+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Luke 23:34 - Father, forgive them

  1. Default Luke 23:34 - Father, forgive them

    Luke 23:34
    Then said Jesus,
    Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

    And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.


    A powerful and beautiful text, overwhelming attestation, yet Christianity is embarrassed by the stupidity of the hortian dupes like James White who attack the verse.

    There is a lot of duplication with a later thread, the Parallelism element is important here, otherwise the new one is stronger.
    sister thread to combine:

    Luke 23:34 - Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?464-Luke-23-34-Father-forgive-them&highlight=Eubank
    =============================================


    Resources


    The Revision Revised (1883)
    John William Burgon

    https://books.google.com/books?id
    =nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA82
    p. 82-85, note on p. 283


    A James White Christmas Carol on Father Forgive Them in Luke 23:34
    Jonathan sheffield - Dec 14, 2017
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0deEwz_BhvI

    Also on Facebook thread or two, bring to PureBible.

    Make note, with mention of embarrassment and islamists.


    The ECW on Luke 23:34 is an amazing issue. It is a joke and a shame and an insult to the word of God that men like James White embarrass themselves
    and the Christian faith by attacking the Bible, on powerful Bible verses, and in front of unbelievers like the islamists, no less.

    ================================================== ===========

    [textualcriticism] Luke 23:34a - Father, forgive them; for they know not what they
    Steven Avery - Sept 8, 2010
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/5960

    ================================================== ===========

    This is a fascinating article making many good points.

    "A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a"
    JBL 129, no. 3 (2010): 521-536
    Nathan Eubank
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/message/5959

    Luke 23:34
    Then said Jesus,
    Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
    And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.


    And I see one point I want to raise about textual criticism approaches and I will keep it simple, as a question, only looking at one reference.

    Nathan Eubank
    Moreover, one of these pre-fourth-century witnesses is Origen (ca. 185-254). whose citations of Luke consistently support the Alexandrian text. Whitlark and Parsons dismiss Origen's testimony, claiming that his "writings evidence many distinctly Western readings." but they make no attempt to explain why one should presume that Origen used a Western text when writing De Pascha (2.43.7-14) and Homiliae in Leviticim (2.1.5). both of which quote the prayer.


    Why by any sensible logic, would the value of Origen's evidence, showing what Greek Bible he had in his hand in the early 200s .. vary dependent on complicated and even convoluted categories of manuscripts created in the 1800s, categories that barely have meaning in the Ante-Nicene period ? Is there not a major Mack Truck flaw of logical anachronism here ?
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-08-2018 at 02:27 PM.

  2. Default Facebook King James Bible Debate thread - 3 main posts - 2014

    King James Bible Debate
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/2120...2447788516693/

    Luke 23:34
    Then said Jesus,
    Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

    And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.


    ============

    Now, the evidence for this full verse, with the prayer, is absolutely overwhelming, only a person groping deep in the hortian fog can get as confused and rebellious against the pure word of God has James White. Burgon has a superb section on the verse, we will look for new material here.

    Textual criticism of the New Testament (1897)
    George Salmon
    http://books.google.com/books?id=UEA1AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA25

    In these and several other cases of omission, a student who examines the evidence for himself, without having mastered WH's principles of dealing with it, would be likely to think that a bad reading had been adopted in the teeth of evidence, overpowering both in respect of the number and the antiquity of the witnesses in favour of the reading which the Church for many centuries had received. Nay, it would seem as if in the judgment of the new editors any evidence was good enough to justify an omission.
    The evidence is overpowering.

    ============

    Even Bart Ehrman accepts the verse, referring to the full verse:

    "It appears, then, that Luke: 23:34 was part of Luke's original text." - Misquoting Jesus, p. 160


    Also the SBLGNT, one of the textcrit endeavors:

    1. [verified: SBLGNT includes "ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν � Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν" in text, but it is actually enclosed with Unicode half-brackets indicating that a variant reading (in this case omission) has been noted in the SBL apparatus - Ben]

    From the Nazaroo site
    http://textualcriticism.scienceonthe...lecticism.html

    ============

    The former different confused position of James White is here (emphasis added:

    King James Only Controversy (2009)
    http://books.google.com/books?id=q7H_2eQC91kC&pg=PA320

    "profound theological implications ... What is highly significant here is the breadth of witnesses not containing this text. ... This witness at least should be kept in mind when placing theological weight upon this passage."
    ============

    While the breadth of witnesses for inclusion is far broader, and omitting text is trivially easy, while adding text over various textlines and times and languages and regions is extremely difficult.

    Ironically, White uses this verse as his springboard for criticizing "long-distance mind-reading" of the scribes. This would be a timely warning, except that it is something he does do, as James Snapp pointed out, on the Mark ending, see p. 320 for an example. Ironically, White criticizes Ehrman, who has this verse right.

    Remember, the hypocrite James White lauded Burgon's argumentation on 1 Timothy 3:16, yet the evidence here is that much more powerful from Burgon. Even many in the textual academy agree on this one, despite all the indoctrination.

    ============
    .
    The following was written by a scholar who was under Ehrman. A library trip will be necessary for the ... part.

    Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (2000)
    Kim Haines-Eitzen
    http://books.google.com/books?id=NjgtmT0prkUC&pg=PA120

    "... Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (2.3.16; 5.3.14), Gospel of Nicodemus (10), and the Acts of Philip also cite this verse. Marcion's Luke and Tatian's Diatessaron include the prayer in Luke's Gospel. 70 These witnesses demonstrate that the prayer was known in the second century in Gaul, Alexandria, Palestine, Syria, and Rome."
    "the prayer was known in the second century in Gaul, Alexandria, Palestine, Syria, and Rome."

    This is only explainable by ... authenticity.

    ============

    Even the supposed Alexandrian Origen is often focused upon as yet another key early witness. He has two references (maybe more per the review by Peter R. Rodgers of the Haines-Eitzen material).

    [textualcriticism] Luke 23:34a - Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do
    Sept 8, 2010
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ns/topics/5960


    Origen is in Peri Pascha, and:

    Homily 2 on Leviticus
    http://www.ldysinger.com/@texts/0250...om2_on_lev.htm

    But it is said of the sin of the congregation, “if they are ignorant and the word concealed from their eyes and they do one thing of all the commands of the Lord which they ought not do,” (Cf. Lev 4.13) then it is also apparent that “the entire congregation” can sin through ignorance. The Lord also confirms this in the Gospels when he says, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.”
    Wieland has some here, with text, and some of these with multiple references. Take a look at these confirmed references, tons from the Ante-Nicene period.

    A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels
    Luke
    http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Luke.pdf

    Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes, Diatessaron, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Marcion, Clement of Alexandria, Origen above and Peri Pascha, Hippolytus, Didascalia, Apostolic Constitutions, Eusebius, Pseudo-Basileus of Caesarea, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilarius, Acts of Philip, Pseudo-Clement, Acta Archelai/Hegemonius, Chrysostom, Pseudo-Justin, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Philogathus and a number of solid allusions.
    Let's lay it out:

    Gospel of the Hebrews
    Gospel of the Nazarenes
    Diatessaron
    Ignatius
    Irenaeus
    Marcion
    Clement of Alexandria
    Origen above and Peri Pascha
    Hippolytus
    Didascalia
    Apostolic Constitutions
    Eusebius
    Pseudo-Basileus of Caesarea
    Ambrose
    Gregory of Nyssa
    Hilarius
    Acts of Philip
    Pseudo-Clement
    Acta Archelai/Hegemonius
    Chrysostom
    Pseudo-Justin
    Hesychius of Jerusalem
    Jerome
    Cyril of Alexandria
    Philogathus
    and a number of solid allusions

    "The problem is to come up with a good explanation for a secondary addition of the words." (As we often see, as with the Mark ending, there is no sensible addition theory, not over such a wide range of languages and lines.)

    The evidences are massive everywhere, mss and ECW. When there are a plethora of early witnesses, a few mss with an omission mean nothing, and they are, even if thought to be 3rd (P75) or 4th century, simply far too late to have any weight. Internal evidences are very fluid, reasons for omission are easy to conjecture, so that gets a lot of the modern ink. However, mind-reading the scribes is really not even necessary to understand the authenticity.

    Another resource mentioned by Wieland is:

    "A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a" by Nathan Eubank
    JBL 129, no. 3 (2010): 521-536
    (add url from paper)

    Wieland is another textual criticism aficionado de facto agreeing that this is an omission corruption, shared by P75 and Vaticanus.

    [textualcriticism] New article on Luke 23:34a
    Wieland Willker - Sept, 2010
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ns/topics/5959

    "Overall Lk 23:34 together with Lk 22:43-44 are two of the most important variants in the Gospels, perhaps THE two most important. If we accept these words to be genuine, which I am inclined to do (still with a big question mark, of course), then we must accept that P75/B suffered from some strange, selective, but serious recensional activity."

    The fact that Wieland, knowing the evidences as above, stays a tad equivocal in favoring authenticity shows you how deep are the hortian deceptions.

    One next step that would be helpful is to increase Will's already large number of ECW references .

    My summary: easily a textbook case of the textual absurdity behind the modern versions, who follow the NA-UBS Critical Text in omitting the verses (or including them, often in brackets or margin or footnotes, claiming they are not authentic.) Similar to the Mark ending in significance and overwhelming evidentiary support for the pure Bible.

    Psalm 119:140
    Thy word is very pure:
    therefore thy servant loveth it.

    ================================================== ===========

    Luke 23:34
    Then said Jesus,
    Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
    And they parted his raiment, and cast lots


    ===============

    The ECW on Luke 23:34 is an amazing issue. It is a joke and a shame and an insult to the word of God that men like James White embarrass themselves and the Christian faith by attacking the Bible, on powerful Bible verses, and in front of unbelievers like the islamists, no less.

    Earlier I gave a list of ECW from Wieland Willker. Those are all confirmed, with quotes (not always translated) although in some cases there were multiple references. The allusions should be listed as well. These can be compared with Burgon and others in an effort to develop a full presentation that will show clearly the powerful use and acceptance of the pure Bible over the hundreds of years, and all the manuscript traditions.

    (Also this contrasts with the scorn of the enemies of the Bible against the historic manuscripts and church writers, the hortian dupes)

    Next I am taking an apparatus listing in order to increase the data pool. I'm getting down what I have which can be tweaked later.

    ===============

    lists moved to new post.

    ================================================== ===========

    parallelism moved to new post
    Last edited by admin; 11-08-2018 at 02:31 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •