Steven Avery
Administrator
Peter Williams asked for the Warfield reference:
# 2,3,4,5 are similarly absurd, stacking the deck, but #1 is the one in question.
Peter, Common Text as used by Warfield would be the Received Text and/or the Authorized Version. And I was using it in the same way.
===============
Maurice, your Mark 1:2 study is superb. (You sent it to me before it was TRENS available.)
> Maurice Robinson
"I would not have issues, for example, with either Ησαια, ουπω or εκλιποντος "
Maurice, this can get a little existential/philosophical.
The question becomes: what corruption would you support and defend if there was no alternative?
Yet, there is an alternative, a superior reading, so the question itself can be a misdirection.
Reading your words, you sound like you are saying that in the eclipse, Isaiah, and going to the feast, you would accept the harder minority reading if it were the majority.
So does that imply that in the other six so far listed here you would in fact:
"impose inerrancy as a primary consideration"?
Even if it did not match your textual theory? hmmm...
By contrast, Daniel Wallace will live happily with Amos and Asaphe:
"variant spellings of proper names were in existence in the first century"
https://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism
Wallace avoids discussing Herodias, which corruption is in his NETBible, but even it has its (rare) semi-defender. Here is William Milligan:
"If, then, this reading of the masculine pronoun, as yet placed in the text by Westcott and Hort alone, be accepted, we have a new fact added to ancient history, and another ray of lurid light thrown upon the iniquitous character of Herodias and the dissoluteness of the Herodian family."
Thus the ultra-minority corruption itself changes history!
And there are lots of ways to do a Gerasa region dance, or a Judea geographical white-wash. The attempts are a bit weak, but in most cases the apologist can get away with the attempted hand-wave.
To a large extent the issue is cumulative. Hortian Vaticanus-primacy theory combined with lectio brevior have brought very difficult readings into modern Critical Text editions.
When an apologist is stuck with these readings (e.g. Norman Geisler, J. P. Holding, Lee Strobel) he simply does the best he can. Sometimes he learns the good ol cheap debating tricks. Sometimes they jump shift to the TR-Byz text as with Herodias.
My contention is that such an apologist is wasting a lot of capital and energy defending ultra-minority corruptions that are exceedingly difficult and problematic and that properly are seen as simply errant piddle corruptions, wrongly put into the modern Critical Text.
And the modern textual criticism ongoing deadly embrace of the Vaticanus-primacy perspective, combined with largely errant theories like lectio brevior and lectio difficilior, are in fact major roots of he problem.
Steven
Again, you are engaged in a logical fallacy. Using a couple of web sources:
Correlative based fallacies
Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
aka fallacy of lost contrast
the fallacy of the suppressed relative.
Warfield committed precisely this logical fallacy. The two alternatives are inerrancy and errancy.
If you are not convinced that this is "practically impossible", then explain with an example of how the person claiming errancy (who could believe would prove the aboriginal text.
Thanks!
Steven
Steven Avery5/21/2017 3:37 pm
And I was adding that the person claiming errancy might simply believe the whole New Testament was created as a docu-drama.
You claim inerrancy for some unknown text and then claim that the mythicist has to find a text?
By Warfield's standards the mythicist belief would prove inerrancy.
This is a bizarro world of illogic.
Steven
Last edited:
