PDA

View Full Version : Textual Evidence for Acts 15:34



kdlitwak
05-19-2005, 03:31 PM
I'm without my Greek NT and would appreciate it if someone who does have such access could tell me the info on the omission or inclusion of Acts 15:34. Thanks.

Ken

wie
05-20-2005, 02:50 AM
But you have Bibleworks? It has Tischendorf!
Ok, the verse itself is not noted, but the appartus is there:

omit: 01, A, B, E, H, L, P, al, Sy-H

NA has: P74, 01, A, B, E, Psi, Maj, vg-st, Sy-P, bo

Curious, Tischendorf has Sy-H, NA has Sy-P.
Since in Tischendorf Sy-H is called Sy-P, perhaps this is an error in NA?

vr8ce
05-20-2005, 06:02 PM
But you have Bibleworks? It has Tischendorf!
Ok, the verse itself is not noted, but the appartus is there:
I always hate to ask dumb questions, but I've gotten used to it over the years.

The apparatus is where? I see the TIS that shows Acts 15:33 and doesn't show 15:34, but I don't see any of the apparatus, even in the auto-info notes. I've searched Help, and the only references to Tischendorf I see are the TIS Greek NT.

Thanks!

Vince

Adelphos
05-20-2005, 07:02 PM
The apparatus is where? I see the TIS that shows Acts 15:33 and doesn't show 15:34, but I don't see any of the apparatus, even in the auto-info notes.

Immediately after the first paragraph under 15:33, you'll see the S notation for Elzevir and the Gb notation for Griesbach. Immediately after these the reading for 15:34 is given.

Notice the "kai" in verse 35, and the habitual predilection of B, Aleph, and D -- which disagree more with each other than they do with the TR, as in this verse, where B and Aleph both have different readings -- to omit via homeoteuleuton and other methods, and to harmonize infinitely more than all other manuscripts combined, as Hoskier especially demonstrated -- and you will be able to logically arrive at the true reading.

Scott
http://www.lamblion.net (http://www.lamblion.net/)

wie
05-21-2005, 04:06 AM
the habitual predilection of B, Aleph, and D -- which disagree more with each other than they do with the TR,
Probably wrong. Do you have numbers?


(01, B) to harmonize infinitely more than all other manuscripts combined, as Hoskier especially demonstrated
Certainly dead wrong.

BTW, the Majority text agrees with 01, B in omitting this verse.

Adelphos
05-21-2005, 05:56 AM
Probably wrong. Do you have numbers? Certainly dead wrong.

I suggest you do what modern bible scholars have failed to do in toto, i.e., pick up Hoskier's collation in "Codex B & Its Allies" and study it, as well as study Burgon's collations, along with Swanson (modern collator), Sturz, et cetera -- ergo, I suggest you actually study the evidence first hand.

Of course, "evidence" is a word not understood by so many gurus today. As any rookie cop knows, however, you don't trust an habitual liar as far as you can throw him -- yes, this is one of the very first and foremost rules of evidence -- yet this is clearly not understood by most in this field, for it is not a matter of speculation to say that Aleph and B, along with D, are three of the most habitual liars in the entire corpus of known biblical manuscripts, rather, it is a fact in evidence, right there on the parchment for all to see.

Ergo, for those of us who have made meticulous collations of B, Aleph, and other manuscripts, the facts are in evidence and can only be denied by the proverbial ostrich, i.e., the fact is -- these depraved witnesses botch simple geographical references, botch simple historical references, botch theological references, botch the Greek language like no other witnesses extant, et cetera. For a short example of B and Aleph's character, go here --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/which_is_in_heaven1.htm

and scroll down to near the bottom of the page. There you will find B and Aleph's rendering in the first chapter of the gospel of John, and, like Hoskier, I didn't list every single error. Further, these manuscripts have done to the entire NT what they have done to this first chapter of John, sometimes even much more grossly. As Burgon, who actually spent years collating these and other manuscripts, stated --

"Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God. Revision Revised, p 16

Numbers? If you had studied Hoskier's or Burgon's or the others' collations, or had actually made collations yourself, you wouldn't ask that question, for you would know that the "numbers" can be slotted into a whole variety of groups, thus, I have no idea what "numbers" you are looking for. As far as homeoteuleuton, B and Aleph are utterly notorious for it, as those of us who have actually collated them know, unlike the naked assertions of modern gurus who assert but who cannot demonstrate.

The only modern published collator of these witnesses that I know of is Reuben Swanson. Swanson's work is very nice for critcal apparatus appeal, but you'll be way better off studying Hoskier or Burgon for ascertaining the actual character of a manuscript, this due to the method of presentation and the manner by which they formulated their groupings (numbers).

What's also sad is that people today think they can get an accurate read from the manuscripts by consulting a Critical Apparatus.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Even if the CA was accurate, it would still never be able to give an accurate character of a manuscript. It takes many long, agonizing hours to properly collate manuscripts, and only then can one get an accurate read as to a manuscript's character.

As I said, the depravities of B and Aleph are there for all to see, and like the rookie cop, anyone who investigates the text of B and Aleph will see immediately that these two witnesses are habitual liars that positively stand ten heavens above the others with regard to containg errors, blasphemies, and so on.

In short, it is not logically possible to believe in verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible -- which is a belief that every genuinely born-again Christian holds from the instant of regeneration -- there are no exceptions -- and thus, it is not logically possible to believe in verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible and yet hold to the primacy of B and Aleph, for if B and Aleph are genuine reflections of the autographa, then the writers of the NT, and by extension the Holy Ghost, didn't understand the Greek language, didn't know that the Sea of Galilee was actually in Galilee instead of Judea, didn't know that Jesus died supernaturally by his own power instead of by a soldier with a spear, ad nauseam.

One can find these depravities on virtually every single page of the NT of these two witnesses.

That's not an opinion -- it's a fact in evidence.

And lest anyone think this is true of all manuscripts, Hoskier, who probably still holds the modern record for collating manuscripts, bears repeating --

"There remains one argument to be dealt with, and that concerns the possibility of someone saying that, after all, the variations of B are few in number and probably less than in most MSS. That is hardly so. If the reader wants a tenth-century example of a MS true to the Church type let him examine Matthaei's k, a most beautiful and neat MS, one of our very early cursives, and in this MS will be found a true exponent of the Koine. Had Erasmus used this, no fault could have been found, and yet but little difference is to be found between k and the textus receptus, while b and his group differ infinitely more among themselves at a period much more remote." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 456

Ciao.

Scott
http://www.lamblion.net

vr8ce
05-21-2005, 11:57 AM
Immediately after the first paragraph under 15:33, you'll see the S notation for Elzevir and the Gb notation for Griesbach. Immediately after these the reading for 15:34 is given.
Wow. I'm getting dumber and dumber. No such animals on my screen. Here's a look at what I see. BW 6.0.012a on XPSP2.

Vince

Adelphos
05-21-2005, 01:12 PM
Wow. I'm getting dumber and dumber. No such animals on my screen.

I know what you mean, but that's okay, for "when we are dumb, then we are smart!"

I don't recall exactly what Critical Apparatus I saw that in, but, well, you know... :D

Are you opening the Tischendorf apparatus by going to --

Resources | Grammatical References | Tischendorf Apparatus?

If so, once you have the Tischendorf apparatus open, you'll need to go to Acts 15:33. Once there, look at the second paragraph under verse 33, and you will find the Greek text for verse 34, which is --

edoxe de tw sila (D (javascript:idxWin('u2A_t8-D'))05 (javascript:idxWin('u2A_ga-05')) seilea

and so forth.

It sounds to me like you're trying to find this info via the bible version TIS, which is displayed in the results window, but as you have discovered, you cannot do it this way.

Scott
http://www.lamblion.net

vr8ce
05-22-2005, 09:51 PM
Are you opening the Tischendorf apparatus by going to --
Resources | Grammatical References | Tischendorf Apparatus?
...
It sounds to me like you're trying to find this info via the bible version TIS, which is displayed in the results window, but as you have discovered, you cannot do it this way.
Aha! Yes, that's exactly what I was doing, because I didn't know better (learn something new about BW every day), and furthermore *that's the only place Tischendorf is mentioned in the help*. The "What's New" section does mention the apparatus, but nowhere does it say where it is. Since the other three references to Tischendorf are all the NT, I thought it was there.

So, much thanks for the lesson, and BW, if you're reading, you should add something in the Help about *where* all of the "extras" can be found for those of us not smart enough to figure it out on our own. :)

Vince

Adelphos
05-23-2005, 12:49 AM
Aha! Yes, that's exactly what I was doing...

You can also go to Resources | Lexical & Grammatical Help to get there quicker. There is also a button (looks kinda like a bar graph) that you can employ so that you don't have to go through the menu. Just scan the button options and you'll find it. :cool:

In any case, whichever way you use -- the button or the menu -- this will pop up a link to the Tischendorf Apparatus for that particular verse. After it pops up, simply click on the reference and you'll be taken there immediately.

There are, of course, other options besides Tischendorf in the Lexical & Grammatical Help Box. With the Lexical & Grammatical Help Box open, try running your cursor over various Greek/Hebrew words in the Results Window for even more options.

Scott
http://www.lamblion.net (http://www.lamblion.net/)