BVDB attempts to defend Sinaiticus authenticity while censoring responses and ducking substantive dialog

Steven Avery

Lets start with what was put into the PureBible forum recently.

PureBible on Facebook{"tn":"R"}

Most of you write coherently, we had some sharp discussions, that are in your archives, years back.

Some of you realize, I believe, that, at the very least, the Sinaiticus non-authenticity evidences deserve careful study.

Bill Brown makes me look good when he posts on forums like the unofficial SBL. He is known for “liar”, “imbecile”: and vulgarisms that should not be written or repeated. And some logic struggles. However, I don’t care about looking good, I just would like the issues to be studied, iron sharpeneth.

Rather than your forum being only the anti-Avery forum, why not try something constructive.

Why not take issues (like the Porter-Elliott list).and discuss them with me, just without the potty mouth stuff from Bill. Your forum would be okay, but you have me censored there. That is your right, forum mods make the rules. You could set up a special board.

My forums are open. or one of these Facebook forums ... but the Facebook forums, without an external connection, are mediocre on readability.

Or make your own suggestion. Look at BCHF, Bible Criticism and History Forum, as a success story where there have been solid Sinaiticus discussions.

Grow up a bit. Let us reason together.

Steven Avery

the end of Hermas was planted ???

Since this thread has BVDB in the title, I can use it for various things related to their posts.

"Avery has already insinuated the end of Hermes was planted evidence in St. George's tower to make it "appear" that Simonides lied about running out of parchment to finish."
Hermas not Hermes


Which is total nonsense. They simply do not know how to read. It is common for them to go into their silly rant mode based on their own errors. I was not quoted when this stuff was written, because my quotes would show the truth:

The strongest analysis:
TIschendorf dumped part of Hermas because it was clearly an embarrassment after his linguistic accusation of Hermas having Latin retroversions that make it a late ms. Followed by his awkward "retraction" as soon as he had the 1859 Hermas. The less the better. Uspensky writes of Hermas without any indication that it was incomplete, and he saw it in 1845 and 1850.

The comment from Simonides was likely saying what was convenient (if Simonides even remembered the dynamic from 20 years earlier.)

This is all covered in the PBF pages.

BVDB - read the post above.



Steven Avery

The invitation remains open for any of the BVDB crew who have a smidgen of solidity and savvy.

Lot's of good discussions are possible.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

No interest in FFF. Just look at the low quality of the existing discussions. A waste of time forum.

And as you know, I have no weight or influence on many of the boards mentioned above.

And no interest in Bill Brown. This invitation is for the BVDB members who can, at times, write coherently, and are not just interested in the silly rant response mode of Bill.

Steven Avery

the sickness of Bill Brown

the sickness of Bill Brown


this is only a sampling

there are many that are too vulgar to want to have here on this forum. I could put in dozens of examples of weird, sick stuff.

He is always challenging to a "debate" in some place he picks on some topic he chooses with some rules he declares .. however the main posting he knows is reactive rant.

Bill Brown - July 23, 2018 - (Nerdy is a forum where I am blocked)

I said earlier this week that I don’t believe the head fiction writer online (Avery) actually believes what he’s writing any more than OJ’s lawyers thought he was innocent of murder.

One particularly ignorant sycophant - real name Steven Avery Spenser but who drops his last name from his postings (probably out of shame) - is Old and apparently has few hobbies. He has littered the net fir five years now with dumpsters of half-baked information that are the chemical reaction of Dunning-Krueger meeting Sturgeon’s law. He runs from site to site attacking people, showing up under the pretense of wanting to have “iron sharpens” discussions but mostly to attack anyone who actually holds to a 4th century date as ignorant (he cherry picks Simonides for his info).

His central argument, which has the intellectual depth of that stuff socks leave between your toes, is to claim Tischendorf stained the Sinaiticus portion of the MS with lemon juice but the CFA portion is purely white. He has a ready made audience of ignorant followers in that crowd who will believe any idea no matter how insanely stupid that vindicates the inerrancy of the KJV. This week in fact, Jack Moorman will be parroting this nonsense at the annual D.A. Waite Misappropriates Dean Burgon’s Name for His Society meeting, the second year in a row someone will be speaking on this there.

A little leaven has leavened the whole lump and in what must be the most hilarious irony of all...the KJV fundie group that loves to attack people not named Erasmus on the basis of theology has gotten this nonsensical conspiracy theory from a guy who not only toys with conspiracies at Sandy Hook and 9/11 but also denies the Trinity for a Oneness view (and on that basis advocates the Comma Johanneum). I don’t think theology is determinative but there’s a bizarre irony in DBS using the work of a Trinity denier and a Calvinist film maker......the rest of these folks including the OP are passing on these wild imaginations.

You’re now caught up to speed and probably wish you had the last 2 minutes of your life back.
This Bill Brown sickness does not negate the purpose of the thread .. which is a cordial invite to more sensible BVDB posters to engage in constructive dialog, iron sharpeneth.


Often they quote material (e.g. Stanley Porter) as if it has not been read, studied and responded. Often, the questions are at least reasonable. So ask me about these types of questions on a real discussion forum, not a one-way rant forum dominated by one sick poster.


This next one surprised even me, and occurred in a discussion about the health of David Cloud, who has had a heart attack. (I met David Cloud once, and he was exceedingly cordial and sweet.)

Bill Brown - August 10th, 2018, 1:14 pm #14
"The most surprising thing about this post is the notion Cloud has a heart"
Continues below.

There are dozens of examples of his sickness. I will mostly work with new ones as they arise. Often they are on the cloistered contra forum, but if he thinks he express his vitriol on public forums he will.

Oct 3, 2018
Nobody likes an arrogant rude asshole, regardless of what he claims to believe.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Erasmus heavenly witnesses correspondence - Frank Logsdon

In the Jack Moorman -- Sinaiticus talk at DBS discussion:

Didn't Erasmus know someone who had access to Vaticanus?

Yes, his name was Bombasius. Erasmus asked him to check 1 John 5:7 to see if the Heavenly Witnesses were in the text.
Also look up Sepulveda, some years later, who sent Erasmus 365 readings from Vaticanus. Also, it is believed that at least one reading made the Erasmus commentary.


Oh comes the long-discredited quote from Frank Logsdon regarding the NASV. Do these dudes ever bother checking out the FACTS before opening their mouths? (rhetorical question)
Actually, Frank Logsdon was careful and accurate. What he said was at times mangled. David Cloud made a significant error, in his transcript, about the NAS fella being in it for the $. (I did write to him and ask him to correct it, his response made me think a little less about David Cloud. And Gail Riplinger upped Logsdon's position.)

Logsdon's audio tape is very sincere and accurate, I have never heard of even a tiny error in what he said. The NAS response did not refute one word of what he actually said.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

the Sinaiticus authenticity authors

August 2, 2018

..... It amazes me that Moorman, Sheppard, Cooper, Daniels, and Avery cannot agree on all of the details of their propaganda

No need to be amazed.
You are asking a lot for "all of the details".

David and myself are exceedingly close in details.
We often discuss the interpretations of the "facts on the ground".

Cooper (also Sorenson, whom you omitted) made some real doozie errors in their books. They are discussed on this forum. Shepherd (not Sheppard) and Moorman got trapped on a Cooper error or two. For the most part I consider their writings irrelevant, except that Cooper sometimes turns a good phrase. If I look carefully in his book, I may find some good original points. However, the doozies make the book overall unusable.

They all may help to spur interest in the right direction. However, any residue errors have to be cleaned up.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

the church doctorate mill

how come nearly everyone from the KJVO camp making this complaint wants to be called "Dr" even though they do not have any earned doctoral degree whatever (many being "honorary" from no-name unaccredited bible schools or supposedly "earned" from some questionable degree mill)?

Is there anyone in the Burgon Society (beyond Waite) who actually has a doctorate from a legitimate fully accredited institution? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think not, even if many or most of the presenters want to be called "Dr".
Basically I agree, without knowing the DBS specifics.

While I see degrees in topics like textual studies and criticism to be often based on unbelieving presuppositions, circularity, indoctrination, atomistic geek-work, and slip-shod peer review, rather than creative and accurate studies, the title Dr. implying a doctorate should be use for true degrees, if used at all.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

insult barrage to try to hide fundamental Bill Brown blunder on Eugenius Bulgaris and the heavenly-earthly witnesses grammar

This next is a good example that combines the sickness of ranting (post #5) with stupidity.

The 35 verse examples were given by Bill Brown as a supposed refutation of Eugenius Bulgaris. He could have simply acknowledged that he had erred, but instead tries a diversion rant (emphasis added, not the rant, but the non-substance of the accusation.)

Steven Avery
Bill Brown's 35 examples are almost all totally irrelevant - a waste of time. We are only talking about neuter substantives with masculine or feminine grammar.

Bill Brown
Congratulations, you're a bigger moron than I thought. First of all, you don't have a clue what a substantive actually is. Second of all, there is no such thing - you utter putz - as "masculine and feminine grammar."
These are GENDERS you stupid idiot. You know, most people learn enough to fake it. You haven't even learned that much - because you don't actually READ the books/articles you cite.

So tell me - did the drugs at Cal do this to you or were you ALWAYS this brain dead? Keep this in mind - you're ASSUMING a lot of stuff without actually saying anything. That's not a big surprise.
If I gave your posts an enema, there wouldn't be anything left.

So rather than simply acknowledge that his examples were wrong, he went into a rant against:

"masculine and feminine grammar."

This refers to the grammatical gender of the phrase, which in the earthly witnesses is masculine grammar. As indicated in the participles, pronouns, etc. And the terms "masculine grammar" and "feminine grammar" are quite simple. Here is one example.

Stevens Greek Workbook: A Companion to the Accordance Module
By Gerald L. Stevens

Gender is distinction as to masculine, feminine, or neuter. Thus, nouns associated with feminine gender, such as sister or woman, would show feminine grammar. Nouns associated with masculine gender, such as brother or man, would show masculine grammar. Nouns that do not distinguish gender show neuter grammar (book, tree).

The only reason for the rant by Bill Brown above is to avoid the substance of the issue .. his giving of 35 examples was quite irrelevant, a non-argument. Rather than simply acknowledge the truth, and to hide his own error, Bill Brown fabricates an insult barge.

bigger moron
you don't have a clue you utter putz
you stupid idiot.
most people learn enough to fake it. You haven't even learned that much -
you don't actually READ the books/articles you cite.
did the drugs at Cal do this to you or were you ALWAYS this brain dead?
If I gave your posts an enema, there wouldn't be anything left.
Eugenius and Brown's 35 examples.jpg
This is one of the reasons why I say that Bill Brown is simply sick.
More details relating to this post are at:

Barry Hofstetter - piddle Greek USA scholar challenges Eugenius Bulgaris - taken to woodshed by Greek fluent Bible believer
absurd argumentation by Bill Brown ignorantly embraced by James Snapp
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Bill Brown - it was only Snapp appealing to my post

Bill Brown's answer - he tries to distance himself from his own arguments, saying that it was only James Snapp that appealed to his post on CARM.

You apparently don't read ENGLISH very well since I never appealed to my CARM post, Snapp did.
Bill could easily say in correction of James:

"No, that post was wrong, James, please do not appeal to it as an argument against the Eugenius Bulgaris grammatical writing."
So you would think that Bill Brown was agreeing with the appeal - to his own errant writings, never retracted!

The latest post in general is a bunch of additional sick insults, with as little substance as the sentence above.

And I do find it funny that Bill whines about my energy in writing, for my age. A compliment, of sorts. By the grace of the Lord Jesus, and a pretty sound food and drink regimen, my health has been blessed.

Any intimations he gives about "Jack Daniels" is simply bogus (my remembrance - Bill does talk about going to the pub at times) since my total alcohol consumption is about 1/2 glass of wine a year. A large imbibement is sometimes taking the sample portion that they bring you at Olive Garden, where I eat very infrequently.


btw, Bill likes to appeal to his thesis on the heavenly witnesses. He could easily place it online. However, the quality is about the same as the post that claims that the post with 35 verse references supplies 35 refutations of the grammatical argument! So it is understandable that Bill Brown does not want to place it anywhere, like


Steven Avery

Erasmus and Thomas Naeogeorgus pre-answer BVDB question of Euthymius

While more posts reflecting the sickness of Bill Brown continue, occasionally the BVDB crew will actually ask a decent question. Almost as if they would have a real discussion, iron sharpeneth.


IF there really was such a "grating discordance" in the expression without the Comma present, then WHY OH WHY did not one Greek scholar, scribe, or exegete beyond the alleged Gregory to the present day not remark about such?
First the premise is wrong.

When Desiderius Erasmus wrote about the torquebit grammaticos in his annotations on the heavenly witnesses, why do you thing the grammarians were squirming or tortured?

If this first part gets noted, I'll plan on continuing with the response.

I'll give you a hand with a link to one of the superb Nathaniel Cornwall Ellsworth articles:


Plus, you might want to look at the Textkit forum that your forum linked to in the last day and has c. 1560 :

Thomas Naeogeorgus -
"I also wonder how John came to put masculine words both before and after neuter things, to the annoyance of Grammar, unless perhaps the writing is corrupt."




Steven Avery

A reasonable question, asked in the usual harumph manner:
Post #18

So Avery's buddy, through an accident of birth, supposedly knows Greek. I live in North Carolina where there are nothing but native English speakers. The vast majority do not know standard English grammar or have obtained any special mastery of the language. Why would I care if they do or do not believe in the genuineness of the Heavenly Witnesses? Is this individual a KJVO? Where did he go to school? What has he published? What breakthrough did he make? Why should anyone care what this individual thinks about anything?
Simply because what he writes clearly shows familiarity and skill with the Greek language material. I will give two examples:

Ilias has emphasized "totals" as the true exception of neuter substantives with masculine grammar. "Totals" he likely got from Google translate, what we would call a multitude or collection, or set or group. This is exactly as referenced in Parkhurst's grammar and represent the only exceptions noted by Barry Hofstetter in his 'gotcha' attempt contra Eugenius Bulgaris. Apparently, for a native Greek, this is kindergarten or grade school grammar, explaining why Eugenius would not bother with the mini-exception.

Ilias emphasized the "hole" in the neuter grammar. Especially how the masculine grammar is on both sides.
(and note the second masculine has the three that points back to the water, spirit and blood)

This is the type of special element of discordance that a native speaker will feel. Since the writers of the grammar books, like Daniel Wallace, are not fluent in Greek, and can not really hold a conversation in Greek, this is something he simply will not recognize, or mention, or be able to 'feel' in discourse.

No, Ilias is not a KJV advocate or defender. And we became friends after I noticed the discussion on the James Snapp forum.

Steven Avery

Here is another interesting try:

As I have mentioned before, Spiros Zodhiates -- a native-born Greek -- clearly rejects the Comma as non-authentic (listen to his NT recording in Modern Greek pronunciation). So then what? Ditto with Johannes Karavidopolous, who at the University of Thessalonika has been working on a critical edition of the lectionary text -- does his opinion matter as much as the Averian "buddy"? I could name a few more Greek native speakers, e.g., Theodore Stylianopolous at Holy Cross Orthodox Seminary who thinks the same. So is there some point to be made by Avery here?
And I could name some others, including a Jehovah's Witness in Thessalonika who has written a book on the heavenly witnesses. And a woman in Thessalonika who is a bit of a textcrit fav.

As Frederick Nolan pointed out, a high view of the scriptures would mean no solecisms. The norm in scholarship today is a low view, with excuses for grammatical corruptions, including the simplest one, John blundered.

Plus, they often have hitched their star to the corruption text. So, if they are Bible believers (as much as possible with corruption texts and the Westcott-Hort recension) they will simply try to find excuses for the solecism.

Did Spiro Zodhiates discuss the grammar? If not, his support of the corruption text would mean nothing. He has a history of publishing competing corruption texts.

With any of these men and women, if they have not spoken specifically about the grammatical discord question, they are likely simply following Critical Text theory, without giving any value-added.

Steven Avery

This was from David Robert Palmer (he may be inactive on BVDB) on the NT Textual Criticism forum:

David Palmer
Azim Mamanov, it makes no difference about the gender, because the second "these three" in v. 8 cannot be referring again back to the three in v. 7 as you say, because then the three substantives the Spirit, and the water, and the blood in v. 8, would
be a lone clause dangling in space connected to nothing. He was saying that the "these three" phrase in verse 8 was referring to the 3 substantives in v. 7, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, for the reason that they were more in gender agreement. But he was also saying that the phrase at the end of v. 8, was referring back to v. 7. That would leave the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, in v. 8, dangling in space and connected to nothing. On the contrary, τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ is referring to the the Spirit, and the water, and the blood in v. 8.
Now, it is quite clear that he is wrong, that the heavenly witnesses makes the two clauses into one grammatical unit guided grammatically by the Father and the Word to be of masculine gender.

"That would leave the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, in v. 8, dangling in space"

Ironically, that is exactly what is wrong with Hofstetter's theory. He says they have no impact or connection to the grammar, they are dangling in space.

This is similar to Snapp's "discord is discord". They try silly comments and because they are part of the textcrit club, no comment is made.

Steven Avery

Here was a decent question today from Brandpluckt, my responses here are done fairly quickly.

Why is there no protest about the KJVO errors of Waite, Riplinger, and Ruckman?

Waite said there were 20 MS that contained the CJ? He counted MSS twice because he cannot discern the difference between the Scrivener and Gregory numbers. Maynard corrected this blunder but we have yet to hear from Waite.

Ruckman cited no MS evidence to speak of, for the CJ in his 1970 book The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence.

Riplinger cites "evidence" in New Age Bible Versions in 1993.

Versions: Old Syriac A.D.170, Old Latin A.D.200, Vulgate: 4th and 5th century, Italic: 4th and 5th century. Writers: Tatian A.D.150, Tertullian A.D.200, Cyprian A.D.225, Athanasius A.D.350, Pricillian A.D.350, Vadmarium A.D.380, Cassian A.D.435, Jerome A.D.450, Cassiadorius A.D.480, Vigilius A.D.484, Victor-Vita A.D.489, Fulgentius A.D.533, PS Athanasius A.D.550. Writings: Liber Apologeticus A.D.350, Council of Carthage A.D.415.[Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 1993, p.381.]

Ruckman "parrots" this evidence without attribution.

First John 5:7, from a King James Bible (any edition), will be found in Old Syriac versions (A.D. 150), Old Latin versions (A.D. 180), Cyprian’s writings (A.D. 250), the writings by Priscillian and Pithanasius (A.D. 350), at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 415), Jerome’s works (A.D. 450), Fulgentius’ quotations (A.D. 510)...[Ruckman, Dr. Peter S.. General Epistles Vol. 2 (1 - 2 - 3 John, Jude Commentary) (The Bible Believer's Commentary Series) (Kindle Locations 2658-2661). BB Bookstore, 2004, Kindle Edition.]

Maybe Avery can tell us what 150-170 AD MS of the Old Syriac has the Comma. Note how both of them list the Council of Carthage, where the CJ was cited by Victor Vita or Victor Vitensis, is listed by both Ruckman and Riplinger as the year 415 AD instead of 484 AD. Somebody copied another's sloppy homework.

There are so many errors in the two statements than time will permit.
Now, anybody who watches the Facebook threads will see me correcting AV defender errors frequently, including many of those above.

There is one thread that really is an important correction, since for many it is a fundamental AV argument.

two lines - two streams - two trees

This came up most recently in August, 2018 on a Facebook post by John M. Asquith.

Michael Maynard (1955-2014) covered the double counting error in his 1995 book, which goes back to a Carl J. Drexler article in 1979 in the DBS mag. Since afaik I do not use Donald Waite's scholarship anywhere, and the error was decades back, and Waite only had the error way back when, and nobody makes it anymore, it is not a live issue. I did have some correspondence on correction with Waite, he had a mistaken Burgon quote (that your group noted) and I believe he did make the correction. And I could check if I brought this up or not, I did discuss it with Michael.

Similarly, I tried to have David Cloud make an important correction in his Frank Logsden material, his response was quite disappointing.

Errors in Ruckman's heavenly witnesses writings (you say maybe from Riplinger) still pops up occasionally, and when I do I put in a correction post. In some cases, I try to figure out the exact source for how he got to the error, as with any claims involving Syriac and Tatian. This actually came up a few months ago. I concluded that it was the Syriac 1555 edition of Moses of Miriam that likely led to the Syriac error.

Similarly, the claim of an exact year like 157 for the Old Latin apparently comes from Beza. I question that, and would like to research it, but in that case the year is so close to the reality that it is a low priority. In fact, it is very possible that the Old Latin translations were even earlier. I do tell people to be aware that any exact date is questionable.


Some of this I could put on a thread similar to the "two lines" post. To have handy for readers.


The Riplinger and Ruckman lists.

Old Syriac - wrong, maybe from Ruckman, how he got to that is interesting.

Old Latin and Italic as separate entries is a matter of definition of text-lines, I would not do it that way.

Cassian was actually in one of the official apparatuses, UBS 3. He should not be included unless an actual source is delineated. This has been an interesting question for me, especially after an Orthodox fellow on one forum claimed he used the verse. This is one interesting spot.

John Cassian - On the Incarnation (Book VII)
For God, says David, shall plainly come; our God, and shall not keep silence. And He surely came and did not keep silence, who before that He in His own person uttered anything after His birth, made known His advent by both earthly and heavenly witnesses alike, while the star points Him out, the magi adore Him, and angels declare Him.
And I even made the 415 AD error myself a couple of times in early writings, I have corrected it any of the rare times it pops up.

Pithanasius - looks like a typo for Athanasius

Cassiadorius -> Cassiodorus

Vadmarium A.D.380, Vigilius A.D.484, Victor-Vita A.D.489
The first is Contra Varimidum, I have written separately about all these evidences.

And I tend to cite the Council of Carthage as Eugenius, rather than Victor Vita or Victor Vitensis, however I could check all that.


The list from Riplinger, even with its various errors, is overall far more accurate than that of the Critical Text apparatuses and writers and actually omits many solid evidences. Starting with Origen, Hundredfold Martyrs and the Expositio Fidei discovered by Caspari. And I do have a series of posts on TC-Alternate that go over the heavenly witnesses errors in the CT apparatuses.

Yet, I do not make that a big issue, as I do not make the errors of Ruckman and Riplinger a big issue.

Waite didn't even attempt to do his own research -- he simply accepted the erroneous data claimed by then-90-year-old pastor Carl Drexler who lived near him, and simply republished it. So it was Drexler who couldn't tell the difference between Gregory and Scrivener numbers, and who also even claimed a particular Latin MS as being Greek "evidence" for the Comma.
More of a problem than the article not being checked when published was the lack of a clear correction in succeeding issues. I looked for one and did not find any.

As for Wizanburgensis, Krans has that as Dabney misreading Lachmann, and then carrying forward. Again, if I remember, Michael Maynard had the correct information.

Steven Avery

A note to Katoog on the heavenly witnesses back and forth.

The Thomas Golda article used by ScionofZion has some real problems (I sent them a note tonight.) I suggest not using it as a source.

Ken Matto - ScionofZion - has a better article here

KJVToday and Tim Dunkin (2010 Revised edition, I helped a bit, it is offline for a bit but in are two of the better articles at this time.

Steven Avery

the Latin Vulgate quotes from Hales and Porson through Horne and Scrivener

BVDB is analyzing an error from Michael's book, one we discussed in Sept, 2007. There was a complexity because of Horne quoting William Hales misquoting Porson, with Marsh and Travis and Scrivener being in the discussion mix.

Maynard Misquotation (an oldie but goodie) - Sept, 2018

Michael and I discussed all this in September, 2007. My first note on it is Sept 4, and it was on the BVDB board on Sept 7, perhaps a type of synchronicity.

Porson and Maynard - Sept 7, 2007

The vast majority of Vulgate MSS and Maynard - Sept 8, 2007

Michael Maynard
Very good. Here my quotation (from Porson!) just does not make sense. Thanks.
I think that is factual error no. 2. So far only two is better that 22!
And I did gently chide Michael -

RIght. You "should have" caught that on the "smell test". ( I realize that is easy to say after the fact ! with lots of time and Google resources)
Michael also had put out an errata sheet, but that does not touch on this question.


As an aside, Middleton has a quote that could also mislead, or help, or not (I am not checking all the details here right now) because it is about the final phrase of the earthly witnesses, and not the inclusion of the heavenly witnesses.,M1
cutting out that clause in the eighth verse.
... What is here said of the Lateran Council derives some confirmation from what the Professor has asserted, (p. 152.) that twenty-nine Latin MSS., " in general the fairest, the oldest, and the most correct," have the clause of ver. 8.

In fact, the 29 "fairest" from Porson may refer to that phrase, not verse 7.
However, I am not checking all that right now.


Brandpluckt raises various interpretative and evidence issues, which I would be happy to discuss with him directly.



Steven Avery

James Snapp - "I believe that Acts 8:37 should be retained in the text. "

The discussion about Acts 8:37 was interesting. James Snapp did a good paper on the verse. His normal weakness is undervaluing the significance of the mass of Greek mss., but that is not a problem with this verse.

Here is a correction.

"I did not know that 15% of Greek Manuscripts supported the verse, thanks for the link to James Snapp. I believe he was just stating that the verse had ancient support, not that he thought it was original. "

James Snapp

Acts 8:37 – Sorting out the Evidence
Presented by James Snapp, Jr.
(with assistance from members of the NT Textual Criticism group on Facebook)
April 2014
direct url and Analysis.doc?hash=AconQvjla3PqPrq_

I believe that Acts 8:37 should be retained in the text. If it is accompanied by a footnote, the footnote should be balanced: the footnote should inform the reader that although the verse is not in the majority of manuscripts, nor in the oldest manuscripts, it has very early and widespread patristic support.