Yes I have seen the whole debate between Moorman and White.
That doesn't impact me much to be honest.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Revision Revised and it's implications on modern critical texts.
- Thread starter Jordan Kurecki
- Start date
- Status
That doesn't impact me much to be honest.
Are you implying some sort of ad hominem based argument?
Maybe you could actually respond to the evidence instead of the ad hominem attacks on Ruckman and Moorman.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Ancient MSS,Church Fathers and the A.V. Pg 53-55 list of Uncials:Uncial is a majuscule[1] script (written entirely in capital letters)
Here is a list of the Alphabet Uncialsabs, E-07,F-09,F-010,G-011,G-012,H-013,H-014,H-015,I-016,K-017,K-018,L-019,L-020,M-021,M-022,O-023,P-024,P-25,Q-026,R-027,S-028,T-029,U-030,V-031,W-032,X-033,Y-034,Z-045,Gamma 036,Delta 037, Theta 038, Lambda 039, XI-040,Pi-041,Sigma 042,Phi-043,Psi 044,Omega 045.
For Mark 16:9-20, you claim (or rather your source claims) many uncial manuscripts in support of the verses that simply don't have them. For the record, here is the complete list of uncials (as of 1998 via the Text und Textwert: Markusevangelium volume) that have some or all of the Greek text of Mark 16:9–20.
A/02 C/04 D/05 E/07 G/011 H/013 K/017 L/019 M/021 S/028 U/030 V/031 W/032 X/033 Y/034 Γ/036 Δ/037 Θ/038 Π/041 Σ/042 Ψ/044 Ω/045 047 083 0211 0257
Now to point out some glaring errors in your list above:
- F/09 is not extant from Mark 15:39–end and so can't be verified, although Wettstein used a collation of part of the ms in 1730, and from this it appears that the ms once contained the verses, but such cannot now be verified.
- F/010 does not even contain any of the Gospels (it's a Paul manuscript).
- G/012 doesn't contain any of the Gospels (it's also a Paul manuscript).
- H/014 doesn't contain any of the Gospels (it's an Acts manuscript).
- I/016 doesn't contain any of the Gospels (it's a Paul manuscript).
- K/018 doesn't contain any of the Gospels (it's an Acts/Paul/Catholic-epistles manuscript).
- L/020 doesn't contain any of the Gospels (it's an Acts and Paul manuscript).
- M/022 doesn't exist, so I assume you meant N/022, which is a Gosples ms but is not even extant from Mark 15:42–Luke 1:2)
- O/023 only contains Matthew.
- P/024 is not extant from Mark 15:37–end.
- P/025 doesn't even contain any of the Gospels (it's an Acts/Catholic-epistles/Paul/Revelation manuscript).
- Q/026 doesn't even contain Matthew or Mark (it only contains Luke and John).
- R/027 doesn't even contain Mark (it only contains Luke).
- T/029 doesn't even contain Matthew and Mark (it only contains Luke and John).
- Z/035 (which you incorrectly cite as Z/045) doesn't even contain Mark, Luke, or John (it only contains Matthew).
- Λ/039 doesn't even contain Matthew and Mark (it only contains Luke and John).
- Ξ/040 doesn't even contain Matthew, Mark, or John (it only contains the first half of Luke).
- Φ/043 is not extant from Mark 14:62–end, and doesn't contain Luke and John either.
That's 18 errors of commission in the simple listing of uncial manuscript support for the inclusion of the last 12 verses of Mark. That's 18 manuscripts that you claim have the verses but in fact don't have them at all. On some discussion boards you would be called a liar for intending to deceive in order to bolster the support for your contention. I don't go that far because I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps you're simply ignorant in the highly specialized field of NT textual criticism or blindly followed an even more ignorant source for the extremely faulty information which you cited.
Now for the errors of omission, which are not as bad since some sources may not have been known to you, your source, or you forgot to copy certain ones, etc.
- A/02
- C/04
- 047
- 083
- 0211
- 0257
I will not take the time to nit-pick here, but since this passage has been collated in every known Greek manuscript (also from the same volume indicated above), I'll simply post the data for others here on the BB:
"watch and pray" (1390 manuscripts)
"watch" (10 mss)
"watch, pray" (233 mss)
"both watch and pray" (11 mss)
"watch (thou) and pray (ye) (1 ms)
Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Borland
is this usually what happens when someone into KJVO is confronted with their "textual evidence," that while it might souind and look impressive, once it gets reviewed in detail, not so much?
I did not list that for Mark 16.
The numbers are for Readings in General that agree with the readings of the KJV vs Readings of the NIV.
I was responding to Rippon's quote of Yeshua saying that the CT/MT/BZt text were superior to the TR by posting evidence from the Uncials that support KJV Readings vs NIV (CT) Readings.
I then proceeded to post as an example of this how the Uncials favor general readings of the KJV (TR) over the NIV (CT)
If you go back and actually look you would see that my quote had nothing to do with Mark 16 but was a response to a statement made concerning the CT/MT/Bzt as a whole being superior to the TR. You really should pay attention to what I actually say.. you wasted your time digging up all that stuff. I think it's funny how you respond with a bunch of data refuting something I didn't even say then Yeshua jumps on the bandwagon calling KJ onlyists ignorant.
Kind of ironic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Seriously do you guys pay attention? :BangHead:
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Try to write more clearly and I'll try to read more carefully. Okay? To summarize what I read:
You had just mentioned that except for 2 Greek manuscripts all others (you said 18 uncials and 600 minuscules) supported Mark 16:9–20. At the same time you posted many fathers (a number of the citations I would call into question) in support of the same verses. Someone asked about the majority of scholars' opinion in regard to the ending of Mark, and you said the majority's opinion regarding Mark 16:9–20 was wrong. Rippon asked why all those scholar's opinion (presumably on Mark 16:9–20) was wrong. In reply, you mention a list of uncial manuscripts! Excuse me if I assumed that you were actually replying to the question, namely, the basis of your opinion that the majority of scholars' opinion on the ending of Mark was wrong!
The hilarious thing, now that we know that you weren't actually talking about the basis of your antagonism against the majority of scholars' opinion about the ending of Mark, is that your reply seems to intimate that the majority of readings of your select list of manuscripts should be trusted! Not that such is wrong per se, but that such is the epitome of your self-conflicting argumentation. That is, to you the majority means nothing with regard to scholars' opinion on the ending of Mark; but the majority means something with regard to the readings of manuscripts coming up with the presumably (in your opinion) original reading. That is until ... the majority doesn't have (in your opinion) the original reading, such as in Matt 3:11 where the majority refrains from adding "and fire"; in Matt 4:10 where the majority refrains from omitting the offensive-to-the-orthodox "behind me"; etc. etc. In those cases the good ol' ℵ and B ("those damnably corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts") are your best friends. I find this highly comical and paradoxical at the same time.
BTW, your info on Mark 16:9–20 is highly dated. Fully 1643 minuscule manuscripts include the long ending, including 26 uncial manuscripts:
A/02 C/04 D/05 E/07 G/011 H/013 K/017 L/019 M/021 S/028 U/030 V/031 W/032 X/033 Y/034 Γ/036 Δ/037 Θ/038 Π/041 Σ/042 Ψ/044 Ω/045 047 083 0211 0257
Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Borland
Last edited by a moderator:
From Steven Avery:
Actually the situation with Jonathan Borland is far worse, it is a pot and kettle thing. Jonathan is the chief net apologist for the one-dimensional theory of Maurice Robinson that all that counts is the majority of Greek mss. Other evidences, the historic Latin line, the ECW, the Syriac and internal considerations and more are only used in tie-breaking mode in this weak theory.
(Granted, since they reject the Hortian nonsense, they have a better text than the modern versions. In addition some of their theories of Greek ms. textual transmission are good, and specific defenses like the traditional ending of Mark, the Pericope Adultera and other variants. Want to give some credit where due.)
And Maurice Robinson clearly has written that he believes that their text has autographic integrity, and thus they can be said to argue backwards in exactly the same way he accuses you! (For confirmation, you can ask Jonathan for any scripture that he does not defend that has 80% Greek ms support.I believe that is the current threshold, but at times it has been 70%, they are very reluctant to speak forthrightly on this aspect of their theory so I would have to check my previous discussions.)
Their problem, they are obviously defending a far inferior text than the AV-TR text .. the AV being simply the purest edition of the TR. (Simple examples, they omit the clear scripture of Acts 8:37 and 1 John 2:23b and go through hoops to argue against the word of God, on 1 John 2:23b. Maurice Robinson even had a well-documented flip related to the change of threshold % that goes to tie-breakers. Now that 1 John 2:23b is under the threshold it is attacked as non-scripture, very weakly, before it was defended.)
One of the things I've noticed, is that when a person's view devolves to making their principle position one of attacking the AV and TR, they tend to a type of rather unbearable arrogance. Have you noticed?
I've met Maurice Robinson, and in many ways he is a gentleman and scholar, he just ended up trying to make an awkward path of attacking the pure Reformation Bible, while offering his close but no cigar alternative of what is a Greek-majority primacy text .. they call it Greek Byzantine, since the Byzantine is generally the overwhelming majority, possible exceptions in Revelation, it is generally the same thing.
And I'm not saying that he was always treated right by AV-TR folks, but now he has hardened his position to a bitterness against the pure Bible, offering an emulation version that omits salient evidences, and is a nothing compared to the excellence of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the learned men of the AV.
As to why they went this way, of trying to bitterly attack the Reformation Bible, the TR and AV, while offering a pale pretender ... seeking accolades and approval from the Hortian academy, we can only conjecture. And this stumbling dance will receive its rewards.
Oh, the supposed attempted analogy between accepting/rejecting the majority of scholars and accepting/rejecting the majority of manuscripts is so ludicrous that, if you want more, I will write about that after I stop laughing.
As to the specific variants discussed, I could check them, but historically he would be falsely presuming for you his theory that everything in the Bible text of the Reformation Bible --> AV revolves around the 'majority- -- of the Greek mss. Which is total nonsense. Thus his attempted mockery is GIGO.
The Matthew 3:11 example :
Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
is definitely ludicrous, it was just a little piddle drop in the majority of the Greek mss, losing "and with fire".
As with Acts 8:37 (remember Irenaeus and Cyprian and Pontius the Deacon). Although I believe Stephanus 1550 had this Matthew verse wrong, and it was corrected by the time of Beza and the AV.
And the AV text is supported by many uncials, possibly a majority of the uncials, a solid minority of the Greek cursive mss, most Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Syriac and also and incredible array from the ECW:
Origen, Tertullian, the Treatise on Rebaptism, Hippolytus, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Leo the Great, Bede through Aquinas and John of Damascus (note - Greek and Latin).
Unconfirmed yet listed by someone fairly reliable on these issues: Justin, Irenaeus(lat.), Athanasius, Ps-Athanasius, Ephraim Syr., Eusebius, Didymus, Macarius Aegypt., Philastrius, Basil, Cyril Alex., Photius, ,Nicetas, Euthymius, Zeno, Cyprian, Gennadius, Hilary, Jerome,and more
A couple of these may have evidences on both sides. The list of contra ECW is short.
100% scripture, the word of God, with the minority of Greek cursives in support and the majority of Greek mss having an error. A piddle nothing error.
(Note that the Greek orthodox often corrected their texts after the time of the Reformation, including some verses and variants that had been omitted in the Greek mss. I have not checked this one. In other words, the current Greek Byzantine text attempts to be an ecclesiastical text without an ecclesia ! )
Response from Elisha Weismann:
It is ironic that for 1800 years there was never a need for a "consensus of scholars" when every orthodox church knew and used the texts in majority, and rejected those in the minority and shorter readings.
Only in the 19th century and beyond has a new presupposition been developed that a consensus of scholarship REGARDLESS OF THEIR PRESUPPOSITIONS TOWARD *ANY* BIBLICAL INERRANCY is now the standard arbitration for determining textual truth.
Furthermore, Jonathon Boreland has erected a typical straw man argument against KJVOs in that he assumes that since we rail against the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, that we therefore by default presume that any CORRECT readings they have that agree with the majority prove a hypocritical defense. The straw man facade in this is that we have never claimed that those mss do not contain SOME elements of truth, that's how great lies are made believable. And lets not forget some of the shuffle games played by these "scholars" who have moved variants in agreement with Mark 16 from the Byzantine family to the Alexandrian.
And ironically, to this date, "scholars" never address the specific evidences that Dean John Burgon gave for Mark 16. He is largely ignored and brushed off despite the fact that he was more of a scholar than any current textual heretic. All KJVO critics point to is the few instances in which he APPEARED to have a conflict with the TR without reading in context that it was later editions of the TR in which he was referring to, not the majority of texts as a whole. But yet the "scholars" avoid the evidences he presented against the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (and of course, I have my suspicions as to whether or not the reading of Mark 16 in the Ephraimi Rescriptus is really properly categorized as an Alexandrian type as "scholars" seem to waiver on including the Pericope Adulteria from the same set of leaves in which the Mark 16 ending is found, yet assign the John readings to the Byzantine families, and then can't make up their mind on Luke 24).
And what I join Steven in for laughter is the presuppositions held by such Bible agnostics that if all manuscripts were to be lost for 100 years, God could somehow be prohibited from reproducing it word for word (Jeremiah 36) without any exemplars. They claim to believe in any miraculous work of God BUT that. Those who follow the John 7:15 "scholar" logic ("How knoweth this man [Jesus] letters having never learned?") never seem to get that these "scholars" are operating under an invented form of criticism developed by German rationalists and ATHEISTS who relegated the proving of texts to the same level of secular books, and pushed theories of genealogy and conflation with absolutely no evidence but their own opinions. And like the evolutionary scientists, the weight of "evidence" is the amount of "scholars" who repeat each other, not the intrinsic quality of the examinations themselves.
And as my brother in law, Dr. James Ach, frequently points out, these "scholars" always use the majority of texts to prove the veracity of the Bible to agnostics, skeptics and atheists, but then slander them when attempting to prove that 48 manuscripts are more valid than the 5200 used to support the TR or KJV when attempting to bolster their arguments against KJVO.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Dear Jordan,
I'm on the road (currently in Colombia, SC) and can't write conveniently from my cell phone. First, please refrain from posting comments from non-members, especially those who hold views that would prevent them from becoming members of this board themselves. I don't think it's in the spirit of this board, especially with the pejorative attacks in some of them.
Second, you've blasted following the majority of manuscripts, but then you go and post, as your basis of belief in the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, none other than the majority of the readings of the manuscripts you posted. Thus two of your stated precepts are self-contradictory.
Third, I actually defend a number of readings that have less than 50 percent of the Greek manuscripts, and even some where another reading has more manuscripts in support. For fun, I'll let you, or your friend Steven, try to figure out which those might be. It is true that I can't think of any readings commanding 80 percent of the ms tradition that I know to be corrupt.
Fourth, on Matt 3:11, Mill and others were right. The words "and fire" crept in from Luke, and once in, it was difficult for some scribes to delete what was known to be scripture elsewhere (I.e. in Luke). See the following for an explanation on Matt 3:11.
Fifth, I have no problem calling copies and even translations of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures the inspired and infallible Word of God (your water in a vessel analogy was quite on target) since the reality and authority of God's Word is not limited by language or even less by the paper upon which it has been written, even though his Word was immediately inspired in Hebrew and Greek through the prophets, and thus in matters of dispute final appeal must be made to the original languages, namely, the copies that have been handed down to us and which are also the providentially preserved and inspired Word of God macrostructurally.
Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Borland
I'm on the road (currently in Colombia, SC) and can't write conveniently from my cell phone. First, please refrain from posting comments from non-members, especially those who hold views that would prevent them from becoming members of this board themselves. I don't think it's in the spirit of this board, especially with the pejorative attacks in some of them.
Second, you've blasted following the majority of manuscripts, but then you go and post, as your basis of belief in the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, none other than the majority of the readings of the manuscripts you posted. Thus two of your stated precepts are self-contradictory.
Third, I actually defend a number of readings that have less than 50 percent of the Greek manuscripts, and even some where another reading has more manuscripts in support. For fun, I'll let you, or your friend Steven, try to figure out which those might be. It is true that I can't think of any readings commanding 80 percent of the ms tradition that I know to be corrupt.
Fourth, on Matt 3:11, Mill and others were right. The words "and fire" crept in from Luke, and once in, it was difficult for some scribes to delete what was known to be scripture elsewhere (I.e. in Luke). See the following for an explanation on Matt 3:11.
Fifth, I have no problem calling copies and even translations of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures the inspired and infallible Word of God (your water in a vessel analogy was quite on target) since the reality and authority of God's Word is not limited by language or even less by the paper upon which it has been written, even though his Word was immediately inspired in Hebrew and Greek through the prophets, and thus in matters of dispute final appeal must be made to the original languages, namely, the copies that have been handed down to us and which are also the providentially preserved and inspired Word of God macrostructurally.
Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Borland
Last edited by a moderator:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Ten page limit reached
- Status