Steven Avery said:
I'll ask Peter J. Williams if the section can be made available in full. There is nothing particularly complex in what he wrote, simply a sensible analysis that uses a lot of the information already available, and adds some special emphasis and a healthy dollup of common sense.
If is is not a bother to him. I can get the final journal article through SBL. I am interested in his theory of how this developed.
[quote author=Steven Avery]Grave, shmave. It is simply a humorous example of the modern version absurdity,
faux apologetics fabricated to try to mask a blatant Hortian corruption. There are dozens of similar hard errors throughout the Alexandrian manuscripts and the Critical Text.[/quote]
There are way too many unknowns to settle on this as an error. Granted, it is difficult. The committee on the NA had difficulty. But to accept this as an error, it would be a drastic misspelling. While Williams is projecting an interesting, and plausible theory, from the snippets you have posted, he is still reserved.
It was not until 1970 that we learned that Kursi was the location. I, for one, am not going to assume that "the Gerasene territory" is an illegitimate way to describe that locale. The way names and territories are identified in the US, alone, should give anyone pause for dogmatically rejecting that description. The way I look at this is that the city names are so close in spelling that making a hard case against one means that I have exhausted the way Matthew, Mark and Luke referred to this region.
If you are going to discuss the textual support, in favor of your view, let it be known that you are being quite selective. Admittedly, the rating of this reading in Like 8:26 has a "C" rating. The committee made a difficult choice and noted it as such.
This is more than a simple
Lectio Difficilior (choose the harder reading). If you read Metzger's, Textual Commentary on Luke, The reason it still appears in the UBS is that has very early, widespread papyrii, uncial and versional support. History is based on documentation. There is documentation. We are left to make the best assumptions possible.
The modern-versionist is alright with this kind of difficulty. I look at it this way, "It may or may not be a corruption. There is too much unknown to make a dogmatic issue over it." This approach does not make us absurd or fabricators.
My OP was clear. The KJV uses different terms in parallel passages that match the modern versions for this event. My difficulty is not with the KJV, but with the dogmatic KJVO.
I am doing my part to have a decent discussion on this without the hubris and excitable language. I know that we are going to get more of the "textus corruptus, Hortian, faux apologetics and fabrication" speak from you, that would be unfortunate. It really does not help prove your point. In fact, it really hurts it.
