Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: apparatus rigging

  1. Default apparatus rigging

    This will be a thread to coalesce a lot of information.

    Note: Bring over from:

    Daniel Wallace - how bad can it get

    Facebook is currently the main spot:
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-20-2017 at 06:58 AM.

  2. Default

    apparatus rigging

    Any good thinker will become a "conspiracy theory" proponent if you study the textual criticism history and praxis.
    Here is one example.


    From the Department of Textual Circularity

    The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence, as Applied to the Continuous Greek Text of the Gospel of Luke (1982)
    Chapter III - The Quest for Text Classification
    Frederik Wisse

    Aland's Thousand Readings

  3. Default 2013 notes on apparatus rigging

    Some notes from 2013, in PBWorks, that should be coalesced with the current Facebook KingJamesBibleDebate (and maybe PureBible) threads.

    Apparatus Rigging Games

    Last edited by SA Steven Avery 4 years ago

    Let's look at a few additional aspects of the apparatus rigging.


    Apparatus Rigging #1

    Apparatus Rigged to Aland's Category Anti-Byz Circularity

    Even Metzger and Ehrman note the apparatus-category circularity .. a circularity that in fact contradicts the big lie in the apparatus.

    "they provide the only tool presently available for classifying the whole manuscript tradition of the New Testament on an objective statistical basis"

    About this "objective statistical basic", Metzger and Ehrman comment:

    Metzger and Ehrman
    The categories given by Aland and Aland to manuscripts (I, II etc.)] do not assist researchers interested in knowing which family groups have been established based on the Teststellen. Moreover there is apeculiar kind of circularity in this approach to classification since if one of the purposes in grouping witnesses is to assist in establishing the 'original text' it makes little sense to prejudge the issue by classifying witnesses precisely by how well they attest the original text! - The Text of the New Testament, 4th ed, 2005, p. 238

    Showing that the famous Hortian maxim is, in practice, discarded.

    "Knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon readings"

    The modern textual theorist is told that they really are supposed to only have full knowledge of non-Byzantine documents, and this is accomplished by the experts in Germany and America who say:

    "I'm from the textual apparatus group and I'm here to help you"

    Although the focus of the last posts is on the Greek uncial rigging, we see that the problem is pervasive throughout the apparatus. A circular bias against the Byzantine readings causes those readings to be marginalized (i.e. hundreds placed in Byz without indicating the numerical support) or omitted from the apparatus entries (many uncials, the recent posts, and also early cursives) to give the false appearance of relatively greater support for minority and ultra-minority Vaticanus-primacy readings.

    The new discovery was that Byz can include many uncials, something I think most people who look at a NA-27 or UBS-3 apparatus, at least in the context of being placed in a paper for a verse analysis, do not understand. Similarly, as Jonathan pointed out, the early cursives that are Byz are hidden.


    Apparatus Rigging #2

    Apparatus Rigged by Removing Gothic Textline

    Bruce Metzger was puzzled by what can be seen as another type of earlier rigging of the apparatus.

    Reminiscences of an Octogenarian (1995)
    Bruce M. Metzger
    On the negative side was the elimination, for some unexplained reason, of evidence of the Gothic version, made by Ulfilas about AD 385.

    Here is some of what we know of the Gothic, it is generally an early pointer to the Byz and TR text.

    As regards the New Testament, scholars generally agree that the type of text represented in the Gothic version is basically the Antiochian or Syrian form of text with a certain number of Western and non-Western readings embedded in it.... The Gothic version, therefore, appears to be the oldest extant representative of the Lucianic recension, despite subsequent infiltration of readings from the Old Latin version. - The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible, 1963, p. 28 Chapters in The History of New Testament Textual Criticism, Bruce Manning Metzger

    All investigators agree (e.g. Westcott and Hort, von Soden, Streitberg, Nestle, Streeter, Kenyon, Friedrichsen, et al.) that it [the Gothic Bible] is basically a Syrian Antiochian form of text It is, therefore, the oldest extant representative of the Lucianic or Antiochian type of text (Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament, pp. 384-385) - quote taken from

    In the 4th and 5th centuries the Gothic language using the term in its widest sense must have spread over the greater part of Europe together with the north coast of Africa. (Hugh Chisolm, Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1910)

    While we can pass over the Lucian recension nonsense, you can see that the early Gothic would be embarrassing to the Hortian approach, and we see that it was slipped out of the apparatus. Afaik, this is the only such subtraction in the modern Critical Text apparatus history. (Is there another possible reason .. conceivably .. but where is the response to Metzger? It would be fascinating to know how many Gothic readings were removed.)

    Maybe an innate sense of fairness in Bruce Metzger desired the minority Vaticanus readings to be supported by tricks like word-parsing and special pleading logic about scribal habits, rather than blatant rigging.

    Incidentally, this is from one of the only writers who noted this omission and the Metzger concern:

    Students who had a corrupt UBS [United Bible Society] Greek New Testament in its earlier (lst-3rd) editions could read in the notes, buried at the bottom of the page in its critical apparatus, references documenting the affinity of the Gothic and the KJV texts. However, this fact weighed too heavily in favor of the King James Bible. It proved that the most ancient version of the Bible did not match the new versions. The now current UBS 4th edition has omitted these most important references to the Gothic edition. Even Bruce Metzger, an editor for the UBS text, admits the new
    edition's critical error in dropping the references to the Gothic Bible. (continues with quote from Octogenarian) -- Gail Riplinger, In Awe of Thy Word, 2004, Chapter 26, p. 969

    While Riplinger editorializes a bit, she is the only writer I know who noted this rigging and the Metzger concern, and I will not pass up her notice due to a genetic fallacy approach, not when the issue is so fundamental and missed by so many.


    Apparatus Rigging #3

    Apparatus Rigging even down to the Papyri - "alien Byzantine influence"

    Let us start by another example of how pervasive is the apparatus rigging:

    The Early Text of the New Testament
    Charles E. Hill, Michael J. Kruger
    All but one of the papyri in my survey are graded by the Alands as category I, that is, according to p. 106, 'of special quality' by virtue of their
    age. Only P81 is category II because of alien Byzantine influence! (from Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus)

    Granted, I am going on Kruger on this, and would really like to have the German words. Note that there are other papyrus that are other categories, due to lateness or hard to read or other reasons, but not from the Hill-Kruger survey, which is P9, P20, P23, P72, P78, P81.

    Anybody who remembers that Aland takes Metzger apart for his anachronistic approach to papyri and text-types,:

    The Text of the New Testament (1995)
    Kurt and Barbara Aland
    ....Descriptions in such terms as "mixed text," "partly Alexandrian, partly Western (pre-Caesarean) text." etc.. to describe manuscripts of a period when these groups had not yet developed and could hardly be "mixed" contribute nothing to clear thinking.

    Should find the inconsistency and hypocrisy is mind-boggling. While the German NA experts properly point out difficulties in anachronistic textual grouping and comparing of papyri, when done by Metzger, when they want to marginalize a papyrus they do so because of "alien Byzantine influence". This is also part of a jet-black pot-and-kettle battle.

    Here is one of the Aland references to P81 as category II.

    Der Text Des Neuen Testaments (1995)
    Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland
    P81 ... 1995


    Apparatus Rigging #4

    HOW TO HIDE EVIDENCES ---> "Integrated into the Network" (text-geek speak)

    Notice that NA-28 follows the same idea to consciously rig .. whatever is Byz .. clump it together with other Byz evidences and hide it:

    The Revision of the Catholic Epistles according to the Editio Critica Maior
    Michael Holmes
    Core witnesses of the Byzantine text are integrated into the network. The ECM Byz is represented by seven witnesses with a pure Byzantine text (these representatives changes from letter to letter).

    Thus, they will even make it very hard for you to know what they hid. And they feel their job is done because the supports for the TR-Byz text is "integrated into the network" == deceptive geek-speak for "hidden".


    Apparatus Rigging #5

    Collate only the Manuscripts that might support Vaticanus, ignore the Byzantine

    Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior: - An Evaluation
    Bart D. Ehrman
    The Introduction... states that the reasoned selection of 182 mss "guarantees reliably" that the apparatus contains all the known readings which have appeared in the history of the text from its earliest beginnings through the formation and final establishment of the Byzantine text. But I suspect that the guarantee is a bit premature. For as Prof. Aland has pointed out, not every ms of James was collated in full in preparation for the edition. Instead, the Institute fully collated only those later mss which they judged to contain non-Byzantine forms of the text (along with a few clear representatives of the Byzantine tradition).... Mss were collated in full for these 98 passages; mss that varied from Majority text more than 10% in these units of variation were the ones chosen.


    Now let us return to our previous discussion:

    > Daniel Buck
    > You give too much credit to the support for the masculine. X is not a true uncial--it's a cursive commentary with text in 'modern' capital letters. And you double-list Theta by name and abbreviation. So the split is really more like 9-12.

    The note on the double theta is appreciated, I was trying to work with many different lists and missed that.

    The question of X is more for the apparatus folks, since they gave it the uncial letter, however I will keep it in mind.

    In the later post, the split ended up 12-14, and a bit in favor of the TR-Byz reading if you include early cursives, as pointed out by Jonathan.

    What is fascinating about Mark 7:19 is that, while doctrinally important, from a straight evidentiary point of view the evidence is pretty well split. It is one of the variants where John William Burgon flipped his position. In fact, imo the biggest problems of the CT reading is that it is so textually unlikely. If an author wanted to say that the words were a Markan interpolation (making Jesus a sinner while he walked Jerusalem and Judea and Galilee), the way the text is in the CT is extremely dysfunctional. Any extra push to the CT side in my writing was purely accidental and temporary.

    And it just turns out to be a nice visible verse for watching the rigging of the apparatus in action.

    Mark 7:19
    Because it entereth not into his heart,
    but into the belly,
    and goeth out into the draught,
    purging all meats?

    From what I can see, the textual community is rather blasÚ about the fact that even their chief apparatus is rigged to help the Hortian variants, against the expressed pure goal:

    "knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon readings"

    And even those supporting the TR and Byz have been too quiet, although I probably could find some objections of note, such as to the whole concept of hiding hundreds of mss in Byz, and many readers not really understanding that little game. In my experience, the ECW are often biased rather heavily as well, with there being a rare exception where the error is the other way (e.g. UBS-3 had Cassian for the heavenly witnesses).


    More Tidbits On the Apparatus Question

    "Witnesses of the first order ..." was another part of all this, I have not taken the time to see exactly how it is applied.

    "Witnesses of the first order ... whose claim to attention rests on the quality of their text, their age, or the circumstances of their discovery"

    This was similar to the Category rigging, and was changed in NA-28
    The distinction between consistently cited witnesses of the first order and of the second order has been eliminated.

    Jack Moorman is one of the few who has pointed out some of the apparatus and manuscript games:

    However, the strange thing about it is, it is very, very difficult to get a complete list. You can for the papyri, but not quite so easily for the uncials and certainly not for the miniscules or for the lectionaries.

    Ironically, Moorman was just talking about a list of manuscripts, and the greater problem is what is hid away from the apparatus, even uncials and early cursives.


    Notice that while Maurice Robinson properly calls the modern text biased in an anti-Byzantine manner:

    "a presuppositional bias against the claims of the Byzantine Textform"

    The day-to-day specifics of putting the bias into the underlying scholarly apparatus he does not seem to address.


    Archived at:

    [TC-Alternate-list] apparatus rigging games
    Steven Avery - April 11, 2013

    Yours in Jesus,
    Steven Avery
    Bayside, NY
    From: Steven Avery
    A thread on the sister forum is uncovering a rather amazing fact about the NA and UBS apparatus, and to some extent apparatuses that utilize their information. We have known for a long time that
    Byzcan hide 500 or 1000 cursives, and this is a major aspect of the Hortian fog approach, to make the mass of Greek manuscripts into a minor aspect. (Why not at least show the number of mss? Oh, we could discuss the question of which cursives are shown, but let's let that go by today).
    Mark 7:19, is "Jesus declared all foods clean" in the original Greek manuscripts?
    Archived at:
    [TC-Alternate-list] UBS-NA Critical Text apparatus - none dare call it rigging

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts