Avery... you are not welcome on this thread.
What is this nasty term "textual criticism" about? Let me illustrate what is happening by using our most recent discussion.
The word "Gerasa" in the modern versions comes from a number of Greek manuscripts. In order to evaluate whether Gerasa is legitimate or not, we need to consider two things: 1) how old are the manuscripts; 2) are the manuscripts from one region.
1) How old are the manuscripts? The idea of asking the age is to find out which manuscripts first appeared. The thinking is that the older the manuscript, the closer it is to the original.
2) Are the manuscripts from one region? The idea of asking where the manuscripts are from helps us to sort out an important issue. If the manuscripts were all from the same place, then it is highly likely that an error in the first copy will be spread throughout the same region. Error begets error. If the manuscripts are spread out in different places, then it is highly likely that the same readings are original. An error does not usually come from another region.
You may ask, "Isn't this just speculation?" There is a degree of speculation. We do not just assume a reading is correct because it has the oldest support. There are many factors (in the Bible context and among the existing manuscripts) that help us with this. Most readings are very clear and highly likely. There is very little doubt about most of the readings.
Back, before we had computers spit out graphs for us, we had to chart all of the manuscripts for every variant in the Greek text. It was fun at first and then became a labor after the fifth chart!
Hopefully, this graphic, below, will help the readers understand the game being played by Avery on the Gadara/Gergesa/Gerasa thread.
Avery says that the Gerasa corruption is a Vaticanus corruption. The problem with that is he wants you to believe that all of the manuscripts come out of the dreaded Alexandrian (Egypt) family of texts. It is the typical KJVO strawman.
You will see that the difficult word, Gerasa, is early. Early by a century from the other manuscripts. Also, the same reading is found in two different family regions. Does this mean that we automatically assume it is the best reading? Absolutely not. Comparing the other manuscripts for the other readings (which I will not take the time to chart), there is strong, but not as young, support. Also, there is difficulty in that we don't have evidence that Kursi was ever called "Geresa." This is why it is difficult.
Hopefully this was not too technical and sheds some light on the fallacy of calling this the Vaticanus error.
What is this nasty term "textual criticism" about? Let me illustrate what is happening by using our most recent discussion.
The word "Gerasa" in the modern versions comes from a number of Greek manuscripts. In order to evaluate whether Gerasa is legitimate or not, we need to consider two things: 1) how old are the manuscripts; 2) are the manuscripts from one region.
1) How old are the manuscripts? The idea of asking the age is to find out which manuscripts first appeared. The thinking is that the older the manuscript, the closer it is to the original.
2) Are the manuscripts from one region? The idea of asking where the manuscripts are from helps us to sort out an important issue. If the manuscripts were all from the same place, then it is highly likely that an error in the first copy will be spread throughout the same region. Error begets error. If the manuscripts are spread out in different places, then it is highly likely that the same readings are original. An error does not usually come from another region.
You may ask, "Isn't this just speculation?" There is a degree of speculation. We do not just assume a reading is correct because it has the oldest support. There are many factors (in the Bible context and among the existing manuscripts) that help us with this. Most readings are very clear and highly likely. There is very little doubt about most of the readings.
Back, before we had computers spit out graphs for us, we had to chart all of the manuscripts for every variant in the Greek text. It was fun at first and then became a labor after the fifth chart!
Hopefully, this graphic, below, will help the readers understand the game being played by Avery on the Gadara/Gergesa/Gerasa thread.
Avery says that the Gerasa corruption is a Vaticanus corruption. The problem with that is he wants you to believe that all of the manuscripts come out of the dreaded Alexandrian (Egypt) family of texts. It is the typical KJVO strawman.
You will see that the difficult word, Gerasa, is early. Early by a century from the other manuscripts. Also, the same reading is found in two different family regions. Does this mean that we automatically assume it is the best reading? Absolutely not. Comparing the other manuscripts for the other readings (which I will not take the time to chart), there is strong, but not as young, support. Also, there is difficulty in that we don't have evidence that Kursi was ever called "Geresa." This is why it is difficult.
Hopefully this was not too technical and sheds some light on the fallacy of calling this the Vaticanus error.