Who axed Acts 8:37?

[Ulan]

Often the articles of James are very weak in undervaluing the mass of Greek mss.

Every person with at least rudimentary knowledge of history and geography knows that you can automatically dismiss the opinion of anyone who puts weight into the number of medieval Greek manuscripts. Of course, you have to be reasonable to see that.

[Secret Alias]

Hee hee hee

[Secret Alias]

Do you think in Steve Avery's case we are dealing with some sort of madness or brain disorder? I mean seriously. You should see him on Facebook.

[Ulan]

I don't know. It was completely unnecessary in this specific discussion, as he even stated himself. But no, he had to add this half sentence that makes him look like a fool. But I guess facts don't matter if you follow some idée fixe.

That said, his whole way of "support" for the James Snapp article does more harm than help. It is weird that he does not see that.

[Secret Alias]

He's lonely.

[Steven Avery]

Every person with at least rudimentary knowledge of history and geography knows that you can automatically dismiss the opinion of anyone who puts weight into the number of medieval Greek manuscripts. Of course, you have to be reasonable to see that.

The quanity of agreeing mss. points to early exemplars, and often the original text. Simple genealogical logic.

You might want to reaf Maurce Robinson. This is similar to helping you by pointing to James Snapp on Acts 8:37.

[Ulan]

Every person with at least rudimentary knowledge of history and geography knows that you can automatically dismiss the opinion of anyone who puts weight into the number of medieval Greek manuscripts. Of course, you have to be reasonable to see that.

The quanity of agreeing mss. points to early exemplars, and often the original text. Simple genealogical logic.

And yet the logic is wrong if you look at history, no matter what anyone writes. It's as simple as that.

The incredible contraction of the Greek-speaking world you see between 600 and 900 just created a bottleneck situation.

[Steven Avery]

And yet the logic is wrong if you look at history, no matter what anyone writes. It's as simple as that.

And I do look at history. Can you explain your thinking here? Maybe giving what you consider to be a good example or two.

We are talking about the significance of the mass of Byzantine Greek ("Majority") mss. and I gave the writings of Maurice Robinson as the base study point. (And I do not agree with him on everything, in general, however, I do like his papers.) The most recent paper I know actually goes into the apparatus issues:

“It’s All About Variants”—Unless “No Longer Written”1
https://books.google.com/books?id=cmZUDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA116

The incredible contraction of the Greek-speaking world you see between 600 and 900 just created a bottleneck situation.

With the large quantity of mss extant from c. 800 to 1500, I am not really following the connection you are trying to make here.

[Secret Alias]

Why don't you see that by having an inflexibly dogmatic position going into manuscript research - one that shapes how you process information - that you are at a disadvantage. It would be like if I was an employer and I happened to have an inflexibly racists view of candidates for potential positions in my company I wouldn't hire the best talent. You'd think that as I saw my competitors doing better and better because of my prejudiced opinions I'd adapt. But that would assume that I love money and staying and business more than loving the security and comfort that dogma brings. Not always the case.

[Secret Alias]

Somehow a bizarre religious background has hardwired your brain to put the cart before the horse - dogma before evidence. That's how you fall into the trap of various conspiracy theories some very distasteful. You presuppose that there is some underlying 'order' to the universe which often times leads to the taking of ridiculous positions and interpretations. Maybe there is no order to the universe. Maybe the manuscripts which survive don't make it possible for us to ascertain what the underlying exemplar really was. Maybe God never existed or does exist but doesn't care whether we can figure out 'the true text' of the Bible. Maybe he always existed independently of the Bible and saw it is a massive distraction from the truth. Who knows. You can't make 'a plan' or a 'solution' the basis to your research. The bottom line is that it is apparent that you suppose that phenomena manifest themselves according to some grand cosmic plan. The Sandy Hook massacre isn't part of a plan. It's a horrifically random act of violence in a stupidly violent and aggressive country. The moon landing wasn't faked. The true text of the Bible did not survive. You will have to learn to accept the randomness of the universe otherwise you'll continue to make an ass of yourself to the day you die.