Steven Avery
Well-known member
Nope.
We do not accept the fantasy stories and brazen lies of Tischendorf.
You must have us mixed up with the textual establishment.
KJVO tenets
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
Nope.
We do not accept the fantasy stories and brazen lies of Tischendorf.
You must have us mixed up with the textual establishment.
You think the rest of us don't see that you're posting all over the Internet and have all manner of ill-informed comments to make about everything.
Except.....you're incredibly silent over the refutation of your points on the Simonides thread.
You think we don't see this - but we see crystal clearly.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
I agree.
The emphasis I give to the Tischendorf stuff, beyond how he stole the manuscript in 1844 and 1859 and came up with the wacky saved from fire idea, relates to pulling a con. After awhile Tisch understood the problem, and kept the ms. hidden and lied about its condition, emphasizing his facsimile books. He maniacally pushed for the super-early date, as an obsession cover story that helped his vain glory.
Also, it is counterpoint to the “orange man, bad” attempts to frame the question as one of Simonides Perfectionalism. Simonides should be studied closely, and fairly, and it should be remembered that his work on Simoneidos was when he was young, and there were no accusations a-whirling.
Last edited:
This is nothing but a Word Sald of "Tischendorf might have stolen a manuscript - therefore, it must only be 19th century and he's trying to fool people."
Bear in mind one of the members of your so-called research team has accused Tischendorf not only of stealing the manuscript but KNOWING THE DATE was wrong and then trying to fool everyone else.
You mean when he put it on PUBLIC display in 1846 in Leipzig - where Simonides saw it in 1856?
How is that hiding?
Again with the focus on Tischendorf.
Except other people long after he's been dead say the same thing.
Which means your obsession with attacking someone not here to defend himself is an amusing obsession and little else.
Again with a straw man I've already refuted.
Is defending Simonides REALLY this difficult - that your only recourse is this same cliche you keep using as a substitute for actual response?
Now you're right back to claiming he wrote the manuscript.
No evidence, no proof - just "slam Tischendorf" and then cite Simonides.
Why would anyone complain about him writing it when nobody knew it - INCLUDING Simonides himself, who didn't even think he wrote it until long afterwards when he suddenly remembered things he forgot?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as reported in the personal letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
Michael Featherstone
https://www.academia.edu/1123038/Th...he_personal_letters_of_Konstantin_Tischendorf
hmmm.... what stories about Sinai and Simonides were a-swirling when Tischendorf was en route to make his supposed fantabulous New Testament red cloth discovery?
Last edited:
Since I just came off a thread about a Hebrew Bible, I'll add something about Riplinger:
In her books, especially New Age Bible Versions and Hazardous Materials, she is obsessive about the Second Rabbinic Bible, published by Bomberg in Venice, 1525, and scrupulously edited by Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah (we'll call it the Ben-Hayyim edition). Riplinger somehow thinks that there are other Hebrew Bible books or manuscripts also by Ben-Hayyim; but no, the 1525 printed edition is his only product. On her website she offered (fifteen years ago) a Hebrew Bible which she described as a "Ben-Hayyim Bible" -- it was not, it was a reprint of the 1852 Meir Halevi Letteris edition, made readily available for more than a century by the British & Foreign Bible Society; a very nice edition, nicely printed, but not the Ben-Hayyim edition and containing a few microscopic differences from Ben-Hayyim's edition. There wasn't any doubt about the edition she was selling, her website showed the title page. Evidently someone who could read Hebrew got in touch with her because (about 15 years ago) she stopped selling that, and any other, Hebrew Bible.
Now, for those who feel they must have the Ben-Hayyim text, I will tell you:
(1) The 1525 Ben-Hayyim edition is still being reprinted, in enormous folio volumes (4 weighty volumes); but it has no chapter or verse numbering, it is entirely in Hebrew, and it has only a few lines of the Bible text on every other page. Definitely not reader-friendly by today's standards.
(2) The Ben Hayyim text was used as a main text of C.D. Ginsburg's critical edition of the Bible, published in small format by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1894 and then in a much larger, multivolume, format by the B&FBS around 1915-1920. It is entirely Hebrew but the annotations are fascinating; variances in the Greek, Syriac, and Latin Vulgate are back-translated to Hebrew, which frequently shows that the variance depended on just one letter change in the Hebrew text. The TBS edition is still in print and the B&FBS edition can be gotten on the used book market.
(3) The Ben-Hayyin edition was also used as the main text of the Biblia Hebraica edited by Rudolf Kittel, first (1907) and second (1912) editions - but not the third edition (1937) edited by Paul Kahl, which used the Leningrad Codex for its main text - these are also available on the used book market, with footnotes in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac.
The differences of the sort that matter to translation between the Ben-Hayyim and another edition are so few and so slight as to be microscopic.
In her books, especially New Age Bible Versions and Hazardous Materials, she is obsessive about the Second Rabbinic Bible, published by Bomberg in Venice, 1525, and scrupulously edited by Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah (we'll call it the Ben-Hayyim edition). Riplinger somehow thinks that there are other Hebrew Bible books or manuscripts also by Ben-Hayyim; but no, the 1525 printed edition is his only product. On her website she offered (fifteen years ago) a Hebrew Bible which she described as a "Ben-Hayyim Bible" -- it was not, it was a reprint of the 1852 Meir Halevi Letteris edition, made readily available for more than a century by the British & Foreign Bible Society; a very nice edition, nicely printed, but not the Ben-Hayyim edition and containing a few microscopic differences from Ben-Hayyim's edition. There wasn't any doubt about the edition she was selling, her website showed the title page. Evidently someone who could read Hebrew got in touch with her because (about 15 years ago) she stopped selling that, and any other, Hebrew Bible.
Now, for those who feel they must have the Ben-Hayyim text, I will tell you:
(1) The 1525 Ben-Hayyim edition is still being reprinted, in enormous folio volumes (4 weighty volumes); but it has no chapter or verse numbering, it is entirely in Hebrew, and it has only a few lines of the Bible text on every other page. Definitely not reader-friendly by today's standards.
(2) The Ben Hayyim text was used as a main text of C.D. Ginsburg's critical edition of the Bible, published in small format by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1894 and then in a much larger, multivolume, format by the B&FBS around 1915-1920. It is entirely Hebrew but the annotations are fascinating; variances in the Greek, Syriac, and Latin Vulgate are back-translated to Hebrew, which frequently shows that the variance depended on just one letter change in the Hebrew text. The TBS edition is still in print and the B&FBS edition can be gotten on the used book market.
(3) The Ben-Hayyin edition was also used as the main text of the Biblia Hebraica edited by Rudolf Kittel, first (1907) and second (1912) editions - but not the third edition (1937) edited by Paul Kahl, which used the Leningrad Codex for its main text - these are also available on the used book market, with footnotes in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac.
The differences of the sort that matter to translation between the Ben-Hayyim and another edition are so few and so slight as to be microscopic.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Agreed, except there are three spots with significant differences where the Ben Hayim is inferior.
Joshua 21:36-37
Nehemiah 7:68
Psalm 22:16
christ_undivided
Well-known member
How do you know Avery?
By your own standard, provide an extant block Hebrew script manuscript from the hand of Moses. The modern block script of Hebrew is no earlier than the 2nd century BCE.
I am would love to see your appeal historical evidence.
Ben-Hayyim omits (KJV) Josh 21:36-37 (and has a footnote referring the reader to the corresponding verses in First Chron [6:63-64], which is not very helpful since this was without chapter or verse numbering). The same two verses are missing (from Josh) in the Leningrad Codex, the Aleppo Codex, and the Cairo Prophets, as well as the Aramaic Targum.
Ben-Hayyim omits (KJV) Nehemiah 7:68 (with a note referencing Ezra [2:66]) - as does the Leningrad Codex, nor is the verse counted in the total number of verses in the Masoretic total.
Ben-Hayyim at (KJV) Psalm 22:16 (22:17 in Hebrew editions) reads "like a lion, they are at my hands", using the Hebrew word koari for "like a lion". as do almost all Hebrew mss and editions; the LXX and the Vulgate (and the KJV and other Christian versions) read the Hebrew word as koru for "they pierced". It is a matter of opinion whether Ben-Hayyim is inferior on this verse.
Ben-Hayyim omits (KJV) Nehemiah 7:68 (with a note referencing Ezra [2:66]) - as does the Leningrad Codex, nor is the verse counted in the total number of verses in the Masoretic total.
Ben-Hayyim at (KJV) Psalm 22:16 (22:17 in Hebrew editions) reads "like a lion, they are at my hands", using the Hebrew word koari for "like a lion". as do almost all Hebrew mss and editions; the LXX and the Vulgate (and the KJV and other Christian versions) read the Hebrew word as koru for "they pierced". It is a matter of opinion whether Ben-Hayyim is inferior on this verse.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
As you pointed out earlier, there really is no question that the verses should be in the OT text.
They verses actually are in a solid majority of Masoretic Text manuscripts. And the Ben Hayim footnote has very good information, here is the picture, which is in Rashi script. However, I do not have the translation handy without going into old emails. You may remember that we discussed this in some depth years back, when I brought you this picture of the text.
As for the technical information on the verses, manuscripts and internal issues, there are two discussions in the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange that may be the most complete, one has a number of manuscript pics.
Last edited:
More evidence of how much of a fraud you are. To deem something “very good information” without being able to read it proves you really don’t know anything.
As if this has anything to do with why you insist it has to be right.......
christ_undivided
Well-known member
"Christian versions"?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The manuscript and internal evidence definitely can help explain the history to people who have been confused and have attacked the AV text.
As an example: James Price actually accused the two Joshua verses of being an "emendation" in the Authorized Version, although he did acknowledge recently that this was an error.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Generally so, the division is Christian vs. Jewish versions. This division goes way back, Haydock, in his commentary c. 1840, tells us that Drusius (1550-1616) reports that Daniel Bomberg (d. 1549), the printer, was pressured to put in the lion reading. Note, however, that Drusius was reporting quite a bit later than the 2nd Rabbinic Bible events, so it would be a good scholarly research to track down the Drusius reference and any other contributions. And I do not know for sure of any other references than Haydock, who was a rather careful scholar, even as RCC.
Psalm 22:16 is, in a sense, the most 'politically' charged variant in the Bible. (The virgin issues involve translation and interpretation, not text.) Thus the Dead Sea Scrolls text became especially important, as a confirmation, albeit disputed, of the Christian understanding.
Last edited:
christ_undivided
Well-known member
There are no "Christian" versions of the OT Avery. That is a ridiculous claim. The Greek OT came from Jews. You're repeating claims from those who hate Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
Now you're adding in qualifiers (internal evidence) and pretending nobody is going to notice.
It can justify a circular argument, but it doesn't make it any less circular.
And what does the AV text have to do with the Masoretic Text - if your REAL concern is the Masoretic Text?
So your argument is:
a) let me bring in internal evidence after starting with manuscripts
b) let me pretend this is about the Hebrew when it's really about the AV
c) let me distract you by bringing in a more famous name and saying "he's wrong"
James Price could be wrong about everything in the world - but it wouldn't make YOU right about anything.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You do not know the difference between a qualifier and an addition?
Amazing.
The concern is both, including whether the AV follows "the" Masoretic text.
Quite obviously.