Posts by Earnest

113

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

I am not of a mind to engage with posters who cut and paste whole paragraphs from apologetic websites. This is a discussion board and it rather diminishes the point of it when people either "cut and paste" or post videos instead of discussion. It is simply lazy and I will not share in it.

But I did have a look at the website and noticed this statement :

The Watchtower is correct that the placement of the comma must depend on the translator's understanding of what Jesus meant.

Isn't that the truth? But you will not have that. If one of two manuscripts of the Old Syriac supports the NWT then that translation is "an isolated textual witness". If Bentley Layton's translation of the Sahidic Coptic supports the NWT, then "his interpretation represents a minority view and is not reflective of the broader consensus among Coptic scholars". What nonsense.

For specialists, Layton's Coptic grammar is a standard text. He catalogued all the Coptic manuscripts in the British Library. He is a board member on the Harvard Theological Review and the Journal of Coptic Studies. He is past President of the International Association of Coptic Studies. At Yale University he is Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations in the area of Coptic studies. He continues to research the social history of ancient monasteries, and editing Coptic works of the ancient monastic leader Apa Shenoute. What kind of a minority view is that?

You quote from Burkitt's Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, Vol 2, to say that the Sinaitic Syriac "represents a more accurate Syriac text" than the Curetonian Syriac. But you do not say what Burkitt says about Luke 23:43. He writes (p.304) :

The punctuation attested by [Curetonian Syriac] is referred to but not approved by Barsalibi, who says (in his Commentary on S. Matthew): “Some hold that when He said To-day, it was not of that Friday that He said that in it the robber should be in Paradise, but at the end of the world; and they read the passage Amen, amen (sic), to-day, adding a colon, and afterwards With Me thou shalt be in Paradise, i.e. at the end of the world.” But possibly this is an extract from some Greek commentator, for in Greek no change would be required in the text if this view were adopted, while in Syriac it involves [transposition].

Burkitt supposes it may come from an extract from some Greek commentator, but as "in Greek no change would be required in the text" for this translation, it could just as easily be that it was the translator's understanding of what Jesus meant.

You go at great length to show that the hypostigme in codex Vaticanus cannot possibly be a grammatical point. But then conclude "the presence of a punctuation mark (if such it is) in one early manuscript tells us nothing about how to properly punctuate Luke 23:43. The correct punctuation is a matter of exegesis, not of textual criticism".

As it happens I tend to agree with you that the mark has no relevance to punctuation. I don't think, myself, that it was deliberate. But what I said to you was :

So, if anything, codex Vaticanus supports the placing of the comma after "today".

It may or may not be punctuation. I don't think it is. Others do. But, if anything, codex Vaticanus supports the placing of the comma after "today".

aqwsed12345 : The overwhelming consensus of ancient manuscripts (Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic) aligns with the traditional interpretation.

You are being silly again. The ancient manuscripts do not align with any interpretation of Luke 23:43. I have shown you that in Syriac and Coptic both interpretations have been made. If Burkitt is right about the wording of the Curetonian Syriac, then it is true in Greek too. In fact, we know this anyway, because Hesychius of Jerusalem (fifth century) wrote (Patrologia Graeca, Vol.93) :

"Some indeed read this way: 'Truly I tell you today,' and put a comma; then they add: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"

So, first of all, the correct punctuation is a matter of exegesis, not of textual criticism. Secondly, it is quite clear that in the past the readers of the text understood it both ways and translated accordingly. Finally, as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter.

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Earnest

aqwsed12345: Origen lamented textual corruption during his time, but this refers primarily to errors from scribal transmission, a common phenomenon in ancient texts, not deliberate theological manipulation.

Origen was not talking about "errors from scribal transmission". In his work "De adulteratione librorum Origenis" (On the Falsification of the Books of Origen). Rufinus writes :

I have shown from [Origen's] own words and writings how he himself complains of this and deplores it: He explains clearly in the letter which he wrote to some of his intimate friends at Alexandria what he suffered while living here in the flesh and in the full enjoyment of his senses, by the corruption of his books and treatises, or by spurious editions of them.

aqwsed12345 : Any significant textual corruption of their [Polycarp and Ignatius] writings would have provoked objections from the Christian communities safeguarding these texts.

Why pretend that forgeries didn't happen when I provided abundant evidence they happened in the case of Ignatius. Or did you not say there were interpolations in the long recension? Where were the objections then?

aqwsed12345 : The Latin manuscripts [of Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians] are based on an earlier Greek text no longer extant. While there are some variations, the general consistency of the text across traditions supports its authenticity.

Some variations! More than half the Latin manuscripts omit the words "and God" in the expression "Lord and God Jesus Christ.

aqwsed12345 : While Michael Holmes has expressed caution regarding the phrase "our Lord and God Jesus Christ", he has not definitively ruled it an interpolation.

I quoted what Holmes said :

It turns out that I had forgotten that I had in fact, after working on this passage in more detail, concluded by disagreeing with Lightfoot at this point; I argue the phrase et deum is more likely a later addition.

Holmes is a scholar, and scholars don't talk in absolutes on textual matters. But he could hardly be clearer that he has changed his mind regarding this interpolation.

aqwsed12345 : Even if "et deum" were a later addition, the rest of Polycarp’s letter reflects a high Christology consistent with early Christian faith, undermining claims of later doctrinal manipulation.

As slimboyfat says, what does this actually mean? If "et deum" were a later addition, that is evidence in itself of later doctrinal manipulation.

113

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

Earnest

Deleted

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Earnest

@ aqwsed12345 :

As you raised the sayings of Ignatius I will provide a bit more background to what we know about his writings. As I said, the existing manuscripts of the letters from Ignatius exist in three basic forms.

The first recension (short recension) only contains three letters - to Polycarp, to the Ephesians and to the Romans. It is extant only in a Syriac version.

The second recension (middle recension) contains these three letters in a fuller form, and adds to them four others - to the Magnesians; to the Trallians; to the Philadelphians; and to the Smyrneans. This is extant in Greek and Latin with three sets of fragments in Syriac and two fragmentary manuscripts in Coptic. There are also Armenian and Arabic fragments translated from the Syriac.

The third recension (long recension) contains the seven letters of the middle recension in a still longer form, together with six others - one from Mary of Cassabola to Ignatius; Ignatius's reply to her; letters to the churches at Tarsus, Antioch, and Philippi; and one to Hero [Ignatius's successor as bishop of Antioch]. This is extant in Greek and Latin. These six additional letters were added in the fourth century and are universally viewed as spurious. There were another four letters added in the Middle Ages (to John the Evangelist and an exchange with the "virgin Mary") but I think these can be safely ignored.

So, of the twelve "Ignatian" letters, three (Polycarp, Ephesians, Romans) occur in three different forms; four (Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Smyrneans) occur in two forms; and the remaining five from the long recension (Mary, Tarsus, Antioch, Philippi) in one form only.

I will only detail the support for the middle recension, as that is the only one viewed as reflecting the genuine letters of Ignatius, although you can read The Apostolic Fathers (pp. 70–126; 587–598) for yourself to confirm manuscript support for the other recensions if you wish.

There is only one surviving copy of the middle recension in Greek, an eleventh century manuscript, the codex Mediceo-Laurentianus 57,7. This contains the letters of the middle recension (except Romans) as well as the forged letters from Mary to Ignatius, Ignatius to Mary, and Ignatius to Tarsus (a fragment). It probably contained all twelve letters of the long recension originally but the ms is defective. The letter to the Romans comes from a tenth century manuscript, codex Parisiensis-Colbertinus.

The Latin of the middle recension is based on two manuscripts from the thirteenth century, one of which is now lost. (Codex Caiensis 395 and codex Montacutianus [lost]). This contains the letters of the middle recension as well as the forged letters from Mary to Ignatius, Ignatius to Mary, and letters from Ignatius to Tarsus, Antioch, and Hero, all part of the long recension.

So ... there is only one Greek and one Latin ms of the middle recension extant. None of these are dated before the tenth century (except for a papyrus from the fifth century which only contains the letter to the Smyrneans 3.3-12.1). All these manuscripts also contain some or all of the forged letters from the fourth century. It is hardly surprising that the theology we find in the extant "genuine" letters also reflects fourth century theology.

113

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : While the Curetonian Syriac does place "today" with the phrase "Truly I tell you today," it is an isolated textual witness among ancient manuscripts.

There are only two surviving Syriac manuscripts which support the Old Syriac version. They are the Curetonian Syriac, which I quoted, dated to the fifth century (although the text may be as early as the second century), and the Syriac Sinaiticus which is dated to the late fourth or early fifth century. Both appear to be translated from independent Greek manuscripts. So far from being an isolated textual witness, the Curetonian Syriac is one of two witnesses to the early Syriac text.

aqwsed12345 : Furthermore, the Peshitta, the standard Syriac Bible, supports the traditional reading.

That is hardly surprising. A revision was made of the Peshitta about 508, so when it comes to the placing of a comma, that is going to be decided by the revisers, isn't it ?

aqwsed12345 : The overwhelming manuscript evidence—including Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic—supports the traditional punctuation.

Since the Greek and Latin didn't have regular punctuation this is a rather silly claim. Except, interestingly, in codex Vaticanus (here), there is a lower point, called a hypostigme, after "today" (In "Truly, I tell you today"). Although some punctuation marks were added to the manuscript later, the ink of the lower point is the same as the letters of the text, and thus it can be traced back to the fourth century C.E. So, if anything, codex Vaticanus supports the placing of the comma after "today".

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : Differences in manuscript traditions are normal, but they do not imply deliberate falsification.

Rufinus, who I quoted, was writing about deliberate falsification. It happened all the time, but especially in the fourth century when the consequences of "heresy" were imprisonment or exile. When Origen complained it was happening to his own writings in his lifetime, do you think he was talking about different manuscript traditions?

aqwsed12345 : Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch, whose writings unambiguously affirm Jesus' divinity (e.g., Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians: "our God, Jesus Christ").

I would have thought you would have known that the writings of Ignatius are completely corrupted. I will happily write similar details about the textual history of Ignatius, but it is sufficient for now to say that there are three different recensions of his letters, the shorter, the medium and the longer recension. Several scholars think they are all forgeries, and all scholars accept some are forgeries and the rest have interpolations.

aqwsed12345 : Other scholars, such as J.B. Lightfoot, have defended the phrase ["our Lord and God Jesus Christ" in Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians].

J.B. Lightfoot wrote in the nineteenth century and textual criticism has moved on since then. At that time, Lightfoot edited "The Apostolic Fathers". The current editor is Michael Holmes, and it was from his latest edition of "The Apostolic Fathers" that I got my information.

113

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

Earnest

aqwsed12345: The Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic translations also support the traditional placement of the comma before "today."

In Bentley Layton's "A Coptic Grammar", Third Edition, 2011, he translates Luke 23:43 in section 509, on the nature of recorded discourse in Coptic :

"Truly, I say to you today, You will be with Me in Paradise."

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Earnest

@ Sea Breeze :

I didn't give a full reponse to your posts here and here which reflected the article Nine Early Church Fathers Who Taught Jesus is God by Tim Barnett on the Stand to Reason website. Of course that doesn't negate the quotations made, and so I should expand on my comment that "scholarship on the Apostolic Fathers shows most evidence we have of what they wrote is very late and has been subject to revision".

First, regarding the evidence we have of their writings being very late, I refer to the third edition of The Apostolic Fathers, 2007, edited by Michael Holmes. Holmes says, regarding the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians (p.277) :

The text of the letter has been poorly preserved. Nine late Greek manuscripts are extant, all incomplete and all derived from the same defective source, [which only go up as far as 9.2. The oldest Greek witness is Vaticanus Graecus 859 from the 11th–13th centuries, but most are from the 15th–16th centuries]. For the rest of the letter we are dependent upon a Latin translation, preserved in nine manuscripts, [the earliest from the 11th century].

So the quotation that you provide from chapter 12 of Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians referring to "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" has no manuscript support in the Greek at all, but relies on a Latin translation no earlier than the eleventh century. The nine Latin manuscripts have different readings. Four of the Latin manuscripts (r,p,m,f) read "dominum nostrum et deum Iesum Christum" (= "our Lord and God Jesus Christ") while five of the Latin manuscripts (o,v,b,c,t) read "dominum nostrum Iesum Christum" (= "our Lord Jesus Christ"), omitting "et deum".

Now I would like to show that it was common practice to interpolate and/or alter the writings of early Christians so they reflected later dogma. Rufinus (344-411 AD) translated Origen into Latin and he discusses interpolations in On the Adulteration of the Works of Origen (late fourth century). Indeed, Rufinus himself "altered many things which had a heterodox meaning as found in the ordinary mss. of Origen, so as to make the work consistent with itself and with the orthodox views expressed in other parts of Origen’s writings" (p.736).

He lists several examples of interpolation in the writings of other Church Fathers. Eunomian arguments interjected into Clement's Recognitions, subordinationist views into the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Sabellian and Arian positions into those of Dionysius of Alexandria (p.737). Latin writers like Hilary of Poitiers (p.741), Cyprian (p.742), and Jerome were also victims of interpolation. If this was going on while the writers were still alive (as Origen asserted in his own case), it can hardly be a surprise that it happened after they died. Especially when so much was at stake (banishment, imprisonment or death) once the emperor got involved.

So let me go back to the expression "God Jesus Christ" which was allegedly written in Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians. Interestingly, in the CCEL Apostolic Fathers it only reads "Lord Jesus Christ". In the Apostolic Fathers, edited by Michael Holmes, it does read "God Jesus Christ" but has a footnote saying "Many ancient authorities omit 'and God' [in the expression "our Lord and God Jesus Christ"]". I wrote to Michael Holmes regarding this, and he replied :

I consulted an unfinished commentary on the Letter of Polycarp that I have been working on since publishing the latest edition of the translation. It turns out that I had forgotten that I had in fact, after working on this passage in more detail, concluded by disagreeing with Lightfoot at this point; I argue the phrase et deum is more likely a later addition. So, if and when I publish the commentary, I will need to revise the published translation to match it.

113

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

Earnest

Does not the Coptic and the Curetonian Syriac translate the Greek as "Truly, I tell you today, ..." ?

8

1922 Cedar Point Ohio Convention

by Nambo in

i recall reading that daniel 12 verse 12 ( 12 blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.

), was claimed to have been fulfilled by the cedar point ohio convention in 1922.. can anybody recall which publications this claim was published in please?.

or even better, a screen shot.

Earnest

More recently, Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy, 2006, p.303 para.24 said :

Jehovah’s angel concludes his prophecy regarding the holy ones with these words: “Happy is the one who is keeping in expectation and who arrives at the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days!” (Daniel 12:12) The angel gives no clues as to when this period begins or ends. History suggests that it simply follows on the heels of the preceding period. In that case it would run from the autumn of 1922 to the late spring of 1926 (Northern Hemisphere). Did the holy ones come to a state of happiness by the end of that period? Yes, in important spiritual ways.