Why don't the MV's keep their principle, the Oldest the Best?

That's true with all versions and texts.

I already answered this.

Generally, we open the Bible and go verse by verse. Occasionally we do it topically.

Nothing that isn't in the text already.

 

No they don't.

I don't think you have the standing (or the understanding) to tell these highly studied men what to do. They all acknowledge that in some cases the oldest are incorrect and they go against them.

That is certainly a legitimate conclusion. If there are other reasons to accept them, then we can easily say that the oldest are wrong. The question is if there are other reasons to accept these passages.

As I said on page 1, "I haven't studied those in depth so I don't have a firm conclusion."

No, it's the historical position of the church.

Yes, he gives this guidance from the Scriptures.

No. The Bible is always true. We don't have to discern the veracity of it.

As I said, "I haven't studied those in depth so I don't have a firm conclusion." My inclination is that they are not original, based on my understanding of the evidence in the Textual Commentary. There are reasons to doubt their authenticity.

Why don't you give that a read tonight and then let's interact on the substance of it rather than all this blather you are putting out.

Here are some highlights from a fairly long paragraph on the pericopae:

So if you want to interact on the substance, perhaps there is more to be said. If you want to continue as you have been, there is not much more to be said.

 

There are no questions in this whole post.

This is a bit of a convoluted sentence. "They" have no problem admitting that the oldest manuscripts are wrong in some cases. I am not sure why you keep going back to that, apart from a woeful misunderstanding of the principles of textual criticism.

I am not sure your numbers are right here. But it doesn't matter. The issue is not numbers but accuracy. 900 copies of a an error is still an error.

That's what the textual commentary does. You didn't interact with anything in the textual commentary. Why not? Let's deal with the issues.

This is something with absolutely no proof. It is mere conjecture.

If you read the textual commentary, you will see why they put them in and how.

There are no substantial differences here. On "believers" there is a variant between an aorist participle and a present participle, and there is a variant on whether "Holy" should be added before "Spirit" (which was a common scribal addition that should likely be rejected). Perhaps you should actually read the MVs in this verse.

 

Can you show any MV supporter (who knows what he is talking about) who denies that there are problems with all manuscripts, including the oldest? I don't know of any. If you read the marginal notes of the MVs, most are honest enough to say that the manuscripts differ.

Again, read the textual commentary and educate yourself before saying stuff like this.s

They don't hold to that theory. I have corrected you several times on that already. Please adjust your beliefs accordingly.

You are involved in criticism. You simply do it by another standard, and apparently don't understand the standard you are trying to criticize (no pun intended).

I realize that, but no matter how many times you repeat an error, it is still an error.

Actually, they don't. As the textual commentary says, "When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive." So you are not right about that either.

Borchert, in the NAC says this:

So you are here, quite factually incorrect.

Actually, it refers to the time of day.

I think it is you who needs to study from a different angle. Read a few commentaries, study the issues. The evidence against the authenticity of this passage is fairly significant (certainly more than I realized a few days ago when this conversation started).

Not all copies of p66 do.

Factually incorrect: "The reading that best explains the origin of the others is πνεῦμα, supported by P66c, 75 א K T Θ Π Ψ 1079 al. " (Textual commentary ... Seriously, Eliyahu ... you can look this stuff up yourself.)

That's pure nonsense. These texts predate the Catholic church, and the Catholic church was also involved in the copying of many manuscripts from other families. Guilt by association is a horrible argument.

No one here is suggesting following a pagan religion, so there no "matter" there.

 

While you (or anyone) is free to think what any will, what I have underlined is, IMO, a false implication, that I am not going to let stand unchallenged.

To my knowledge, none of the important Biblical papyrii out of more than 70, are even located anywhere near the Roman Catholic Church, much less do they belong to her.

And of the major uncials usually cited, ONLY B is at Rome. If one were to assume that location equals 'belonging' to any church, the largest number of the major lettered uncials 'belong' to the Church of England, as most of Aleph, A, D, and E(a), are in London, Oxford, or Cambridge. Some less often cited MSS, including L(ap), S & T are located at Rome, as well, but this number of the uncials is far fewer than the number that are located in areas of (and ostensibly influenced by) various "Protestant" or other "Orthodox" Churches, such as in England (including F(p), G(e), H(e),Y,Γ, Λ, & Ξ), France, Russia, Germany, Greece, (each of whom also possess a half dozen or so, of these major lettered uncials), and others, and not so much by the Church at Rome, where she was not historically overly concerned with these various Greek MSS.

WHY is this likely?

The believed and taught that they already possessed the perfect and flawless translation of the written Word of God (Where have we heard this claim, before?) , namely the Vulgate, thus did not need any further versions or MSS. I really did not want to actually get into this thread, so I will now back out once again, after refuting the historical inaccuracy implied.

Ed

 

I have no desire to join in KJVO argumentation.

But, for what it's worth, there is at least one Johannine trait in the Pericope Adulterae. See, e.g., Alan F. Johnson, "A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae?" Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 9:2 (1966): 91–96. He notes in his article a personal correspondence from E.C. Colwell, one of the more influential American textual critics of the 20th century, apparently confirming the observation.

 

I poorly worded that. P66 has what are called "correcters" and there are at least two.

That's pretty weak. The consensus of commentators of all stripes seems to be that it is not Johannine in style.

It isn't that difficult. But you prejudice the issue by calling it brainwashing. You have yet to deal with the actual evidence. You apparently have not even read it. That's not good, particularly if you are doing translation work.

So if I say that the Bible has testified that the pericope of John 8 is not original, will you believe me? Of course not. You will claim that the Bible has testified to something else. The reality is that the Bible doesn't testify to which variant is correct in a given passage.

 

Yes, I saw this in regard of the Holy Spirit before. The KJV AGREES with this manuscript on this passage. MVs did not.

 

Sheesh. You don't get it. The fact that an old manuscript has something doesn't prove it is correct. It proves it has a word. The word may be wrong. You seriously need to quit posting here and take the time to learn a few things. This is get increasingly frustrating.

No, they don't. Learn about textual criticism and you will understand why.

Again, do the work. Don't take my word for it. I have posted for you the comments from the textual commentary. BTW, how are you translating without using this? Read it and use it. I asked you several posts ago to interact with the substance and so far you haven't.

Do this: Take the comments of the textual commentary as a starting point and interact with it and then we will have something to talk about.

I have already commented on this.

Because they are accurate.

I don't argue about it. You are the one who wants to argue about it, and you keep basing it on a faulty understanding of text criticism.

I have concluded that you don't understand textual criticism. Beyond that, I haven't concluded anything firmly.