The Fable of the Faulty

[JonC]

Not always.

Ephesians 1:1-10 in Papyrus 46: Your Compilation Is Better

www.thetextofthegospels.com

It probably is homoioteleuton. The scribe most likely looked for the five abbreviations he had just used, and in this case verse 3 begins with the same abbreviations

But we also do not rely on one manuscript. The basic principles are a collection. Not just the oldest. Not just the shortest. The oldest, shortest, as a collection.

Since no manuscripts have the verses added in manuscripts dating to the 11th century and newer it is probable that those verses were notes making their way into the text.

 

[JonC]

@Conan

Here is what I mean by older and shorter texts are typically closer to the original-

In John we read of the people at the pool of Bethesda, and the man trying to enter the pool but unable due to the crowd.

The reason the man was trying to enter the pool (and the reason for the crowd) those in Ephesus would know of the pool as they traveled to Jerusalem regularly.

But by the time the reason made its way into the text it was needed. Generations centuries after 70 AD would have no reference point.

The older and shorter manuscript is probably more accurate (there is a reason to add the explanation, but no reason to remove it and homoioteleuton cannot account for its removal).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I am posting this for the readers, not for those still replying to me. I stepped out of the discussion because it had reached the point where nothing new was being said. The arguments were being repeated in loops, and the replies had shifted from substance to personal accusations. When a discussion becomes repetitive and the focus turns to claiming victory rather than addressing the text, there is no value in continuing.

The continued replies after I left show exactly why I stepped out. They are not attempts to advance the argument. They are attempts to keep the performance going, and that is all it is, performance. The language of “thrashings” and “taking his ball and going home,” the extreme quote stacking, the constant reframing of my words, the shifting of categories to avoid direct answers, and the false claims about my motives and about my position on the KJV and the preserved text are not theological argument. They are posturing. They are strutting. They are attempts to frame the discussion as a contest that must be won, even after the actual exchange has ended.

The readers can see the pattern. When someone stops replying and the other side continues posting in rapid succession, it is not debate. It is fixation. It is an attempt to claim victory by volume rather than by truth. I am not interested in that. I am not responding to it. I am not reading it.

My position was stated clearly. Their arguments were answered directly. The replies that followed did not address those answers. They repeated the same claims, reframed my words, shifted categories, and added personal remarks. That is why I stepped out. Not because the arguments stood, but because they had already been answered and the discussion had degraded into noise.

And that is all any further replies will be, posturing, strutting, false claims and much noise.

 

[37818]

The Greek New Testament text between known variant readings are the common Byzantine text.

 

[Logos1560]

Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text.

Here is information from your trusted source Wilbur Pickering which advances the argument of whether you jump to the right assertions or conclusions or whether you jump to the wrong assertions or conclusions concerning what your own sources state.

Wilbur Pickering wrote: “The AV (KJV) has a most unfortunate translation of both Matthew 21:5 and Zechariah 9:9 (that has been corrected in the NKJV, fortunately)” (Sovereign Creator, p. 614). Wilbur Pickering added: “The obvious difficult is that the AV makes Jesus ride two animals, when in fact He only rode one” (Ibid.). In a footnote, Wilbur Pickering wrote: “Unfortunately the KJV (corrected by the NKJV) mistranslates both the Hebrew and the Greek, making it appear that Jesus rode both animals, which was not the case” (p. 43, footnote c). Wilbur Pickering again asserted: “The obvious difficulty is that the AV makes Jesus ride two animals, when in fact He only rode one. For the correct rendering of both Zechariah and Matthew, at this point, please see the NKJV” (Identity IV, p. 234).

In his notes or comments on Matthew 21:7 in his commentary, Adam Clarke wrote: “We can scarcely suppose that he rode upon both by turns” or “that he rode upon both at once.” In his commentary on Matthew, R. V. G. Tasker observed: “Jesus did not ride on two animals at once” (p. 198). Tasker asserted: “The right translation of the closing words of the quotation should be ‘on an ass, even on the foal of a beast of burden’” (Ibid.). About this phrase, A. T. Robertson noted: “In the Hebrew it means by common Hebrew parallelism ‘upon an ass, even upon a colt,’ That is obviously the meaning here in Matthew” (Word Pictures, Vol. 1, p. 166). In his commentary on Matthew, John R. Rice observed: “The ass and her colt were both brought (vs. 7), though it was the colt that Jesus sat upon (vs. 5, Mark 11:7)” (p. 320).

The translation in the 1982 NKJV at Matthew 21:5 mentioned by Wilbur Pickering is as follows: “sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.” The 1990 Modern KJV rendered it “sitting on an ass, even a colt the foal of an ass” (p. 860). The 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation has “mounted on an ass, even a young ass” (p. 912). In his 2016 translation, Wilbur Pickering rendered it as follows: “mounted on a donkey, in fact, a young donkey, foal of a beast of burden” (p. 43). The 2022 Updated American Standard Version has “mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” In his 2023 KJV NT, Nick Sayers translated it: “sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey” (p. 35). In 1798, Nathaniel Scarlett had translated this portion of Matthew 21:5 as “sitting upon an ass, even a colt the foal of an ass” (p. 42).

Which English Bible has the clearer, better, or more accurate rendering at Matthew 21:5?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Here is information from your trusted source Wilbur Pickering which advances the argument of whether you jump to the right assertions or conclusions or whether you jump to the wrong assertions or conclusions concerning what your own sources state.

The real issue is between Quote Stacking and Source Grounding. Quote stacking is noise, borrowed thought, borrowed conclusions.

Quote stacking is often treated as evidence, but in reality it is frequently just an accumulation of borrowed conclusions. Ten commentators repeating the same assertion do not transform an assertion into a demonstrated fact.

Source grounding asks, "What does the source say?" Quote stacking asks, "What do others say the source means?"

You continue to provide quotations from sources that prefer a different rendering of Matthew 21:5. That is not the point at issue. The point is whether the KJV text itself requires the conclusion that Jesus rode two animals. The parallel passages plainly show He rode one animal, and the KJV text nowhere states otherwise. Identifying a translation difficulty is not the same thing as demonstrating an error. My article addresses the repeated practice of moving from a difficulty to a conclusion that the source itself does not warrant. Simply quoting additional authorities who prefer a different rendering does not answer that criticism.

 

[Conan]

The real issue is between Quote Stacking and Source Grounding. Quote stacking is noise, borrowed thought, borrowed conclusions.

Quote stacking is often treated as evidence, but in reality it is frequently just an accumulation of borrowed conclusions. Ten commentators repeating the same assertion do not transform an assertion into a demonstrated fact.

Source grounding asks, "What does the source say?" Quote stacking asks, "What do others say the source means?"

You continue to provide quotations from sources that prefer a different rendering of Matthew 21:5. That is not the point at issue. The point is whether the KJV text itself requires the conclusion that Jesus rode two animals. The parallel passages plainly show He rode one animal, and the KJV text nowhere states otherwise. Identifying a translation difficulty is not the same thing as demonstrating an error. My article addresses the repeated practice of moving from a difficulty to a conclusion that the source itself does not warrant. Simply quoting additional authorities who prefer a different rendering does not answer that criticism.

In other words, even Wilbur Pickering is against you. Why can't you read Wilbur Pickering's words on the matter?

 

[Logos1560]

The real issue is between Quote Stacking and Source Grounding.

That is not the real issue. Your opinions and assertions are not grounded in verifiable facts and in truth. Your own sources do not support your assertions. You in effect dismiss or even condemn your own sources that supposedly provided grounding for your unproven claims. You have failed to prove your view to be true and scriptural.

 

[Logos1560]

My article addresses the repeated practice of moving from a difficulty to a conclusion that the source itself does not warrant.

Your own sources do not warrant the KJV-only-type conclusions to which you seem to jump. You do not demonstrate that your sources support your unproven conclusions.

Wilbur Pickering wrote: “I affirm that a ‘perfect’ translation is impossible. (Indeed, a tolerably reasonable approximation is often difficult enough to achieve – the semantic areas of the words simply do not match, or only in part.)” (God Has Preserved, p. 19).

Wilbur Pickering wrote: “The authors were inspired, protected from error, but not the copyists down through the years” (God Has Preserved, p. 207). Wilbur Pickering pointed out that “the errors and alterations introduced by fallible men down through the centuries of copying lack authority” (Identity, p. 162).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

In other words, even Wilbur Pickering is against you. Why can't you read Wilbur Pickering's words on the matter?

You continue to miss my point. I am well aware of what Pickering wrote. The issue is not whether Pickering preferred a different rendering. The issue is whether the conclusion being drawn from his comments actually follows from the source. My argument does not depend upon Pickering agreeing with me. It depends upon accurately representing what the evidence establishes. A source may identify a difficulty without proving an error. Simply asserting that "Pickering is against you" does not address that distinction.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Your own sources do not warrant the KJV-only-type conclusions to which you seem to jump. You do not demonstrate that your sources support your unproven conclusions.

Wilbur Pickering wrote: “I affirm that a ‘perfect’ translation is impossible. (Indeed, a tolerably reasonable approximation is often difficult enough to achieve – the semantic areas of the words simply do not match, or only in part.)” (God Has Preserved, p. 19).

Wilbur Pickering wrote: “The authors were inspired, protected from error, but not the copyists down through the years” (God Has Preserved, p. 207). Wilbur Pickering pointed out that “the errors and alterations introduced by fallible men down through the centuries of copying lack authority” (Identity, p. 162).

Noise, but no substance.

None of those quotations address the thesis of my article. My argument is that conclusions should be grounded in the source itself. The question remains: does the evidence cited warrant the conclusion being drawn from it? Quoting additional statements from Pickering on unrelated topics does not answer that question.