph, A, D, and E(a), are in London, Oxford, or Cambridge. Some less often cited MSS, including L(ap), S & T are located at Rome, as well, but this number of the uncials is fart fewer than the number that are located in areas of (and ostensibly influenced by) various "Protestant" or other "Orthodox" Churches, such as in England (including F(p), G(e), H(e),Y,Γ, Λ, & Ξ), France, Russia, Germany, Greece, (each of whom also possess a half dozen or so, of these major lettered uncials), and others, and not so much by the Church at Rome, where she was not historically overly concerned with these various Greek MSS.

WHY is this likely?

The believed and taught that they already possessed the perfect and flawless translation of the written Word of God (Where have we heard this claim, before?) , namely the Vulgate, thus did not need any further versions or MSS. I really did not want to actually get into this thread, so I will now back out once again, after refuting the historical inaccuracy implied.

Ed

You don't understand my points here.

In reality what are the underlying bases for the Modern Versions?
They are basically only 2 texts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, then a little A and P75 etc.
Only Vaticanus and p75 are preserved by Vatican, but we must remember that British Museum didn't modify anything of the Aleph or Alexandrinus.

Aleph was copied by the monks of the Greek Orthodox and preserved by the Greek monastery which has maintained the most of the Catholicism, similar to RCC.
If Vaticanus disagree with A, then Modern Versions followed B. If you have ever read thru Greek NT, checking the manuscript support, then you must remember this point. Someone may say MV are based 90% on B, 7% on Aleph, 3% on A.
Alexandrinus may have been preserved in upper Egypt which was full of gnosis and paganism, and Roman Catholic is nothing but a paganism! which prays to many gods!

For example, Mark's Ending is a matter of only 2 mss, B and Aleph.

You may want to point out the all the locations of the papyri, but that's not important, and we must see the forest instead of trees.

Here are the lists of the papyri and locations

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_papyri_du_Nouveau_Testament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Manuscripts1-500.html

I have never claimed that any text or translation is perfect. Neither TR nor KJV is perfect. Please don't address such refutation to me.

 

[Eliyahu]

I have no desire to join in KJVO argumentation.

But, for what it's worth, there is at least one Johannine trait in the Pericope Adulterae. See, e.g., Alan F. Johnson, "A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae?" Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 9:2 (1966): 91–96. He notes in his article a personal correspondence from E.C. Colwell, one of the more influential American textual critics of the 20th century, apparently confirming the observation.

Thanks for your comments.

Here are some more examples of the John's style in the Pericope Adulturae

8¨2 βαθεωςThis is a good contrast to the verse 12, I am the Light of the world

8¨5 νομω ημων– This is a typical Johannine Style

8¨6 κατηγοριανκατ– Johannine Style appeared in John 5:45

τουτο δε ελεγον πειραζοντες αυτον
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.

8¨11 μηκετιαμαρτανε Johannine appeared in 5:14


I think A Farstad and Zane Hodge made some good study on this and listed on their book Majority Texts, including some dialects or variances in the mss.

 

[Eliyahu]

Not all copies of p66 do.

Is there any other p66 else than the one in Geneve?

But in spite of the confusing textual state of this pericope’s placement, the style is closer to that of a Synoptic pericope, particularly a Lukan story, than one attributable to John

You saw my post above, which shows the examples of Johannine Style. Farstad and Hodge showed more examples in their book.

It is not too difficult to discern this matter if you read the Greek Bible, but this kind of CT brain-wash the people with the wrong ideas. That's why I don't want to trust them. Bible itself has an immense power to prove what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Eliyahu]

P66 (Bodmer Papyrus II) is here:

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/p66.html

 

[Pastor Larry]

Is there any other p66 else than the one in Geneve?

I poorly worded that. P66 has what are called "correcters" and there are at least two.

You saw my post above, which shows the examples of Johannine Style. Farstad and Hodge showed more examples in their book.

That's pretty weak. The consensus of commentators of all stripes seems to be that it is not Johannine in style.

It is not too difficult to discern this matter if you read the Greek Bible, but this kind of CT brain-wash the people with the wrong ideas. That's why I don't want to trust them.

It isn't that difficult. But you prejudice the issue by calling it brainwashing. You have yet to deal with the actual evidence. You apparently have not even read it. That's not good, particularly if you are doing translation work.

Bible itself has an immense power to prove what is right and what is wrong.

So if I say that the Bible has testified that the pericope of John 8 is not original, will you believe me? Of course not. You will claim that the Bible has testified to something else. The reality is that the Bible doesn't testify to which variant is correct in a given passage.

 

[Askjo]

P66 (Bodmer Papyrus II) is here:

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/p66.html

Yes, I saw this in regard of the Holy Spirit before. The KJV AGREES with this manuscript on this passage. MVs did not.

 

[Eliyahu]

I poorly worded that. P66 has what are called "correcters" and there are at least two.

What I was talking about was the Bodmer in Geneve, and it may be dated back to ca 175 ADm which means the Oldest witness for John 7:39, and it has " Hagion", then the Oldest mss proves KJV is correct in there. Then the Modern Versions must correct it to Holy Spirit instead of Spirit.
However, MV do not correct it, despite the 99% mss, despite the Oldest mss. Why are they doing that?

That's pretty weak. The consensus of commentators of all stripes seems to be that it is not Johannine in style.

No, Sir. You have to check the Greek NT more closely, and you will find it is Johannine.

So if I say that the Bible has testified that the pericope of John 8 is not original, will you believe me? Of course not. You will claim that the Bible has testified to something else. The reality is that the Bible doesn't testify to which variant is correct in a given passage.

So, what is your conclusion about John 8?
Do you think John 7:53-811 shoud not be included in the Bible?

Then MV are wrong ! Because they included somthing in the Bible that is not Bible. How can you trust them?

Do you believe It is the Part of the Bible? Why do you argue about it?

Do you want to keep it in an ambiguous situation or controversial argument?

Ya! that may be the points of the Modern Versions.

What is your conclusion clearly?

 

[Pastor Larry]

What I was talking about was the Bodmer in Geneve, and it may be dated back to ca 175 ADm which means the Oldest witness for John 7:39, and it has " Hagion", then the Oldest mss proves KJV is correct in there.

Sheesh. You don't get it. The fact that an old manuscript has something doesn't prove it is correct. It proves it has a word. The word may be wrong. You seriously need to quit posting here and take the time to learn a few things. This is get increasingly frustrating.

Then the Modern Versions must correct it to Holy Spirit instead of Spirit.

No, they don't. Learn about textual criticism and you will understand why.

No, Sir. You have to check the Greek NT more closely, and you willo find it is Johannine.

Again, do the work. Don't take my word for it. I have posted for you the comments from the textual commentary. BTW, how are you translating without using this? Read it and use it. I asked you several posts ago to interact with the substance and so far you haven't.

Do this: Take the comments of the textual commentary as a starting point and interact with it and then we will have something to talk about.

So, what is your conclusion about John 8?
Do you think John 7:53-811 shoud not be included in the Bible?

I have already commented on this.

Then MV are wrong ! Because they included somthing in the Bible that is not Bible. How can you trust them?

Because they are accurate.

Do you believe It is the Part of the Bible? Why do you argue about it?

I don't argue about it. You are the one who wants to argue about it, and you keep basing it on a faulty understanding of text criticism.

What is your conclusion clearly?

I have concluded that you don't understand textual criticism. Beyond that, I haven't concluded anything firmly.

 

[Eliyahu]

I have concluded that you don't understand textual criticism. Beyond that, I haven't concluded anything firmly.

I remember you always repeat the same words like that, evading the decisive answer.