[b-hebrew] The New Testament
peter at qaya.org
Sun Oct 22 11:45:36 EDT 2006
On 22/10/2006 20:11, Schmuel wrote:
> ... These are fascinating issues
> but quite different than the abject corruptness of the manuscripts lifted up today
> as the "most reliable", Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In fact, despite protestations,
> those two manuscripts were essentially the proof-text base for the Westcott-Hort NT.
Not "today", but in the 19the century, which was when the Westcott-Hort
NT was published. Please stop quoting 19th century sources like Burgon
without acknowledging their age and obsoleteness.
> Dean John Burgon's book is a major historical writing, much of which is available
> on the web. Perhaps you should read his material instead of looking for any
> cause of offense.
It is "historical writing" only in the sense that it is of purely
historical interest, and is irrelevant to discussions of the 21st
century state of textual criticism.
>> Cite what is actually written in the original document that you state is full
>> of "blunders." If you do not cite the originals, then you will have to tell us
>> how you know that X is a "blunder" and not a later emendment..
> Again, reread above what Dean Burgon said and comment directly. Explain
> how such types of errors could generally be purposeful, since they are well
> known as textual errors. They are even given their own special names.
> The late ...
Very late. But at least you implicitly admit that this is not up to date.
> ... Dean John Burgon is ...
Was. August 21, 1813 - August 4, 1888, according to
> ... a primary source scholar of incredible skill.
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with quoting from his examination.
You are welcome to quote. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with me
pointing out that his work is old and obsolete, as well as trying to
refute a proposition which no one has proposed.
E-mail: peter at qaya.org
More information about the b-hebrew