Modern KJVO Text-Critical Method Apologists Who Don't Understand Textual Criticism

Maestroh

Well-known member
THE VARIANT THAT BEST EXPLAINS --> MIND-READING THE SCRIBES

One of the weirdest, wildest and wackiest analysis explanations in modern textcrit was summarized by Gordon Fee:

"One criterion above all others superintends the scholar's choice at any point of textual variation: the variant that best explains the origin of all the others is most likely original. In order to "best explain the origin of the others,"

You can be forgiven for being confused by his documentation, but the reason he cut the sentence short here is because Fee modifies his original comment with "there are two factors that scholars must consider: external evidence (the MSS themselves) and internal evidence (having to do with the authors or scribes)."

What Fee is saying here is simply standard TC.

Starting around 1995, this got big play in all the textual books.

Yes, folks, a standard of TC since 1734 is the fault of a guy in 1993....



Looking for the origin of this nonsensical "superintends", we notice that Fee points the finger at Greenlee and Metzger.

1) A person using inflammatory language like "points the finger" is not someone really interested in learning anything or having a discussion; it's someone spoiling for a fight. Furthermore, all Fee said was to read their books - he did not say "they started it."

2) If Avery would simply have read the VERY BOOK HE WAS CITING, he would have learned on page 146 that it was Bengel who said this.

The people whom Avery was asking were too kind to mock him with this, but all of them who knew the resource he was citing also knew the book he was claiming to have read answered his question.

Today this has become the keynote for mind-reading the scribes and special pleading, as well as many logical fails, such as not even seeing when there is a symmetry in how variants can arise.

Good luck following this level of nonsense. Nobody is talking about mind-reading scribes in a vacuum. (Bear in mind - Avery HIMSELF has no problem mind-reading Augustine and suggesting that he actually had the Comma Johanneum in his text but intentionally didn't quote it).


So my question is .. when and by whom did this concept begin?

On page 146 of the book you cite, it says Bengel. GORDON FEE HIMSELF says Bengel.

Metzger? And was it an extrapolation from an earlier construction?

If you had read the book you claim elicited the question, you'd know the answer.
Why didn't you finish reading the book first?

Possibly this is a takeoff from other theories like: "prociivi scripioni pracsiat ardua (the harder reading is to be preferred). And "lectio brevior lectio potior" (the shorter reading is more probable.)

I'm not sure why you said this other than to demonstrate how little you know about the subject.


Where, telephone style one garble leads to more mangling.

1) LIBERALS use the argument you're using here - not conservatives - because liberals want to make the claim all these changes happened.
2) There is no "telephone style" given the multiple lines of transmission.

However, where and how did this arise as a fundamental concept.

For the third time, it was Bengel in 1734. And for the third time, it's on page 146 of the work you're citing.



I've found that confused textcrits (like a gentleman who studied under Daniel Wallace) often fall back on this over all real evidences.

1) That's impossible because the quotation very explicitly MENTIONS both internal and external evidence.
2) If you're referring to me - I at least have enough brains to read the book before I post on the internet and make a fool of myself.
 
every time I click on
Steven Avery said:

it takes me the abortion thread;



do you have a better link to steve's post
tkx


 
The quote boxes do not work from one forum to a different forum, even if they are both Xenforo.

You have to put in the url separately.
 
Then an idiot runs Pure Bible Forum.
It works every time from BVDB.

Different architecture.
SMF (Tapatalk, I think the forum architecture is SMF) and Xenforo.

BVDB may put an actual external url in their quote box. I think it is SMF.
Xenforo is using an internal link, specific to the forum.

Try to understand.

You can test it by going to BVDB from CARM.

Has nothing to do with who runs the forum.
 
Last edited:
Different architecture.
BVDB may put an actual external url in their quote box.
Xenforo is using an internal link, specific to the forum.

Try to understand.

I am. You screwed up again when you said:
The quote boxes do not work from one forum to a different forum, even if they are both Xenforo.

You have to put in the url separately.

You did not SAY, "These do not work when copied from MY forum," or "from some forums," presumably because you didn't know, either.

Hence, it's not MY FAULT you made a universal statement that was wrong.
It was, in fact, yours.
 
I gave the URL the first time.
It's not my fault that when I copy and paste from your site it goes elsewhere.
Twice.

To summarize:

You simply did not understand how the Xenforo forums work, they use internal links.

Hence, it's not MY FAULT you made a universal statement that was wrong.

Ok, the "universal statement" was meant to apply to your current difficulties.

You were the one who went into your childish "idiot" mode.
 
To summarize WITHOUT HIDING WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
Except as I pointed out, they actually do.
In other words once again:
1) you said something insanely wrong
2) you blamed someone else for it
No, childish idiot mode is refusal to admit you screwed up.
Or this, both of which you do.
Every morning you wake up and have to pretend you're informed.
Every morning I wake up knowing more than you do about every related subject with Bible and Theology despite being 20 years younger.
You. Wasted. Your. Life.
Some of us did things - for real, not just online.

Typical Bill Brown post that is a stain on the Edit per mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As if any more evidence was necessary...you're about to get a tutorial in "How NOT To Do Textual Criticism"

"Erasmus introduced ... some Latin readings into the Greek text.

For example, in Acts 9:5–6 ... this phrase ... is actually found in some later Latin manuscripts and in the printed Latin editions of Erasmus’s time"

Get ready for a bait and switch act from someone who cannot do TC for himself nor knows how to read an apparatus.


And I would think we should point out that this is not just a late Latin reading,

1) Once again - you're not a WE, you're an I.
2) nobody said it's a later Latin reading, he said it was found in some later Latin MSS (e.g. EXTANT ons)


it is an ancient text

It's a READING, not a text, but I guess I can't expect someone who doesn't know anything the subject to be ACCURATE.

that the LaParola apparatus

Something virtually nobody uses because it's unreliable and conflates things.


lists as 7-1 inclusion in the Old Latin line,

What do you even mean here? Are you trying to say - but AFRAID to say - it's found in 7 of the 8 manuscripts listed here?
What are those? What are the dates? (Your link showed nothing).

considered to be from the 2nd century,

Now he pulls the old bait and switch. Since the OLD LATIN was from the second century THEREFORE HE ASSUMES that a reading that wound up in the KJV ONLY because Erasmus took it from Acts 26 (he admitted that) dates to the second century.

This right here would get a huge "F" in any reputable TC class in the world.


some versional support and Lucifer Ephraem Ambrose Theophylact in the early church writers from the 4th century.

Nothing you said here changes what he said - at all.


Perhaps Hilary as well.

Meaning "I want this to be true and to count it but I have no evidence."


The textual critics do like to overlook evidence that supports Textus Receptus readings that are not supported or weakly supported in the extant Greek manuscripts.

1) This is a poisoning the well fallacy as well as an ad hominem ("They're just biased!").
2) Given the NT was written in Greek, it's obvious to everyone except you apparently why one looks there first.



Jan Krans writes some helpful background on p. 58-61 of Beyond What is Written with the normal spin and similarly omitting early evidences for the text.

Thanks!

Another insulting ad hominem designed to distract from the poor and ill-informed presentation.
 
As if any more evidence was necessary...you're about to get a tutorial in "How NOT To Do Textual Criticism"



Get ready for a bait and switch act from someone who cannot do TC for himself nor knows how to read an apparatus.




1) Once again - you're not a WE, you're an I.
2) nobody said it's a later Latin reading, he said it was found in some later Latin MSS (e.g. EXTANT ons)




It's a READING, not a text, but I guess I can't expect someone who doesn't know anything the subject to be ACCURATE.



Something virtually nobody uses because it's unreliable and conflates things.




What do you even mean here? Are you trying to say - but AFRAID to say - it's found in 7 of the 8 manuscripts listed here?
What are those? What are the dates? (Your link showed nothing).



Now he pulls the old bait and switch. Since the OLD LATIN was from the second century THEREFORE HE ASSUMES that a reading that wound up in the KJV ONLY because Erasmus took it from Acts 26 (he admitted that) dates to the second century.

This right here would get a huge "F" in any reputable TC class in the world.




Nothing you said here changes what he said - at all.




Meaning "I want this to be true and to count it but I have no evidence."




1) This is a poisoning the well fallacy as well as an ad hominem ("They're just biased!").
2) Given the NT was written in Greek, it's obvious to everyone except you apparently why one looks there first.





Another insulting ad hominem designed to distract from the poor and ill-informed presentation.
Steven Avery — the gift that keeps on giving.
 

Maestroh

check your links to Steven Avery;

1) Since you seem to have this love affair with coming here and whining about my posts, your post will be taken with the same level of seriousness with which the Fake Moon Landings theory is taken.

2) henceforth, if you will actually LOOK INSIDE the quote box, the link is in there.

3) At this point, you're on ignore, good-bye. Clearly you will miss interacting with me far more than I ever would with you.
 
Back
Top