Many new versions, including the ESV, have the wrong person in the genealogy of Christ in Matt 1:10. It should be Amon not Amos.

[SavedByTheLord]

Many new versions, including the ESV, have the wrong person in the genealogy of Christ in Matt 1:10. It should be Amon not Amos.

Here is the King James Bible.

And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; - Matt 1:10

 

[Steven Avery]

This is one of the dozens of hard errors in the New Testament corruption text.

Professor James A. Borland

1982
Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy
http://learntheology.com/re-examini...s-and-practices-used-to-negate-inerrancy.html

1999
The Preservation of the New Testament Text: A Common Sense Approach
https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj10d.pdf

and

Jonathan Borland (2010)
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
Matt 1:10 Αμων Αμων
http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2010/10/matt-110.html

both have good sections on the verse, with the context of inerrancy.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Many new versions, including the ESV, have the wrong person in the genealogy of Christ in Matt 1:10. It should be Amon not Amos.

Here is the King James Bible.

And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; - Matt 1:10

ESV footnote: Amos is probably an alternate spelling of Amon; some manuscripts Amon; twice in this verse.

ASV states Amon but footnotes that Amos is the Greek version of Amon. Just like Stephen/Steve, the French equivalent is Etienne.

CSB footnotes other mss read Amos.

HCSB footnote same as CSB.

NASB 95 footnotes Amos, but has Amon in verse.

NIV uses Amon and no footnote,

NLT uses Amon but footnotes Footnotes 1:10 Greek Amos, a variant spelling of Amon; also in 1:10b. See 1 Chr 3:14.

WEB uses Amon with no footnote.

RSV uses Amon but footnotes Footnotes Matthew 1:10 Other authorities read Amon

The OP is a nothing-burger and just using it to attack the newer versions.

 

[Steven Avery]

The OP is a nothing-burger and just using it to attack the newer versions.

The text behind the new versions has a hard error here, and dozens of other NT hard errors.

The English versions try to mask the difficulty.

The doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy are compromised.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The text behind the new versions has a hard error here, and dozens of other NT hard errors.

The English versions try to mask the difficulty.

The doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy are compromised.

But the Amon/Amos diatribe in the OP is baseless and w/o merit.

 

[Steven Avery]

Every hard error in the corruption Greek text is important.

 

[cjab]

Every hard error in the corruption Greek text is important.

Nonetheless, that the error, or variant (depending on one's point of view) is confined to early Greek manuscripts is a clear repudiation of Simonides authorship of Sinaiticus.

 

[Steven Avery]

Nonetheless, that the error, or variant (depending on one's point of view) is confined to early Greek manuscripts is a clear repudiation of Simonides authorship of Sinaiticus.

Just working off of LaParola, and manuscripts collated, at least three manuscripts on Mt. Athos have the Amos error.

1071 - Great Lavra
1079 - Great Lavra
1546 - Vatopedi

Here Ἀμώς (Amos) is in the Birch collation of Vaticanus and other manuscripts in 1801.
The Birch collation was a handy tool to know Vaticanus readings that could be emulated in Sinaiticus by Benedict.

Variae lectiones ad textum iv. Evangeliorum, ex ed. regia Havniensi iv Evv. iterum recogn. et locupletatae (1801)
Andreas Birch
https://books.google.com/books?id=oV4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2


Also Griesbach 1785

 

[Conan]

Just working off of LaParola, and manuscripts collated, at least three manuscripts on Mt. Athos have the Amos error.

1071 - Great Lavra
1079 - Great Lavra
1546 - Vatopedi

Here Ἀμώς (Amos) is in the Birch collation of Vaticanus and other manuscripts in 1801.
The Birch collation was a handy tool to know Vaticanus readings that could be emulated in Sinaiticus by Benedict.

Variae lectiones ad textum iv. Evangeliorum, ex ed. regia Havniensi iv Evv. iterum recogn. et locupletatae (1801)
Andreas Birch
https://books.google.com/books?id=oV4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2
View attachment 5868

Also Griesbach 1785

That is where you are wrong as pointed out by Snapp. But the real kicker is Sinaiticus is to unlike Vaticanus to have been copied from it. There is nothing for Sinaiticus to have been copied from in modern times. It had an ancient copy text. That died out. Nothing in Greece or anywhere else on this planet to have been copied from. There is plenty of wrong with a Westcott and Hort Text to make up fantasies to try to disprove it.

 

[Steven Avery]

That is where you are wrong as pointed out by Snapp.

What I wrote was simply 100% accurate.

 

[Shoonra]

There is plenty of wrong with a Westcott and Hort Text to make up fantasies to try to disprove it.

I am, I suppose, a Westcott & Hort fan. and, bluntly, I don't see "plenty of wrong" in their Greek NT text. This even though their work predated a bundle of significant Bible discoveries (e.g. the discovery of the Oxyrhincus papyri, the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the acquision by the British Library of the Codex Sinaiticus, etc.) I think their work is still valid, and even passages where you wouldn't approve of the rendering in the modern versions their work was based on sound principles and tangible evidence. BTW, there's one and only one "Westcott & Hort Text", and it was first published in 1881.

 

[cjab]

Just working off of LaParola, and manuscripts collated, at least three manuscripts on Mt. Athos have the Amos error.

1071 - Great Lavra
1079 - Great Lavra
1546 - Vatopedi

Here Ἀμώς (Amos) is in the Birch collation of Vaticanus and other manuscripts in 1801.
The Birch collation was a handy tool to know Vaticanus readings that could be emulated in Sinaiticus by Benedict.

Variae lectiones ad textum iv. Evangeliorum, ex ed. regia Havniensi iv Evv. iterum recogn. et locupletatae (1801)
Andreas Birch
https://books.google.com/books?id=oV4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2
View attachment 5868

Also Griesbach 1785

There is no reason to credit Simonides or Benedict as having had access to the above monasteries above, or to the Birch collation, or to Griesbach, and none of these are referred to by Simonides. That Alexandrinus, which Simonides claims to have bee consulted, doesn't have "Amos", but rather Amon, is fatal to your argument. The fantasy continues.

 

[Steven Avery]

There is no reason to credit Simonides or Benedict as having had access to the above monasteries above, or to the Birch collation, or to Griesbach,

There is no reason to claim these were unavailable.

You had falsely claimed only ancient manuscripts. I corrected your error.

Nonetheless, that the error, or variant (depending on one's point of view) is confined to early Greek manuscripts is a clear repudiation of Simonides authorship of Sinaiticus.

Why not accept the correction?

 

[Steven Avery]

BTW, there's one and only one "Westcott & Hort Text", and it was first published in 1881.

The first Westcott-Hort recension text was secretly handed out to the Revision Committee section by section starting c. 1871.

Every modern critical text since then, such as NA27 and NA28, is a Westcott-Hort recension text.

 

[Conan]

I am, I suppose, a Westcott & Hort fan. and, bluntly, I don't see "plenty of wrong" in their Greek NT text. This even though their work predated a bundle of significant Bible discoveries (e.g. the discovery of the Oxyrhincus papyri, the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the acquision by the British Library of the Codex Sinaiticus, etc.) I think their work is still valid, and even passages where you wouldn't approve of the rendering in the modern versions their work was based on sound principles and tangible evidence. BTW, there's one and only one "Westcott & Hort Text", and it was first published in 1881.

I understand how you feel. But I was trying to point out to Avery instead of making up that ancient Christian Bibles are not valuable treasures to instead point out what he thinks is wrong with the W&H Greek Text from a text critical view.

 

[cjab]

There is no reason to claim these were unavailable.

You had falsely claimed only ancient manuscripts. I corrected your error.



Why not accept the correction?

A few sporadic miniscules in other monasteries were insufficient to warrant a change from Amon to Amos, given that Simonides' stated authority, Alexandrinus, contains Amon, which supports the orthodox rendition. Don't forget 15 year old Simonides allegedly collated the Moscow Bible and Alexandrinus on the fly. If both were in harmony, what reason for change?

 

[Steven Avery]

Don't forget 15 year old Simonides allegedly collated the Moscow Bible and Alexandrinus on the fly. If both were in harmony, what reason for change?

Simonides also mention other ancient manuscripts, including Syriac.

And I believe that Benedict developed the NT text before Simonides arrived, and the comments you mention apply to the OT-Apoc,

There is not a Zosimas-Alexandrinus NT harmony, not in the least.

That said, the amazing Claromontanus-Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton agreement does indicate modern shuffling. As do other Sinaiticus connections, such as the Zurich Psalter and one specific Sinaiticus corrector. Or the textual conflations with one part being a late variant. Or the fact of corruption and conflation in the Eusebian canons.

 

[cjab]

Simonides also mention other ancient manuscripts, including Syriac.

The Syriac has "Amon" as I understand it.

There would be no reason for any discrepancy if the two primary sources were in harmony.

And I believe that Benedict developed the NT text before Simonides arrived, and the comments you mention apply to the OT-Apoc,

There is not a Zosimas-Alexandrinus NT harmony, not in the least.

That said, the amazing Claromontanus-Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton agreement does indicate modern shuffling. As do other Sinaiticus connections, such as the Zurich Psalter and one specific Sinaiticus corrector. Or the textual conflations with one part being a late variant. Or the fact of corruption and conflation in the Eusebian canons.

Irrelevant speculation, and no-one (including you) will ever be able to offer a coherent explanation of how it was possible to construct the Sinaiticus LXX in the 19th century.

 

[Steven Avery]

There would be no reason for any discrepancy if the two primary sources were in harmony.

This was a decades long project of Benedict.

Simonides involvement for a year or two would not know all the sources, especially of the NT.

 

[Steven Avery]

Irrelevant speculation, and no-one (including you) will ever be able to offer a coherent explanation of how it was possible to construct the Sinaiticus LXX in the 19th century.

Why not? Generally speaking the LXX is akin to Alexandrinus and Zosimas, with some notable exceptions. And some of those show Syriac and Hebrew influence.

Here is another reference of a totally different source.

Journal of Sacred Literature
https://books.google.com/books?id=_bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223

"friends Nicander and Niphon, who lent thee the Books of Esdras at the time when thou wast preparing in Athos, at the exhortation of my uncle, the present (of the Holy Scriptures) to the glorious Emperor Nicholas."

Most of the sources would not be given in the short summary in 1862.

Kallinikos then rags Simonides for his indifference in leaving the junque project unfinished.