Greek and Hebrew texts

[wavy]

In the previous post you said you were talking about the OP. Now your talking about "those who believe in numerical codes." Probably the reason I dont "got it" is because the target keeps moving.

LOL, one and the same. The OP is one of those people, apparently, hence my response (see quote in red).

Did you read the thread? His was the 2nd post.

I rarely read threads. Usually just the OP.

I honestly could care less about bible codes. That is just for fun. However, when I read you saying "variants exist and we simply don't know what the original said," I disagree. I agree variants exist, but through comparing variant with variant, we know what the original said.

This is why you don't understand. 'Variants' encompass many things other than a different word in one place in the text. They include orthography, syntax, etc. That is, equally valid yet different spellings (also spelling errors), and the order of words, etc. Bible 'codes' are found haphazardly throughout the text, depending upon the orthography used and syntax. These comprise most of the variants we have in our mss. and it is often impossible to know how it originally read. This is just a fact of textual criticism if you've read anything on it.

But anyway, without the autographs, we cannot claim to 'know' what they said. I don't know where you got that from. It simply isn't true.

Interesting logic here. It is not much like an ad hominid argument. You still have said nothing to establish a logical link between the subject of textual variants or the numeric codes some believe are in the bible.

Yes...I have....for several posts in a row now...quite beyond my normal threshhold of patience.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[mondar]

This is why you don't understand. 'Variants' encompass many things other than a different word in one place in the text. They include orthography, syntax, etc. That is, equally valid yet different spellings (also spelling errors), and the order of words, etc.

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with variants. Possibly more then you. Do you read greek and look up the different variants? Now I will admit that I have seen only one variant in a photocopy of p75. Generally, when I speak of variants I am referring to the textual apparatus of my NA26. Once in a while I use the Majority Text. So then, while I am aware that there are very minor variants concerning spelling, the spelling errors are corrected in the NA26. That is an obvious scribal error that can be corrected and the original restored. Other scribal errors might include things like the inclusion of John 4:5. Many scholars believe that verse was not in the original, and was originally put into the column by an early scribe to explain the washing in the water event. So then, again, the original text can be rebuilt. We can talk about the comma yohannium. That of course is in 1 John 5:7. Maybe that is not fair, because this text is far far to easy to reconstruct the original. The comma appears only in 2 or 3 very very late MSS. I think they are in the 12th century. Even text types like the Byzantine, the Majority Text, as well as critical texts do not include the comma. The original is recognized by nearly anyone that knows greek. It's simply a no brainer to reconstruct the original in that verse.

We could talk about other individual variants if you wish, but your sweeping generalizations that "the original does not exist" seems to be to come from ignorance of the field of textual criticism. The History of the field has scholar after scholar that has reconstructed the original. Now some scholars might disagree, but that does not mean one scholar is right, and the other one wrong. Even some of the movable nu's the original can be reconstructed.

Scholars in many different editions of the GNT are so sure of their work, that in certain pages of the NA26, only 3 or 4 variants are even considered worth mentioning on the entire page of text. Even then, the editors are quite certain that they made correct judgments. I can look at the Majority Textform and the same thing occurs. Now certainly, if I were to use Erasmus' TR, I would be less certain of the original. He used only 7 or 8 manuscripts in that edition. Today's editors are using over 5k manuscripts. No I am aware not all of the 5k manuscripts have the entire NT on them, some are mere fragments of papyri. Some are the Uncials or the codex made in scriptoriums, and some later.

Now I am aware that certain scholars, such as Bart Erhman say that the original is lost. But if you pay close attention to what those men are saying, they believe all history is lost. History hardly exists in their mind. They demand that absolute 100% certainty of the original text be there before they allow for any reconstruction. Such a position seems absurd to me. To say we absolutely need a Xerox photocopy of the autograph so that we have 100% certainty what the autograph said just is not what the field is all about. I do not know, maybe you are familiar with some of these hyper-extreme textual critics. Maybe that is where you are taking your perspective from. If that is true, and you actually have read something in the field of these extreme radical critics, then recognize that if all textual critics in the history of the field are put together, these radicals are but a minority of extremists that occurred only in recent times.

In any case, please dont talk to me like I am unaware of the field of study. Certainly I am no scholar on textual variants, I know that, but I need to overly simplistic, kindergarden level statements from you on variants. Neither will I accept your normal attitude of argument from authority that when you say something it must be truth because you said it. If you can read a Greek NT, I suggest that we discuss some individual variant. Again, I am not textual scholar, but I can look up the main variants and were they occur, and why editors believe a certain reading to be original. So, pick your text and let me know. We can look individually at variants and we can see if we have reasonable certainty that an original reading exists.

Bible 'codes' are found haphazardly throughout the text, depending upon the orthography used and syntax. These comprise most of the variants we have in our mss. and it is often impossible to know how it originally read. This is just a fact of textual criticism if you've read anything on it.

But anyway, without the autographs, we cannot claim to 'know' what they said. I don't know where you got that from. It simply isn't true.

Again, this seems argument from authority. And it is a very misplaced argument of authority. The majority of scholars in the field do think you can reconstruct the autographs. Only a few recent radicals dont think you can reconstruct autographs. Try telling the Muslims that that because of textual variants they no longer have the Koran. Try telling us that we no longer have the original of Aristotle, or Josephus, or Philo. We might have a reconstructed autograph with far less certainty then what we have with the GNT, but I see no reason to even be skeptical of our possession of a reconstructed autographs of these other writings.

If you wish to place yourself up as an authority on greek variants and the reconstruction of autographs, you will have to work through a few individual passages where the major variants exist. If you want an example of where we could go if I chose the passage, I would probably use what I mentioned before... the variant created by the scribe that copied P75. The front page of P75 can be found on the internet.

Interesting logic here. It is not much like an ad hominid argument. You still have said nothing to establish a logical link between the subject of textual variants or the numeric codes some believe are in the bible.

Yes...I have....for several posts in a row now...quite beyond my normal threshhold of patience.

Thanks,
Eric

Eric, I am still wondering what detailed knowledge you have of the field of textual criticism. I still cannot help but suspect that you read a book or two by some radical who is outside the mainstream of scholarship. Reconstructing autographs is something commonly done by the majority of textual critics. Who do you think Nestley and Aland were? I dont believe they were evangelicals, but they believed in the reconstruction of the original text of the GNT. Metzgar from Princeton did the same thing. Those behind the UBS edition of the GNT thought the same way. The Majority Textform has the same theory behind it. The only edition that would be doubtful would be the Byzantine. I dont know if they were reconstructing just the Byzantine text, or if they thought it was the original.

Now I am not saying that I am an authority on textual criticism, heavens no. But the statements your are making does not seem to display any in depth knowledge of the field. Your just making statements that seem to claim some special authority on your behalf to pontificate that certain things are true and you feel no need to give evidence. Well, will you actually be surprised if I dont buy that? I will remain with the mainstream understanding of textual criticism, that the original autographs can be reconstructed. If they can be reconstructed, then the people that do any sort of numeric codes, can play their games with numbers.

 

[wavy]

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with variants. Possibly more then you.

Certainly not, if you haven't got it yet. Entire books have been written on our pluriform texts and the problem they pose for bible-coders ...I know what I'm talking about, but more below.

Do you read greek and look up the different variants? Now I will admit that I have seen only one variant in a photocopy of p75. Generally, when I speak of variants I am referring to the textual apparatus of my NA26. Once in a while I use the Majority Text. So then, while I am aware that there are very minor variants concerning spelling, the spelling errors are corrected in the NA26. That is an obvious scribal error that can be corrected and the original restored. Other scribal errors might include things like the inclusion of John 4:5. Many scholars believe that verse was not in the original, and was originally put into the column by an early scribe to explain the washing in the water event. So then, again, the original text can be rebuilt. We can talk about the comma yohannium. That of course is in 1 John 5:7. Maybe that is not fair, because this text is far far to easy to reconstruct the original. The comma appears only in 2 or 3 very very late MSS. I think they are in the 12th century. Even text types like the Byzantine, the Majority Text, as well as critical texts do not include the comma. The original is recognized by nearly anyone that knows greek. It's simply a no brainer to reconstruct the original in that verse.

...

Mmkay, two points to make here.

1) Firstly, on orthography, there isn't always a 'correct' spelling. This applies to syntax as well. And orthographical errors were quite conceivably present in the autographs (or do Christians also believe in divine orthography?). There are variants that have equal probability. There is also the problem of the original 'shape' of the biblical text (for which, see below).

2) I never said we can't make judgments about what the original text of a given passage probably said. We can and we have in many specific cases, but not in all cases. At any event, most of the variants in our mss. are orthographical or syntactic, and estimates range in the hundreds of thousands of variants of this kind. There is no agreement on how many there are, much less how the text was originally written.

3) Your information about the Johannine Comma is a bit off. As far as Greek mss. are concerned, there are eight instances of the reading, ranging from the 10th century to the 16th. It is found in a number of other ancient versions and is known as far back as the 4th century from patristic quotations. But you're right, no one really disputes that it is not authentic to the original text of 1John.

We could talk about other individual variants if you wish, but your sweeping generalizations that "the original does not exist" seems to be to come from ignorance of the field of textual criticism.

LOL, this is a fact: we don't have the originals, and there's hardly a consensus about what constitutes the 'original'. This is an acknowledged, universal problem in biblical textual criticism.

For examples from both OT & NT textual criticism (standard works):

Those who adhere to an assumption of one original text will try to reconstruct it, partially or fully, from these differences, while those who reject this view rarely resort to reconstructions, sometimes renouncing them altogether. In spite of the importance attached to this issue, the question of the original text of the biblical books cannot be resolved unequivocally, since there is no solid evidence to help us decide in either direction.
--E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Second Edition, Fortress Press, 2001, p. 166.


After briefly discussing the problem and giving examples from the Pauline corpus, B. M. Metzger continues:

These examples show why it is difficult--some would say impossible--to talk about the original text of the Pauline epistles. For example, which form of 2 Corinthians is the original? Is it the text of the separate letters that were eventually combined into the one letter we now have? It would now seem to be an impossible task to establish those texts since they now exist only in their edited form, with parts omitted and/or edited to form the one letter of 2 Corinthians. Is it the first edition of this one conglomerate letter that should be reconstructed with or without the interpolation in 6.14-7.1? Morever, since Paul evidently dictated his letters, what if the amanuensis who recorded his words made a mistake? Is the original text the one with the mistake? Or is it the text that Paul spoke--or meant to speak? If the latter, how can we possibly get back to an oral dictation that was erroneously recorded?
--The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed., Oxford, 2005, p. 273


Critial editions of the OT & NT (BH, BHS, Nestle-Aland, Westcott-Hort, UBS, etc.) are only ideally suited to the 'original' for purposes of translation and giving students of the bible something to work with. They do not solve the above kinds of problems. They are meant to establish the 'original text' with respect to individual readings across our ms. witnesses, like the examples you listed (even though, again, there are several exceptions where we simply don't know) by applying the canons of textual criticism. They don't resolve the tough theoretical questions, which are a problem for bible-coders for the reasons I repeat to list.

You would do well to actually read something on textual criticism before you claim others are ignorant of the field.

Scholars in many different editions of the GNT are so sure of their work, that in certain pages of the NA26, only 3 or 4 variants are even considered worth mentioning on the entire page of text. Even then, the editors are quite certain that they made correct judgments. I can look at the Majority Textform and the same thing occurs. Now certainly, if I were to use Erasmus' TR, I would be less certain of the original. He used only 7 or 8 manuscripts in that edition. Today's editors are using over 5k manuscripts. No I am aware not all of the 5k manuscripts have the entire NT on them, some are mere fragments of papyri. Some are the Uncials or the codex made in scriptoriums, and some later.

Now I am aware that certain scholars, such as Bart Erhman say that the original is lost. But if you pay close attention to what those men are saying, they believe all history is lost. History hardly exists in their mind. They demand that absolute 100% certainty of the original text be there before they allow for any reconstruction. Such a position seems absurd to me. To say we absolutely need a Xerox photocopy of the autograph so that we have 100% certainty what the autograph said just is not what the field is all about. I do not know, maybe you are familiar with some of these hyper-extreme textual critics. Maybe that is where you are taking your perspective from. If that is true, and you actually have read something in the field of these extreme radical critics, then recognize that if all textual critics in the history of the field are put together, these radicals are but a minority of extremists that occurred only in recent times.

In any case, please dont talk to me like I am unaware of the field of study. Certainly I am no scholar on textual variants, I know that, but I need to overly simplistic, kindergarden level statements from you on variants. Neither will I accept your normal attitude of argument from authority that when you say something it must be truth because you said it. If you can read a Greek NT, I suggest that we discuss some individual variant. Again, I am not textual scholar, but I can look up the main variants and were they occur, and why editors believe a certain reading to be original. So, pick your text and let me know. We can look individually at variants and we can see if we have reasonable certainty that an original reading exists.

For the sake of not needlessly protracting this reply, I'm just going to say that you have no idea what you're talking about--not about what I'm saying, nor about scholars like Ehrman (and for the record, Ehrman, Metzger's old protege, collaborated with Metzger for the 4th edition of his book on NT textual criticism cited above). I also don't appreciate being accused of holding some kind of bizarre, radical, fringe-scholarly view on textual criticism. I have quoted two standard works on the issue--there are no higher authorities. Your problem is that you still don't understand what I'm saying on the relation of our pluriform textual witnesses to bible codes.

I can't make it plainer. Perhaps you aren't as conversant with textual criticism as you've led yourself to believe.

Again, this seems argument from authority. And it is a very misplaced argument of authority. The majority of scholars in the field do think you can reconstruct the autographs. Only a few recent radicals dont think you can reconstruct autographs.

I'm sorry, mondar. That is false. See above. There isn't a single reputable scholar in the field of textual criticism that I'm aware of who claims we can reconstruct the autographs. We can claim we have a working idea, that we are 'probably' close to the autographs with respect to deciding between certain readings, like your examples. But those are your major cases, and in most of the major cases we can determine which variant in a sea of variants takes priority. But as for the minor discrepancies (orthography, syntax, etc.) and the shape of the text, these are not so easy to pass judgments on because there are so many of them and several of any of them could be original. They (the minor discrepancies, not the shape) probably have little bearing on theological issues, but they (both) pose, in fact, an insurmountable obstacle for hidden 'codes' in the text itself. This is probably the nature of your misunderstanding here. I think your replies are knee-jerk. On matters of the theological content of the biblical books, I would have to agree that with our critical editions of the OT & NT we are probably not far afield from the theological content of the autographs with respect to known invidual readings...but this isn't the case for the alleged phenomenon of bible codes, the validity of which depends upon certain numerical patterns inherent in the very characters used. To reconstruct every word, in the right order with the right spelling in the right shape, is an impossible task. We cannot say anything certain about the autographs because we don't have them. As pointed out above, one of the major difficulties in textual criticism is the lack of agreement upon what scholars mean when they speak of 'autographs'.

Eric, I am still wondering what detailed knowledge you have of the field of textual criticism. I still cannot help but suspect that you read a book or two by some radical who is outside the mainstream of scholarship. Reconstructing autographs is something commonly done by the majority of textual critics. Who do you think Nestley and Aland were? I dont believe they were evangelicals, but they believed in the reconstruction of the original text of the GNT. Metzgar from Princeton did the same thing. Those behind the UBS edition of the GNT thought the same way. The Majority Textform has the same theory behind it. The only edition that would be doubtful would be the Byzantine. I dont know if they were reconstructing just the Byzantine text, or if they thought it was the original.

Now I am not saying that I am an authority on textual criticism, heavens no. But the statements your are making does not seem to display any in depth knowledge of the field. Your just making statements that seem to claim some special authority on your behalf to pontificate that certain things are true and you feel no need to give evidence. Well, will you actually be surprised if I dont buy that? I will remain with the mainstream understanding of textual criticism, that the original autographs can be reconstructed. If they can be reconstructed, then the people that do any sort of numeric codes, can play their games with numbers

By the time you scroll down and read this portion of my reply, I'm sure the irony of what you've stated here will have already hit you. In any case, I hope I've made myself clear to you now.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mondar]

Wavy, I see two issues here.

First, Bible coders can work with any variant, or any text you can provide. Feel free to present them 4 different readings in some text, my guess is they could make bible codes of all 4 readings. Just as you yourself said, they can find codes in any literature. I dont disagree with that. They dont really need an autograph to find their codes. That still seems non-sequitur thinking. I am sure they can do that with the Byzantine, or the Vatacanus, or readers digest. Take your pick and they will make codes.

There is the second issue. That is the idea that we dont have any idea what the original said. That is what I am calling radical skepticism. Now in your last post, you seemed to admit some reasonable certainty on many texts. You also said that there is doubt about some texts, but that it does not affect the theology of the text. Is that right? I already admitted that we do not have 100% certainty but said we do not need 100% certainty (Xerox photocopies) to establish what the autograph said.

A few more things. When you bring up the 400,000 variants or whatever number, you state that in a vaccum. It makes it sound like the bible is terribly corrupted more the any other ancient literature. Of course that is not true. While maybe you did not intend that, I want to mention that the bible also has more manuscripts then any other ancient literature. Some ancient literature has a mere handful of Manuscripts. Of course with 5k+ greek MSS and thousands more in the versions we are going to have more variants.

If you want me to go through you previous post in detail let me know.

 

[wavy]

First, Bible coders can work with any variant, or any text you can provide. Feel free to present them 4 different readings in some text, my guess is they could make bible codes of all 4 readings. Just as you yourself said, they can find codes in any literature. I dont disagree with that. They dont really need an autograph to find their codes. That still seems non-sequitur thinking. I am sure they can do that with the Byzantine, or the Vatacanus, or readers digest. Take your pick and they will make codes.

Well, if they attach any divine significance to what God inspired as 'the' biblical text, then they're going to need autographs or some way to find out what the autographs said.

If it doesn't matter what literature they use, biblical or otherwise, to find codes, then nothing can be said about the bible as a special piece of literature just because there are codes read out of it. In fact, the bible becomes totally irrelevant. So if one is going to claim there are codes in the bible hinting at divine authorship or inspiration, then there needs to be some kind of agreement on what 'the bible' is; that is to say, what it originally said. If they can use anything, the claim is meaningless.

This is why our mss. evidence is a problem. Because a code could be found in a passage simply because the characters are there to find it, regardless of what the words actually mean in context for Christian theology. But if the characters are rearranged or shifted around, etc., then even if the theological meaning of the words themselves don't change, the code itself will. That is my point.

There is the second issue. That is the idea that we dont have any idea what the original said. That is what I am calling radical skepticism. Now in your last post, you seemed to admit some reasonable certainty on many texts. You also said that there is doubt about some texts, but that it does not affect the theology of the text. Is that right? I already admitted that we do not have 100% certainty but said we do not need 100% certainty (Xerox photocopies) to establish what the autograph said.

There are some disputed readings that bear great import for the theology of a passage, or even a book as a whole. They're few, true. But the point is we don't have the evidence we need to make sweeping claims about autographs, especially since, as I've shown, what should be the 'autograph' is already problematic enough.

A few more things. When you bring up the 400,000 variants or whatever number, you state that in a vaccum. It makes it sound like the bible is terribly corrupted more the any other ancient literature. Of course that is not true. While maybe you did not intend that, I want to mention that the bible also has more manuscripts then any other ancient literature. Some ancient literature has a mere handful of Manuscripts. Of course with 5k+ greek MSS and thousands more in the versions we are going to have more variants.

Of course. Agreed.

If you want me to go through you previous post in detail let me know.

I just hope you realize my point now. I think you were confusing the two issues above, and responding for the second issue instead of the first.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mondar]

There is the second issue. That is the idea that we dont have any idea what the original said. That is what I am calling radical skepticism. Now in your last post, you seemed to admit some reasonable certainty on many texts. You also said that there is doubt about some texts, but that it does not affect the theology of the text. Is that right? I already admitted that we do not have 100% certainty but said we do not need 100% certainty (Xerox photocopies) to establish what the autograph said.

There are some disputed readings that bear great import for the theology of a passage, or even a book as a whole. They're few, true. But the point is we don't have the evidence we need to make sweeping claims about autographs, especially since, as I've shown, what should be the 'autograph' is already problematic enough.

Tell me something here.... Please answer a hypothetical question.

If we take a hypothetically highly disputed reading. The most difficult you want to choose. Lets say there are 4 different readings in one verse. Lets assume that the papyri and uncial's are split, and the Byzantine has a completely different reading. So would you say
1---it will be highly difficult to establish the original reading,
or
2---the original reading is lost and therefore it is impossible to recover the words of the autograph?

I am going to assume that you will say #2. Then my next question is can you name one variant where the original could not possible exist in any of the variants? We can discuss the text you choose.

Also, can you list a variant that the theology of a book turns on the meaning of that variant?

 

[wavy]

Tell me something here.... Please answer a hypothetical question.

If we take a hypothetically highly disputed reading. The most difficult you want to choose. Lets say there are 4 different readings in one verse. Lets assume that the papyri and uncial's are split, and the Byzantine has a completely different reading. So would you say
1---it will be highly difficult to establish the original reading,
or
2---the original reading is lost and therefore it is impossible to recover the words of the autograph?

I am going to assume that you will say #2.

It depends. Sometimes we have to either throw up our hands or opt for what's called in textual criticism 'conjectural emendation', where a scholar proposes what he thinks the text probably said.

Then my next question is can you name one variant where the original could not possible exist in any of the variants? We can discuss the text you choose.

I'd have to search through my books on textual criticism. They do list examples, it just might take a while to find them. I'll get back to you on this.

Also, can you list a variant that the theology of a book turns on the meaning of that variant?

Yes, there are some listed, I recall, in B. D. Ehrman's important work The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford, 1993. Right now I just don't feel like getting up. Expect something later, possibly tomorrow (or today if you read this tomorrow).

Thanks,
Eric