Question over an essay

The author of what you quoted is not consistent. For on the one hand he apparently sometimes denies the authenticity of the Byzantine Consensus and accepts other various readings that he claims are closest to the autographs and therefore best reflect their readings, while on the other hand he many times denies the authenticity of these "earlier" witnesses in favor of the Byzantine Consensus.

The author you quoted is fully aware of the rule that earliest is better, that is, not the earliest MS containing a reading but the earliest reading on any MS. Since the main corruptions to the NT text occurred during the 2nd century, any MS from that time or after may contain them, and therefore, when talking about a particular unit of variation in the NT text, a reading of a 2nd century MS containing a 2nd century corruption is later than that of a 10th century MS containing the 1st century original reading. This is elementary.

Once again, a reading of a 2nd century MS containing a 2nd century corruption is later than that of a 10th century MS containing the 1st century original reading.

My question for the author you quoted above is why, what was the impetus for deciding the few places at which to reject the Byzantine Consensus? What drew him to those few places?

 

Just because there is no Greek manuscript evidence available today does not mean such evidence never existed!

That was all I needed to read to judge the worth of the "argument."

 

I'm just wondering what your standard is for rejecting the Byzantine Consensus on occasion. Is it a case by case scenario where you believe the internal and external evidence of readings is overwhelmingly contrary to the Byzantine Consensus, or is it simply Scrivener's 1894 edition of the TR?

 

If no such reading ever existed what to you suggest the origin of such reading in the ancient vernaculars to have been particularly when there is a consistancy in several of those ancient vernaculars?

I give no credence whatsoever to "proof by evidence we don't have today but might have existed at some point so we'll just pretend it did."

 

If no such reading ever existed what to you suggest the origin of such reading in the ancient vernaculars to have been particularly when there is a consistancy in several of those ancient vernaculars? </font>[/QUOTE]And your one to judge ones grammar!

 

Does this mean your judgment is suspended or equally divided? In your opinion, what is the degree of probability that the reading "raise the dead" is authentic?

Same question. In your opinion, what is the degree of probability that the Comma is original?

Thanks. I understand your position more clearly now. Since I'm already fully aware of your arguments for the Comma, I would enjoy discussing a number of other passages with you.

First, however, I'd like your own probability rating, if you will, regarding the following passages' authenticity. (Of course I'm assuming you're familiar with and have already studied the passages).

Is the authenticity of each passage:

1. Highly improbable
2. Improbable
3. Even
4. Probable
5. Highly probable

Or you may use a percentage if you prefer.

1. Luke 17:36
2. Acts 8:37
3. Acts 15:34
4. Acts 28:29

Thanks, and I look forward to your response.

 

TCassidy said:

You seem to have misunderstood. The vernaculars were translated from something very early in church history.

Um . . . yes, but we don't know exactly what that something was, do we? So how do we know that the vernaculars are an accurate translation of that something?

Try as you might, you can't escape the fact that your argument hinges on pretend evidence.

 

"God dosen't roll dice" Albert Einstein

 

TCassidy said:

We cannot confirm nor dismiss a reading found in the early vernaculars

I cannot confirm or dismiss the possibility that you plagiarize your arguments from little drunken elves whispering in your ear. Since I don't know either way, but since pretend elves do explain your reliance on pretend evidence, how about I just pretend they exist?