errors & blunders that hurt heavenly witnesses defense - Stephanus mss - Drexler count - Montfortianus & Greek mss - George Travis

Steven Avery

Administrator
George Travis has about five.
e.g. he concluded that the Valla mss. should have the verse, as well as Stephanus and others.

Observations on the Miraculous Conception and the testimonies of Ignatius and Justin Martyr on that subject: in a series of letters to the Rev. Mr. Nisbett; occasioned by his appeal to the public and his observations on Dr. Priestley. To which are added remarks on Mr. Wakefield's opinion concerning Matt. xxvii. 5 (1792)
p. 340-347
John Pope
https://books.google.com/books?id=suhiAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA340

The correspondence of Richard Porson - (1867) p. 47 57 59
edited by Henry Richards Luard
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZRMVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA54
=============================

the Stephanus manuscripts error - (next post)

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

Drexler error - there are 20 Greek manuscripts (double counting by using two different referencing systems)
My friend Robert Brent Graves, would like the detail of that error.

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

General over-emphasis on the c. eight Greek manuscripts


they should be seen as simply part of the post-Lateran Council restoration of the heavenly witnesses

Key ones today are claiming that Montfortianus is different that Dubliensis
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
the Stephanus manuscripts

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

The major one today is the Stephanus manuscripts error.

Still promulgated by Chris Thomas, using David Martin and erasing any comments challenges.

Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/724685638377301/
"Stephanus makes reference to Greek manuscripts that we no longer possess today."

Pure Bible Forum
the Stephanus manuscript question - crochet, semi-circles
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-manuscript-question-crochet-semi-circles.80/

Steven Avery
Afaik, the mss. have been identified.
First Scriverner which is up easy to read on CSNTM
http://www.csntm.org/printedbook/viewbook/RobertusStephanusNovumTestamentum1550
Then there was some tweaking by James Keith Elliott in a 2009 paper.
AV and heavenly witnesses defenders should NOT be referencing Stephanus mss. as having the verse.

The pages from Francis Huyshe that are on the Chris Thomas British Magazine of 1833 can be read here p. 284-285
https://books.google.com/books?id=QK9PAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA284
And I think Huyshe did a good job of vindicating Stephanus of any accusations of dishonesty, however this all involves a marking error by his son, and Stephanus did not have this supposed group of heavenly witnesses manuscripts.

"Stephanus makes reference to Greek manuscripts that we no longer possess today."
This should not be used as an argument. There is real complexity about the Alcala (Complutensian) manuscripts, but not Erasmus or Stephanus.
Find where I have John Gill and others making the error.

PBF
Grantley McDonald - Raising the Ghost of Arius - errata
John Mill, Elzeviers and later scholars uninformed about the seven Stephanus mss?
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ing-the-ghost-of-arius-errata.1344/#post-5388
Evangelical Textual Criticism
The Greek Manuscripts of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8)
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism....howComment=1579788767496#c3307508468197983001

Yes, it is quite definite that John Gill was wrong, despite his general accuracy.

And I have a lot of detail on this at:

Pure Bible Forum
the Stephanus manuscript question - crochet, semi-circles
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-manuscript-question-crochet-semi-circles.80/

"And I think the surprise is that John Gill (1697-1771), normally very astute (including on his heavenly witnesses analysis) made the claim, since it had been a matter of analysis for a long time before he wrote. At a quick glance my notes reference Lucas Brugensis ("Louvain divines"), Richard Simon, John Mill, John Louis Roger, the debate between David Martin and Thomas Emlyn, and Isaac Newton as among those who had discussed the Stephanus mss before John Gill."

============================
 
Top