PappaBear said:
I am sure Avery has many recommendations! SMH
Acts 8:37 is in my NET Bible
- Thread starter bgwilkinson
- Start date
I am sure Avery has many recommendations! SMH
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Hi,
btw, back in 2003 I was wondering if Lamsa was accurate to the Peshitta mss in the Acts 8:37 text.
[Messianic_Apologetic] TR-Peshitta, majority, date and homegeneity of manuscripts
Steven Avery - Sept 8, 2003
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/message/5798
The TR will use some readings that have Latin and/or Aramaic support, especially
if supported by Early Church Writers and/or internal evidences, even if the Greek
manuscript evidence is low.
Acts 8:37 would be an example of that, if Lamsa's inclusion actually reflects the Peshitta. If not, I could do a little checking and give you some other examples.
In point of fact, Acts 8:37 would only show the Latin support. The Syriac issues simply did not come up again (my archives are pretty solid.)
My studies on the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37 came later, with the posting around 2007-2012. Most of the Acts 8:37 emphasis was the ECW. Also some discussion of the John William Burgon position, and the textual similarity to the heavenly witnesses as a sister verse.
In that later period I also studied the situation with Peshitta printed editions having a few verses not in the Peshitta manuscripts, thus the references to Tremellius and Gutbier.
There was also an early period of posting on one or two of the Aramaic primacy forums, those archives were not maintained so well. And I did learn from them some of the issues with the manuscripts and the printed editions, I learned more when studying the heavenly witnesses.
One issue with the Aramaic primacists was showing how they were simply taking advantage of Alexandrian corruptions in their theories, and if you understand the Byzantine and Received Text variants as the authentic scripture, not the Vaticanus-primacy text (ie. the Alexandrian was just a type of abbreviated, compendium textus corruptus) their theories were easy to answer, variant by variant and overall conceptually.
Note that I do have more respect for their position than the cornfuseniks oil and water, sweet and bitter, lukewarm position that tries to mix pure and impure texts together as all valid. I would also have more respect for a real Hortian who actually thought the W-H text was the pure word of God, however that position has been poofed. As Yogi said, nobody goes there anymore.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
btw, back in 2003 I was wondering if Lamsa was accurate to the Peshitta mss in the Acts 8:37 text.
[Messianic_Apologetic] TR-Peshitta, majority, date and homegeneity of manuscripts
Steven Avery - Sept 8, 2003
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/message/5798
The TR will use some readings that have Latin and/or Aramaic support, especially
if supported by Early Church Writers and/or internal evidences, even if the Greek
manuscript evidence is low.
Acts 8:37 would be an example of that, if Lamsa's inclusion actually reflects the Peshitta. If not, I could do a little checking and give you some other examples.
In point of fact, Acts 8:37 would only show the Latin support. The Syriac issues simply did not come up again (my archives are pretty solid.)
My studies on the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37 came later, with the posting around 2007-2012. Most of the Acts 8:37 emphasis was the ECW. Also some discussion of the John William Burgon position, and the textual similarity to the heavenly witnesses as a sister verse.
In that later period I also studied the situation with Peshitta printed editions having a few verses not in the Peshitta manuscripts, thus the references to Tremellius and Gutbier.
There was also an early period of posting on one or two of the Aramaic primacy forums, those archives were not maintained so well. And I did learn from them some of the issues with the manuscripts and the printed editions, I learned more when studying the heavenly witnesses.
One issue with the Aramaic primacists was showing how they were simply taking advantage of Alexandrian corruptions in their theories, and if you understand the Byzantine and Received Text variants as the authentic scripture, not the Vaticanus-primacy text (ie. the Alexandrian was just a type of abbreviated, compendium textus corruptus) their theories were easy to answer, variant by variant and overall conceptually.
Note that I do have more respect for their position than the cornfuseniks oil and water, sweet and bitter, lukewarm position that tries to mix pure and impure texts together as all valid. I would also have more respect for a real Hortian who actually thought the W-H text was the pure word of God, however that position has been poofed. As Yogi said, nobody goes there anymore.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
M
Maestroh
Guest
This little weasel continues to show up, pick fights, and then run away in cowardly fear.
There is still a standing debate challenge O scholar wannabe on 1 John 5:7. Given your snotty remarks about James White and fear, I have no doubt you have the courage you insist others lack. Please show up and let's get on with it.
There is still a standing debate challenge O scholar wannabe on 1 John 5:7. Given your snotty remarks about James White and fear, I have no doubt you have the courage you insist others lack. Please show up and let's get on with it.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Hi Bill Brown,
Quite an introduction post from Bill Brown of Dallas Theological Seminary, under Daniel Wallace (faculty advisor).
Did you want to explain why the NETBible deceived the readers by omitting three Ante-Nicene references in its pseudo-apparatus?
Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said,
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Irenaeus
Cyprian
Pontius the Deacon
Steven
Quite an introduction post from Bill Brown of Dallas Theological Seminary, under Daniel Wallace (faculty advisor).
Did you want to explain why the NETBible deceived the readers by omitting three Ante-Nicene references in its pseudo-apparatus?
Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said,
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Irenaeus
Cyprian
Pontius the Deacon
Steven