Two philosophies

Your complaint is liable to go unoticed when posted here.

 

In my ignorance I mistyped - have edited to say that I am surprised to learn that there have been no fresh readings discovered in the last 500 years.

And screaming in this part of the board may aleviate your tension, but it won't solve the problem.

 

What's that??? An answer??? After all this time? Thanks Thomas. See how easy that was .

So you are saying that there was nothing new in Sinaiticus, for instance? For those who don't know, Sinaiticus was was not discovered until some 300 years after the death of Erasmus (1844). There were almost certainly some readings that were before virtually unknown, that Erasmus did not have. In fact, this is one of the complaints of the MajT proponents against the critical text proponents, namely, that God would not have kept part of his word from people for all that time. They reject Sinaiticus, in part, because it contains readings that were not widely known and used in textual criticism. So I am not sure it is quite accurate to say that Erasmus had all the readings we do today.

I also think your distinction between availed and access is cutting it pretty thin. I think generally speaking that "access" means he availed himself of them to consider them. It doesn't mean, again generally speaking, that someone somewhere had them but he didn't compare them.

Bottom line, I have never seen any competent scholar claim that Erasmus had all the readings available to him that we have today. I would still be interested in some credible support for this claim.

But thanks for answering.

 

Do "obvious scribal errors" not constitute readings anymore? Wouldn't that eliminate some of the Byzantine readings? You can't just rule out readings by default like that, IMO.

And as I said before, "not sure" does not constitute a proven fact, thought I am fairly confident in it. I am willing to admit I may be wrong on some of these things.

BTW, in my comment above I mentioned Sinaiticus and you asked for proof from B. It is well known that B was extant at the time of Erasmus. That is Vaticanus. Sinaiticus (Aleph) was not discovered until 1844, and that is what I asked about. Did Aleph provide any new readings? I think it did, though I am not sure.

Okay, Let try these:

How about any *new* significant singular reading found in early papyri? P66*, standing alone in Jn 7:52, reads "Search and see that out of Galilee *THE* Prophet does not arise." No other manuscript reads "the" at this point.

Or how about MS Theta (discovered in the early 20th century) in Lk 8:37, where instead of "all the people...asked (HRWTHSAN) him to depart", that recently discovered MS -- standing quite alone --- reads "all the people...begged (PAREKALESAN) him to depart"?

 

As you well know, those things you called "scribal errors" are readings which you denied existed. They may well not be canonical, but that is true of all but one reading in each instance. You can't win the battle by defining a reading you don't like as a "scribal error" and therefore not a reading. That is nonsense, and you know it.

What I have posted are two examples of readings that Erasmus didn't have, which proves your assertion wrong.

Now, do you assert that Erasmus had access to those readings? Or do you correct your previous statement?

 

So you are taking it upon yourself to change the rules that have always been recognized to defend your position? You are now going to change the definition of "reading" from "a portion of any of the above (manuscript, textform, or text), usually, but not always, indicating a variant in the manuscript or textual evidence."

You are the one who gave the definition on the top of page 14. So, using your definition, I have shown you a "portion of the above" that Erasmus did not have.

I called your bluff and you have been exposed. I am not desparate in the least. In fact, this is such and open and shut case that you incorrect, that it makes me laugh. You are clearly wrong and even you know that, Thomas. You don't even believe what you are saying here. You know too much. You have way too much background and knowledge in this area to continue to support what you are saying. But now, due to your approach several pages ago, the only true remedy is too embarrassing for you because now you have to admit you were wrong. And with the evidence in black and white (Or black and blue) in front of you, you will make some lame excuse for yourself.

As we all know, a "reading" is not determined by canonicity as you tried to use in post 148 to escape dealing with these readings. IF you are going to rule out "scribal errors" as readings, here are no textual variants at all, since all readings stem from a scribal error of some sort or another. You are smart enough to have thought through that. Why you are ignoring it and embarrassing yourself is beyond me. Even the most radical KVOs know what I am saying is true.

I could produce more evidence of this same truth, but you will ignore that too,. The only question is Why? Why not simply admit that there are readings that Erasmus did not have access to?

 

So did Erasmus have these readings or not? Where exactly are we on this?

FYI: The possible answers are 1) Yes he had them or 2) No he did not them.

 

For those who forgot what Thomas said and is now trying to avoid, you can look on page 10, at post #94 and see the following statement in black and blue. Thomas said: He had the same readings available to him as we do today.

That is simply on true, as we have just said. And Thomas refuses to acknowledge that his statement was incorrect, even though it has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that Erasmus did not have the "same readings available to him as we do today."

As for my comment about availability, it is a long stretch, IMO, to define a manuscripts thousands of miles away as "available" and even a longer stretch to say that he "looked at it." But perhaps he did. My intent in my statement is the well known truth that Erasmus was working off of a very limited number of manuscripts, not the large number that we have today. There is no way, for instance, that he looked at Sinaiticus. That was still 300 years away.

The fact that he had Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western textfrorms was never the point. That was an attempt by Thomas to distract from teh "reading" issue.

So let's try one more time:
Did Erasmus have these readings or not? Where exactly are we on this?

FYI: The possible answers are 1) Yes he had them or 2) No he did not have them.

 

Good advice for all parties involved.

Don't know where to close this, it seems like both sides have to have the last word.

Parting comments gentlemen, then closure this afternoon.

 

Thomas,

My ego isn't wounded. This has been among the funniest discussions I have had on here because it is such an open and shut case. It was worth logging on just to see what your next tactic would be in trying to avoid the obvious. I never acted like a two year old. I never departed from the context of the discussion. I put up with yoru incessant personal attacks. I repeatedly asked questions to get your clarify your comments.I did everything you asked, including provide evidence for my position that you asked for and said you would discuss.

The fact is that you were wrong when you said that Erasmus had access to every reading we do. That was simply incorrect. I didn't make that statement. You did. And now you won't admit your were wrong. That is shameful Thomas. It has put your in an embarrassing position that you defended and then tried to distract from by personal attacks against. Absolutely shameful. All I did was point out the truth.

The fact that Erasmus had access to every single textform we do was never the issue.

On page 10, in post #94, you said He had the same readings available to him as we do today. You (and the readers) can go back and look it up. I questioned that, and you responded with personal attacks. It turns out that your statement was incorrect.

In post 146, on page 14 you said, Post a reading we now have that was not available to Erasmus in his day and I will discuss it. The ball is in your court. So I did. And you refuse to discuss it.

Simply put, Thomas, you were wrong. It was likely simply a misstatement in your original post (#94). But now you have compounded it. You have once again launched your all too typical personal attacks that spring forth when you get frustrated or embarrassed, or both as here. Four pages ago you could have said, "I overstated the case," or "I mispoke." You didn't. You prolonged and advertised your clearly incorrect stand. And you furthered it by useless personal attacks.

This is typical of you Thomas. And it is shameful. You should never blame someone for your mistakes. You know better.

The simple fact is that you were incorrect. Erasmus did not have access to every single reading we do.

 

As it is 5.30 in the afternoon EDT this thread is now closed.