Two philosophies

[Pastor Larry]

So you admit your statement was incorrect? Good. About time.

Falsehood number 1.

And, if I am not mistaken, a first for you!

Falsehood number 2.

Two for two on mangling the truth. You are not doing well here Thomas. You know very well these two statements are false.

When you depart from the thrust of the discussion to go off on a foolish rabbit trail all you end up doing is having to admit you were incorrect. It is much easer to just stick to the discussion and not try to deflect the discussion to irrelevant minutia.

This makes no sense. The statements I made and the questions I asked were asked in the course of the conversation. You simply did not follow closely enough.

Now, for what must be the fourth time, are you seriously suggesting that Erasmus had access to every reading we have access to today? I have never seen any competent scholar make that claim, and given your background, I am shocked that you appear to have made it. Of course, on account of your posting technique, it is hard to figure out exactly what you are saying since you appear to prefer personal attacks to answering questions. Given your long history here, I would think you would see the banility and uselessness of trying to make it personal. We have seen many go down that road and it never works. Why you would try it again is beyond me.

So, if you want to answer the question, then do so. If not, don't. But don't keep making foolish personal attacks on me and twisting my words.

Let's try to focus in here again: The original assertion by you was that Erasmus had access to every reading we have access to. When I asked, you then tried to say it was "textforms." Then you tried to say it was "representative readings." You tried to distract by mentioning a reading that doesn't exist even though it made it into the TR. In the midst of all this, you tried the old personal attack route. None of it worked. It didn't distract from the real question.

Did Erasmus have access to "every reading" we have access to? Yes or No?

 

[TCassidy]

Falsehood number 1.

Okay, so you still refuse to admit you were mistaken. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Falsehood number 2.

Yes, of course. If you refuse to ever admit you are wrong, and if you just did so again, then it is NOT a first for you.

So, I see you are still obfuscating and trying to dodge the truth. You claimed we had just oodles and oodles of things that Erasmus didn't have access to. I pointed out you were mistaken so you tried to cover up your error by blathering incessantly about irrelevancies, but it won't work. Just admit it! Erasmus had access to the Byzantine Textform, the Western Textform, and the Alexandrian Textform, just as we do today.

I have a 3 year old grandson who tries to do the same thing, but my 6 year old grandson has outgrown it. I sure hope you do, someday.

 

[Pastor Larry]

There's a reason I didn't admit I was wrong, namely, because I am not a liar. I wasn't wrong, and to admit that I was would be to lie. You simply misunderstood (didn't read closely) or misdirected (changing "reading" to "textform"), and now continue to dig a hole for yourself by this ranting. I have admitted I was wrong before. I try to do that when I am wrong. I typically don't do it when I am right, or when we have a difference over a legitimate matter of opinion. In this case, I believe I am right, and you have certainly offered no evidence to the contrary.

And on top of that, you still haven't answered the question. Notice your attempt at a response: Erasmus had access to the Byzantine Textform, the Western Textform, and the Alexandrian Textform, just as we do today.

The fact that you think that is a response to the question shows that you don't even know what the discussion is about. You said (post #94 if I recall correctly) that Erasmus had access to every reading we do. Now you say he had access to every textform. Those are two different things, as you well know, and as all but the most idiotic of us knows. Why do you think answering a question about "readings" with an answer about "textforms" is a legitimate response? That makesno sense. Surely you know that.

I questioned you on your assertion about "every reading" primarily because I have never seen any competent scholar make that assertion.

You want to change the topic to "textforms." That wasn't under dispute, and it wans't the question. It wasn't what you said, and it wasn't what I asked about.

It appears you have told yet another falsehood, by saying that I "claimed we had just oodles and oodles of things that Erasmus didn't have access to." Where did I claim that? Your next post, if you don't back out (which would be your wisest choice to date) should include one of two things: 1) A link to the place where I made the above claim, or 2) an apology for not telling the truth about what I said.

I imagine you won't find #1 and you are too stubborn and arrogant to write #2. Why not just say you misread? Or at least just quit posting? In a few days, most will have forgotten your little display of rudeness and dodging here. It will quickly be hidden in the old threads. Unfortunately, your continued manner of posting of personal attacks, combined with continued dodges of the actual question, which I asked in good faith and decency is all too typical of your past ways.

I have not obfuscated. I have tried to be explicitly clear. I have stated and restated my question, and you dodge it time after time. All you had to do was say Yes or No, and provide some source for your assertion. You didn't need to go on these personal rants. You didn't need to equate me with a three year old. Those kinds of personal attacks are what you say when you have nothing else. It is beneath even you, Thomas.

Stop it already. Answer the question with a Yes or No, and reference to support you.

 

[Askjo]

Howdya KNOW? Or are ya just guessing again?

I read his comments in his website. I disagree with what he said.

 

[TCassidy]

Stop it already.

Come on, Larry! Time to be honest and shame the Devil! You clearly stated, "Erasmus did look at the information available to him. He simply didn't have all the information available. He had limited information available." I responded by saying, "Erasmus had Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western witnesses. In fact the latter were slightly overrepresented statistically." And, of course, you just couldn't leave it alone! You had to try to deflect the discussion away from my correction of your lack of understanding of what Erasmus had available, and when it became obvious that you were wrong, as was shown by the quotes from respected authors writing on Textual Criticism, you started kicking up dust and once again began obfuscating and obsessing over irrelevancies. Time to get over it and get on with our life!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Please gentlemen, this has been an interesting and informative debate until you allowed personalities and thinly veiled insults into your discussion.

The rest of us have enjoyed the benefit of your studies. Lets return to the scholarly debate from which we have only of late departed.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Please enlighten us less gifted individuals- What is the difference between a 'reading' and a 'textform'?

 

[Pastor Larry]

You clearly stated, "Erasmus did look at the information available to him. He simply didn't have all the information available. He had limited information available." I responded by saying, "Erasmus had Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western witnesses. In fact the latter were slightly overrepresented statistically."

But you conveniently ignore what else you said (post #94): He had access to every reading we do. That is what I questioned. I did not question the access to textforms. For some reason you keep wanting to distract from the issue at hand. And you still won't answer the actual question.

Did Erasmus have access to "every reading," or not? Yes or no? (That was your claim.)

What is the difference between a 'reading' and a 'textform'?

A reading is an individual variant on a given passage, a place where one manuscript reads one thing, and another manuscript reads another thing. For instance, the most famous is probably 1 JOhn 5:7-8. One "reading" includes the passage on the Trinity; one "reading" excludes it.

A textform is a family of manuscripts based on similarities, such as the Byzantine textform, the Alexandrian textform, the Western, etc. Manuscripts grouped in a text form are not identical. They contain differing readings in some cases, but their characteristics are similar enough to group them together.

Often the "readings" will be generally associated with a particular text form, but not always. The Byzantine textform is very similar across the range, but not identical. You have have multiple "readings" within a single "textform."

You might picture it as families and children. A textform is a family; a reading is a child. A family may have more than one child, and they won't be identical. But there are enough similarities to make them part of the same family.

Perhaps Thomas can explain it in a better way.

 

[TCassidy]

Please gentlemen, this has been an interesting and informative debate until you allowed personalities and thinly veiled insults into your discussion.

The rest of us have enjoyed the benefit of your studies. Lets return to the scholarly debate from which we have only of late departed.

I'm trying but I doubt it will occur. Larry is too well known as a recalcitrant obfuscator.

Additionally he seems sadly uninformed regarding the manuscript evidence we have available today. If he would look at the major Uncials Aleph, A, B, C, etc., he would notice that only Aleph, the reading of which were available to Erasmus, contains the book of the Revelation. In fact it is not until the 10th century Uncial 046 that we have another complete copy of Revelation, and that is a Byzantine manuscript! C, a 5th century Alexandrian Uncial with many Byzantine variants, ends at 19:5, P, a 9th century Byzantine Uncial ends at 22:6, 051 ends at 22:21, and, of course, 2814, the manuscript Erasmus used, ends at 22:16. And even in the papyrus fragments only 7 of them contain any of the Revelation at all, and then chapter 17 is the last chapter. Not a single Uncial or Papyrus contains Revelation 22 with the exceptions noted above. Unless, of course, you want to count miniscule 61!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Doc,

Using big words for insults makes them no less insulting. Lets keep to the topic at hand, or I will be forced to edit any insults I can understand.

Roger

 

[TCassidy]

Please enlighten us less gifted individuals- What is the difference between a 'reading' and a 'textform'?

There are several distinctions that are often overlooked when discussing manuscript evidence.

A manuscript is a hand written copy of all or a portion of the New Testament.

A Textform is a consensus of regional manuscripts which are in substantial agreement with one another, or in the case of the Byzantine textform a consensus of all existing manuscripts (thus its being often called the "Consensus" text).

A text is a printed copy of the scriptures usually arrived at by compiling the above and having the result set in movable type.

A reading is a portion of any of the above, usually, but not always, indicating a variant in the manuscript or textual evidence.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Additionally he seems sadly uninformed regarding the manuscript evidence we have available today. If he would look at the major Uncials Aleph, A, B, C, etc., he would notice that only Aleph, the reading of which were available to Erasmus, contains the book of the Revelation. In fact it is not until the 10th century Uncial 046 that we have another complete copy of Revelation, and that is a Byzantine manuscript! C, a 5th century Alexandrian Uncial with many Byzantine variants, ends at 19:5, P, a 9th century Byzantine Uncial ends at 22:6, 051 ends at 22:21, and, of course, 2814, the manuscript Erasmus used, ends at 22:16. And even in the papyrus fragments only 7 of them contain any of the Revelation at all, and then chapter 17 is the last chapter. Not a single Uncial or Papyrus contains Revelation 22 with the exceptions noted above. Unless, of course, you want to count miniscule 61!

I am not sadly uninformed on this. But I will point out that your answer here is irrelevant to the actual question. And calling me names with a smily face won't make it more relevant. The question is not about whether Erasmus had access to portions of Revelation. No one denies that he did. He very clearly, as you admitted, used a reading of the end of Rev that was in error, made up from a faulty copying of the text. But even that was only an example. My suspicion is that he used that reading because he had no access to the correct one for that portion. In fact, he had only one reading in front of him, right? The one that he took from the faulty copy he had made for him. If he had had another reading, would not he have used that one, rather than having one made?

But even that is merely an example of the question.

So let me give it another shot: Did Erasmus have access to every reading that we have access to today?

That's a yes or no answer. It doesn't require any dodging or personal attacks. It doesn't even require smily faces or lists of manuscripts.

But as I suspected, you gave a good explanation to Mexdef's question. I don't know why you don't write like that all the time. It was clear, concise, devoid of personal attacks, and answered the actual question.

 

[TCassidy]

He very clearly, as you admitted, used a reading of the end of Rev that was in error, made up from a faulty copying of the text.

Wrong again! Erasmus did not use a faulty copy of Revelation for his text of the last few verses in Revelation. He used the Latin Vulgate and translated the Latin into Greek thus producing a text that is not contained in any Greek manuscript.

My suspicion is that he used that reading because he had no access to the correct one for that portion.

Do your "suspicions" constitute facts? Do you KNOW he didn't have a reading from Vaticanus?

In fact, he had only one reading in front of him, right?

I don't know. Did he? We know 2814 was lacking the last 6 verses, but are we sure he didn't get a reading from Rome and chose not to use it because he believed the Vaticanus readings were less accurate than the Byzantine readings found in 4 or the 5 manuscripts he had in his immediate possession? Could he have assumed his back-translation of the Latin Vulgate might be more accurate than any Alexandrian readings that might have been supplied to him?

The one that he took from the faulty copy he had made for him.

No, the reading comes from the Vulgate, not from any Greek manuscript.

If he had had another reading, would not he have used that one, rather than having one made?

Do you know what he had what why he chose what he chose?

But as I suspected, you gave a good explanation to Mexdef's question. I don't know why you don't write like that all the time. It was clear, concise, devoid of personal attacks, and answered the actual question.

I do. You just reject anything I write that contradicts your presuppositions.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Just wanted to add that I have enjoyed keeping up with this thread. I do hope that Doc and Larry can stay away from personal attacks and keep at the heart of the issue. I have learned quite a bit in reading the thread.

I do have to ask why Doc avoided Larry's question in his last post, he had it in bold and everything? I would like to hear your answer too.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Quote:

Erasmus did not use a faulty copy of Revelation for his text of the last few verses in Revelation. He used the Latin Vulgate and translated the Latin into Greek thus producing a text that is not contained in any Greek manuscript.

So what his assistant in backtranslating from Latin into Greek was not a "copy"? What was it? Wasn't the whole point of the backtranslation to get a Greek copy from which to work?

Do your "suspicions" constitute facts? Do you KNOW he didn't have a reading from Vaticanus?

If you have been following along here, you know this is what I have been asking. Did he have the readings fro Vaticanus, and other Alexandrian witnesses?

My suspicions don't constitute facts. That's why I called it a "suspicion," rather than a "fact."

I don't know. Did he? We know 2814 was lacking the last 6 verses, but are we sure he didn't get a reading from Rome and chose not to use it because he believed the Vaticanus readings were less accurate than the Byzantine readings found in 4 or the 5 manuscripts he had in his immediate possession?

DIdn't you just say the "4 or 5 manuscripts he had in his immediate possession" did not contain the last six verses? We all know that they didn't, right? But aren't you proving my point, that you don't know if he had all the readings in front of him?

Could he have assumed his back-translation of the Latin Vulgate might be more accurate than any Alexandrian readings that might have been supplied to him?

Sure, or he could have not had them at all (which seems to be the most commonly held position).

No, the reading comes from the Vulgate, not from any Greek manuscript.

With respect to the last six verses, Yes. But some of revelation was copied by a scribe from a commentary in which the text of Revelation was embedded, I believe. And there are other issues in the text of Revelation, as you well know.

Which is fine, and irrelevant to the point at hand.

Do you know what he had what why he chose what he chose?

Nope, that is why I have been continually asking for an answer.

You just reject anything I write that contradicts your presuppositions.

No, I don't. YOu know better. I am simply looking for an answer to the question.

It appears, from this, that you are admitting you don't really know the answer. Which is fine. I suspected you didn't. The truth is that we don't know the entirety of what Erasmus had access to, but do we have a pretty good idea, based on his Annotationes, and other writings. And it is safe to say that Erasmus did not have access to "all the readings" that we have access to. I don't know of anyway to dispute that. And you haven't given us anyway to dispute that.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am totally lost amongst all this intellegence here, but I would like to know the answer to this question.

Did Erasmus have access to every reading that we have access to today?

 

[TCassidy]

I am totally lost amongst all this intellegence here, but I would like to know the answer to this question.

Yes, that is clear from the posts. Whether or not he availed himself of those readings is another question, but every reading we have available to us today was also available to Erasmus.

 

[Deacon]

So, uhhh, yes....and no... :laugh:

 

[Trotter]

So... in the 500+ years since Erasmus compiled his work, there have been no manuscripts discovered?

Gee, was I ever misled...

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Yes, that is clear from the posts. Whether or not he availed himself of those readings is another question, but every reading we have available to us today was also available to Erasmus.

Thanks for the very clear answer.

I too am surprised to learn that there have been no fresh readings discovered in the last 500 or so years. This has been educational.