Firstborn removed from many MV’s which follows RCC doctrine of Mary not having other children, which scripture names Mary’s other children.

Shoonra

Active member
There is a Jewish practice of "redeeming the firstborn son", articulated in Exodus 13:13 & Numbers 18:15-16, and undoubtedly Jesus, when one mointh old, was redeemed this way. Scripture speaks of the firstborn as "the first issue of the womb" - ands the ceremony takes place a month after the birth, so this applies (obviously) when the son is the only child and calling him firstborn does not require (or admit of) the existence of a second-born.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Matthew 1:25 (AV)
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Textual evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

Greek uncials and cursives, Latin Vulgate, Diatessaron, Peshitta, versions and a large group of early church writers.

The opposition to the pure AV text is simply absurd.
There is no sensible vector of transmission that begins with the corruption text.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Matthew 1:25 (AV)
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Textual evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

Greek uncials and cursives, Latin Vulgate, Diatessaron, Peshitta, versions and a large group of early church writers.

The opposition to the pure AV text is simply absurd.
There is no sensible vector of transmission that begins with the corruption text.
Are those "Greek uncials and cursives", etc. part of the corrupted pre-200 manuscripts? Or derived therefrom?

Just wondering,
--Rich
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Matthew 1:25 (AV)
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Textual evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

"Overwhelming"?
("You keep using dat word... I don't t'ink it means what you t'ink it means.")


Century​
"son"​
"firstborn son"​
4th​
Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
5th​
Bezae (corrected)Ephraemi Rescriptus
Bezae
Washingtonianus
6th​
Dublinensis
071
087
7th

8th​
15

Regius
9th​
33Cyprius
Sangallensis
037
565
892
10th

11th​
036

700
12th​
f11241
13th​
f13579
Versions​
Old Latin
Middle Egyptian
Sahidic
Bohairic
Vulgate
Peshitta


So both readings have a HUGE amount of manuscript support, so it inaccurate to claim the KJV rendering is "overwhelming". That's nothing but worthless rhetoric and posturing.

And yes, in later centuries the number of manuscripts containing the "prototokos" reading is greater, but at that point it becomes irrelevant, since if you are simply copying manuscripts which contain the error, you'll simply have more copies with the error, which is why the majority text view doesn't ensure "correct" reading.

But what is more important is that the CT rendering is EARLIER than the TR rendering. Tht is hardly surprising as the TR was based on later manuscripts.

Now, textual critic Philip Comfort gives a great summary response to the issue:

"Since the word “firstborn” could imply that other offspring followed, it could be argued that “firstborn” was dropped from the original by scribes who wanted to support the view of Mary’s perpetual virginity. However, if this were the case, we would expect to see, in the same manuscripts, the same deletion in Luke 2:7 (the parallel passage), but we do not. Thus, it is far more likely that the variant reading in 1:25 reflects scribal conformity to Luke 2:7, which has “firstborn” in every manuscript except W. TR (followed by KJV and NKJV) reflects this harmonization."

So we have to ask two hypothetical questions:

1) Question: If "son" is original, and "firstborn" was a later addition, then why the change?
Answer: Scribes might either intentionally (or unintentionally) change Matt. 1:25 to add "prototokos" to make it harmonize with Luke 2:7.

2) Question: If "firstborn" is original, and was later removed, then why the change?
Answer: Scribes may have been biased against the Catholic view, and removed it so that it might not suggest future children. However, we have to assume the scribes were INCOMPETENT, as there is NO extant codex where "prototokos" is missing from both verses.


One of the things that turns me away from the KJVO movement, is that it always has to rely on "conspiracy" theories, and then by people who are incompetent to do the job right.

As the saying goes:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
-- Hanlon's razor




Greek uncials and cursives, Latin Vulgate, Diatessaron, Peshitta, versions and a large group of early church writers.

The opposition to the pure AV text is simply absurd.
There is no sensible vector of transmission that begins with the corruption text.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
So both readings have a HUGE amount of manuscript support

False.
The omission reading is weak in Greek uncials and cursives, Latin and Syriac.

The cursives are absolutely overwhelming.
Only in the Old Latin is there important support for the omission, beyond Vaticanus, a ms. full of omissions.

The early church writers are also overwhelming.
Your Bezae info looks wrong.
071 is a vid, a maybe
Sinaiticus is 1800s
Middle Egyptian is a strange way to indicate..what?
Codex Freerianus is for the full reading

John William Burgon, Revision Revised, p 123-124
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA123
(only 2 cursives at that time, and he had never seen Sinaiticus so accepted the faux date, footnotes on the page)


For ourselves, when we find that only Aleph-B-Z and two cursive copies can be produced for the omission, we are at a loss to understand of what the Revisionists can have been dreaming. Did they know* that,—besides the
Vulgate,
the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the
AEthiopic,
Armenian,
Georgian, and
Slavonian Versions,’

—a whole torrent of Fathers are at hand to vouch for the genuineness of the epithet they were so unceremoniously excising ?
They are invited to refer to
ps.-Tatian,3—to
Athanasius,4—to
Didymus,6—to
Cyril of Jer.,*—to
Basil,’—to
Greg. Nyss.,’—to
Ephraem Syr.,*—to
Epiphanius,10—to
Chrysostom,11—to
Proclus,11—to
Isidorus Pelus.,13—to
John Damasc.,14—to
Photius,15—to
Nicetas:16—besides, of the Latins,
Ambrose,17
the opus imp.
Augustine and not least to
Jerome 18
eighteen fathers in all.

And how is it possible (we ask) that two copies of the IVth century (B Aleph) and one of the Vlth (Z)—all three without a character—backed by a few copies of the old Latin, should be supposed to be any counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate contemporary evidence as the foregoing ?


Full text - the early church writers per

LaParola
Diatessaron Athanasius Cyril-Jerusalem Didymus Didymus-dub Epiphanius Chrysostom Jerome Augustine Proclus Ps-Athanasius

Gavin Basil McGrath
Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), Basil the Great (d. 379), Didymus (d. 398), Epiphanus (d. 403), Chrysostom (d. 407), and Proclus (d. 446); the ancient church Latin writers, Jerome (d. 420) and Augustine (d. 430); and the early mediaeval church Latin writer, Gregory the Great (d. 604).
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
These are the three earlier uncials that appear to be missing in your list above.

Codex Freerianus
purple parchment, Sigma 042 (Codex Rossanensis, late 5th / 6th century),
purple parchment, N 022 (Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus, 6th century)

There may be more uncials, the apparatuses has a trick to omit them from their list.


Even though your list is quite in favor of inclusion, it has huge omissions in the early church writers and Greek uncials and in not mentioning the massive Greek cursive support. Why don't you search out the actual uncial balance, add the ECWs and come back with a better chart.

==========================================

τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον (her firstborn son) is supported exactly by 1,446 MSS, and inexactly by 13 MSS;
υιον (a son) is supported exactly by 7 MSS, and inexactly by 1 MS.

Matthew 1:25 - Mary's Firstborn Son
James Snapp
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2015/12/matthew-125-marys-firstborn-son.html

==========================================

Matt 1:25 τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον
Jonathan Clark Borland

==========================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Are those "Greek uncials and cursives", etc. part of the corrupted pre-200 manuscripts? Or derived therefrom?
Just wondering,
--Rich

You can always that that in consideration, but the massive and wide-ranging evidence for firstborn in a Gospel account is probative. Little piddle omissions are easy to occur. It is clear that the c. 200 AD corruption was the omission, some Old Latin mss. over to Vaticanus and the local region.

Revelation is the most oddball transmission book in the NT.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Sinaiticus is 1800s

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the "Four great uncial codices". It includes the entire Bible, and dates between A.D. 330-360. It is possibly one of the 50 copies of the Bible commissioned by Emperor Constantine.

But Steven thinks this codex dates to the 1800's. So put your hands up if you think Avery has done ANY study of Biblical manuscripts, or if anything he offers is reliable. All he can offer is propaganda he steals from other KJVO books.

It's called "Sinaiticus" because it was discovered Constantin von Tischendorf at St. Catherines Monestery in the Sinai Peninsula. It was discovered in 1844. So 1844 is the date it came into scholarship, NOT the date it was written.

Middle Egyptian is a strange way to indicate..what?

Middle Egyptian is a language, following Ancient Egyptian, and preceding Late Egyptian. Middle Egyptian was in use until the 4th century A.D. Just as they translated the Scriptures into Old Italian, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian, and others, they also translated it into middle Egyptian.

Is there a particular reason you weren't aware of this?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Text und Textwert #4 is in Jonathan Borland's article above.

That should give you 5 to 10 more uncials that you missed in your compilation above.
Then you can study to see why your sources trick you so badly.

Start by making sure these uncials are in your chart:
04 05* 07 017 021 022 028 030 031 032 036 037 041 042 045 047 055 087 021

So you know NOTHING about the manuscripts, and simply parroting secondary sources from 1883.

Now, that is pretty funny after you made up a chart from secondary sources that is a total disaster, full of omission blunders.

As for 1883, John William Burgon is still often far better than modern writers. However you now have some more recent sources that can help you fix your disaster chart.

Middle Egyptian is a language, following Ancient Egyptian, and preceding Late Egyptian. Middle Egyptian was in use until the 4th century A.D. Just as they translated the Scriptures into Old Italian, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian, and others, they also translated it into middle Egyptian. Is there a particular reason you weren't aware of this?

Rarely do any textual writers refer to "Middle Egyptian".
It looks like the James Snapp reference to Nubian above.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You can't argue your way out of a paper bag without having to quote KJVO propagandists.

Sorry, Theo, Jonathan Borland is not at all a KJB supporter.
Neither is James Snapp.
In fact, John William Burgon also was not really a KJB defender.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
EVERYTHING to you is a "conspiracy".

In this case, it is 100% clear that you got tricked by your sources, and thus made up a blunderama chart.

And I have some studies on this that you can likely find by putting in the words "apparatus rigging". It would be good for you to learn those tricks so that you do not put up more deceptive charts.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
So 1844 is the date it came into scholarship, NOT the date it was written.

You are referring to 43 OT leaves stolen by Tischendorf (five full quires and part of a contiguous sixth) that were called Codex Federico-Augustanus and were stashed in Leipzig. Even when the rest of "Sinaiticus" was stolen by Tischendorf in 1859 and were brought to St. Petersburg, Tischendorf did not publicly connect those leaves with the first 43. After a few years, he was forced to acknowledge the connection.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Sorry, Theo, Jonathan Borland is not at all a KJB supporter.
Neither is James Snapp.

Well, Google has no clue who "Jonathan Borland" is, so I don't know if your assertion is true.

And I never even MENTIONED "James Snapp", so I'm not sure why you insultingly have to tell me that he's not "a KJB supporter". Just like you insultingly had to tell me that Maurice Robinson wasn't a KJV guy, since I already KNEW he wasn't, and I already know he was an MT guy.

For some bizarre reason, you seem to feel obsessed with projecting false teachings onto me that I've NEVER said.

Here's what you don't seem to understand....

I'm NOT having a discussion with "Maurice Robinson".
I'm NOT having a discussion with "Dean Burgon".
I'm NOT having a discussion with "James Snapp".
I'm NOT having a discussion with "Jonathan Borland".

I'm supposed to be having a discussion with YOU.
But if YOU aren't up to it, and if YOU aren't familiar with the subject matter (eg. you thought Sinaiticus was actually written in the 1800's?!?!?!), EDITED BY MOD--DIVISIVE
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Well, Google has no clue who "Jonathan Borland" is, so I don't know if your assertion is true.
And I never even MENTIONED "James Snapp", so I'm not sure why you insultingly have to tell me that he's not "a KJB supporter".

They are sources used in my posts above.
Jonathan Clark Borland was a student of Maurice Robinson and sometimes does excellent textual work on variants.
Above I gave you a url to his blog.

Look, you are becoming unhinged.
And I think that is because you do not want to correct your chart.

If you do not want to correct it, you should at least clearly acknowledge the omissions.


Integrity first.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You are referring to 43 OT leaves stolen by Tischendorf (five full quires and part of a contiguous sixth) that were called Codex Federico-Augustanus and were stashed in Leipzig. Even when the rest of "Sinaiticus" was stolen by Tischendorf in 1859 and were brought to St. Petersburg, Tischendorf did not publicly connect those leaves with the first 43. After a few years, he was forced to acknowledge the connection.

Um, what that has to do with the CONTENT of the Codex, or the fact that you were 1500 years off in dating it, I have no idea...

But I think I'm just about done with this nonsense.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Um, what that has to do with the CONTENT of the Codex, or the fact that you were 1500 years off in dating it, I have no idea...

Sinaiticus was actually produced c. 1840 at a monastery with Constantine Simonides one of the scribes.

Have you ever seen the videos showing the phenomenal condition of the mansucript?
 
Top