Pick your source and you can promote any idea you want.
You raise a good point. We should, of course, examine our sources critically. Ascertain whether they might have an agenda or other biases, discover what claim to expertise on the subject they have and what evidence they have to back this up, check any sources they cite and cross-reference this with additional sources.
Like what we've been doing, and you haven't. And you've got yourself with an idea you want. You should be growing wary of relying on a single biased source, given the frequency it gets you into bother during discussion.
Pinto's stuff is very well documented
Did you check any of this documentation, or did you see that it existed and that was good enough for you?
Like when Pinto gives us this Tischendorf quote:
quote:
...we have at last hit upon a better plan...which is to set aside this textus receptus altogether, and to construct a fresh text...
About 1 hour 17 in. Pinto then makes a big deal about who this 'we' might be and that it sounds like he might be working with somebody else, but he doesn't exactly say who. *sinister music and images of Tischendorf looking sinister* Of course Pinto never gives his theory, but oh by the way - did you know that Tischendorf had come under the influence of the Catholic Cardinal Wiseman (unsourced claim) and that Tischendorf was 'partial' to the Latin Vulgate? (unsourced claim) And did you know he prepared a text especially for Catholics in 1842? Hint hint hint.
That's one minute of the three hours. Did you do as I did and immediately pause the 'documentary' and look this up?
quote:
It has thus been placed beyond doubt that the original text of the Apostles' writings, copied, recopied, and multiplied during fifteen centuries, whether in Greek or Latin, or in other languages, had in many passages undergone such serious modifications of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written.
Learned men have again and again attempted to clear the sacred text from these extraneous elements. But we have at last hit upon a better plan even than this, which is to set aside this textus receptus altogether, and to construct a fresh text, derived immediately from the most ancient and authoritative sources. This is undoubtedly the right course to take, for in this way only can we secure a text approximating as closely as possible to that which came from the Apostles.
Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript, Constantin von Tischendorf
There you go, he wasn't talking about specific people that he and others were working with, but that for some time scholars had attempted to clean the text up, that he considers himself a scholar, and that scholars had come up with the idea of starting from scratch rather than trying to 'fix' the textus receptus.
You may disagree with his thesis, but its far from the sinister conspiracy that Pinto is trying to sell it as. The identity of the 'we' is in the previous sentence, so Pinto can't claim he wasn't actually aware of it, and deliberately omitted it as he carefully weaves his web of deceit that has clearly ensnared you.
Oh - and Bible he produced especially for Catholics? Well actually he produced a number of NT editions at the same time, because he needed to pay the bills, and one of them followed the Vulgate. His second edition retracted several passages and included information regarding critical principles. I found the source, it actually says
quote:
In 1842, while at Paris, {Tischendorf} prepared an
edition of the New Testament intended for the
use of Catholics, giving the Latin Vulgate and
a Greek text, rendered as far as possible conformable to it, in parallel columns. He published also in the same year a Greek text differing very little from his earlier Leipsic edition. In 1843 appeared the New Testament portion of his publication of the Ephraen
palimpsest of the 6th century. Two years
later, when the remainder of this edition was
published.....
The American cyclopdia: a popular dictionary of general knowledge, Volume 15, 1879 (I guess he had to go that far back to find anybody wording it in a way that could be quote mined for sinister effect, presumably skipping the date and full name of the source because of how bad it looks)
What about the huge deal he makes of
Simonides as a war hero, bravely defending his homelands against the wicked Turks? 'Come my brothers, we shall avenge the blood of our fathers on this Turkish invader. Let us be strong in our weakness {2 Corinthians 12:10} and with God's help we shall prevail! {King George VI}'
I've looked that up, it's not what you'd call the most reliable source to spend the time on it that Pinto did. Hint: its a relatively obscure regional newspaper in England. There is no corroboration for this account, from Simonides or any other source. Also, the same article describes him as 'an arch impostor', it uses a conditional - but that condition has since been met (THE SIMONIDES CONTROVERSY. The Bath Chronicle, 1862)
it's about a conspiracy all right, a real one
Excuse me if I don't take the word of someone who is clearly intending to deceive his audience.
and he's got me reading up on history that most of us know nothing about.
We've provided you with lots of texts from the 19th and early 20th Centuries that specifically address Simonides. Did you read any of them? I have no idea if you've read Newes from Scotland yet - but it took some time before you'd even acknowledge it - you called it slander (knee jerk reaction much?) when first presented with it.
my arguments against the Codex Sinaiticus and the new Bibles are based on what John W Burgon...wrote about the Bible Revision of 1881 in his book The Revision Revised
Which you've conveniently neglected to present in this debate.
What is your (or Burgon's) view of the textus' rendering of Revelation 22:19? If it helps, it came from a corrupted version of the Latin Vulgate.
What about the textus' Acts 9:5-6 ?
The infamous 1 John 5:7 which appears in Greek texts around 14th/15th Centuries in the likes of
Codex Montfortianus but only in Latin texts or as marginal notes in Greek ones prior? It is absent from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, Uncial 048, 049, 056, 0142, Minuscules 33, 81, 88, 104, the Byzantine majority text, most lectionaries, a number of editions of the Vulgate, as well as all of the Coptic and Syriac stuff.
If you are actually interested in a discussion on this - maybe we can start a new thread on it?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
