Jeffrey Riddle and Matthew Murphy Rose on extant Greek mss. - comments in Youtube

Steven Avery

Administrator
Kept Pure in All Ages Conference
Lecture: The Received Text (Origins, Transmission, and Preservation)
May 11, 2021

BVDB
Dr. Riddle, and his bizarre take on the Greek NT Manuscript pool.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...s-bizarre-take-on-the-greek-nt-man-t6327.html

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

MMR challenged JR on a questionable statement on extant Greek mss.

The spot is placed on the next post, it is really at about 55:30, so I will remove MMR's strange 56:00:00

MMR
Concerning our 5000+ extant Greek NT manuscripts, Dr. Riddle states:
"very few of these are of whole books... most of them are mere fragments, containing at best a few words or a few verses."

This is 'spinning a narrative' at best! [Edit: I don't suppose the good Doctor has a credible reference for these statements, does he?]

The quote without the ...

"very few of these are of whole books, much less the whole Bible, most of them are mere fragments, containing at best a few words or a few verses."

First, it is clear that the claim from Jeffrey Riddle is wrong, Putting aside papyri, even most of them that are small have a lot more than a "few words or a few verses". Jeffrey Riddle should acknowledge that the quote needs tweaking.

Similarly, MMR put himself on the hook with:


MMR
@Word Magazine Dr. Riddle, the quotations that you provided do not line up with what you are asserting. That said, I agree with you that the papyri are very fragmented—but, they only comprise a couple percent of the well over 5000 Gk. NT MSS. The remaining 98% or so generally contain a couple hundred leaves (and of course, there's generally two pages per folio). This would mean that there's a couple million pages of Greek NT MSS extant—as opposed to the slim pickings you would have us believe.

So if there are 5,000 left after the papyri are removed, MMR claims that 4,900 "generally contain a couple hundred leaves". It is sloppy number handling to give a precise number, 98%, followed by a slippery qualifier, "generally."

Unless he is ready to try to support the claim, MMR should simply retract it with an apology.


Coming from that, do the 5,000 extant NT Greek manuscripts average (mean) 400 pages? 200 leaves?
Maybe that number exists somewhere, but I don't think MMR has shown 1 million, much less 2.

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

MMR quickly poisoned the well with an absurd wager, about not speaking on TC for 20 years, 10, 5, 3, etc. (He tried the Abraham mode of bargaining.) Jeffrey called it infantile. Childish or puerile would have been a better characterization.

MMR should apologize for that whole distraction. A person renting in a trailer park talking to a gentleman with a nice house and a summer house does not seriously offer a wager to give up all his homes if he "wins". This was a sad ruse from MMR.

Jeffrey threw out a number of diversions, regarding reconstructing the NT text, stuff like that, which while important in their contexts, do not cover the actual claim. He gave a few quotes from scholars that also do not cover.

NT Uncials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials

NT Minuscules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_minuscules_(1001–2000)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jeffrey Riddle
@Matthew Murphy Rose You took my comments out of context. Still stand by my position: The extant Greek ms. evidence used by modern textual scholars is overwhelmingly fragmentary and we have only a fragment of what once existed. Thus, reconstruction is a dead end.

Jeffrey Riddle
"On p. 807 [of the NA 28], for example, c. 28 Greek mss are listed, numbered between 0172 and 0219. Of these the editors say only one, ms. 0211, contains a complete book: e (the Gospels). The other 27 listed are all fragmentary. Here are the first five of these and their listed contents:

0172 contains only Romans 1:27-30; 1:32--2:2
0175 contains only Acts 6:7-10, 12-15
0176 contains only Galatians 3:16-25
0177 contains only Luke 1:73--2:7 0181 contains only Luke 9:59--10:14 Etc."
Is this an example of a "pathetic" summary of the Greek NT ms. pool?
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Continuing

Matthew Murphy Rose
"In Greek alone, there are more than 5,600 manuscripts today. Many of these are fragmentary , especially the older ones, but the average Greek NT MS is over 450 pages long." -Daniel B. Wallace

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

Jeffrey Riddle
I see you've been doing some of your "later tonight" homework and now have a new number to share with us. Presumably given your other citation, it comes from Wallace (though you provide us no reference for this). Whether or not a ms. is hundreds of pages long has nothing to do with whether or not it is fragmentary, does it? Of course, these longer mss. are not the ones prized and utilized by modern textual critics. That's why they reject the Majority Text.

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

Steven Avery:
No reference other than "Daniel B. Wallace". hmmmm.... So I remain very skeptical that this includes all mss. as the base. Especially since Wallace is not very good on numbers. If it is correct, it would justify your 2 million page figure, but NOT your 98% figure, which looks like a blunder. Here is why Daniel has to be checked carefully! (Also on graphs.)

statistical illiteracy in textual scholarship - Daniel Wallace struggles with numbers
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...ip-daniel-wallace-struggles-with-numbers.294/

And with averages, it is good to indicate mean, medium or mode. Read How to Lie with Statistics if you are not familiar with the terms.

The jab and mask and lockdown pushers are using every statistical trick in the book!
 

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery @Matthew Murphy Rose -

it looks to me that this mod deleted my two posts.

You qualified the 98% with "generally", which really does not help.

Why should we take your word on the Wallace non-Wallace quote? Wallace is very unreliable.

My three posts, including this one, are here:

Jeffrey Riddle and Matthew Murphy Rose on extant Greek mss. - comments in Youtube
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...on-extant-greek-mss-comments-in-youtube.1859/

There are interesting elements to the discussion. I suggest finishing in Facebook (e.g. PureBible or Textus Receptus Academy) or somewhere else. While you have been right on the basic issue of the quote in the talk, you have stumbled in other parts.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
MMR tries, but is a bit bizarre.
(He also does not have the integrity these days to call out the sickness vulgarity of Bill Brown.)

MMR
Well, you're free to think as you please, but I don't see it that way. The burden of truth was upon Jeffery Riddle, not myself. It was he who made the initial assertion which was both unsubstantiated and false. The quotations and references that he presented were worthless. All he had to do was scan the manuscript descriptions at any number of places (freely available on the internet) to see that he was wrong. He refused to correct himself, Steven. He really believed he was correct! And possible still does???Absolutely oblivious.

After he persisted on my providing more and more details and data; and because I knew I was going to have to spend hours tabulating because Dr. Riddle refused to do what I considered his own homework. I had a little fun with him, that's all. Never thought he'd man up, or keep his word even if he did. He modified my statement's and repeatedly omitted important qualifications when he quoted me. (Read the whole thread.) I wanted to finish it then.

I agree with you that Riddle had more to lose in many ways. He has an active blog, and a YouTube channel w/ a small following. And he has become something of a figurehead in TR/KJVO circles, speaking at conferences and such. Not to mention some articles and book reviews to boot. I get it. But the whole thing to it is this: I knew 100% that I was correct, and that he was uniformed. And no matter what explanation I offered, he refused to listen. I would have given him 20-1 odds to be sure. (And I should have!) That granted, let us not forget how most of us became aware of Dr. Riddle to begin with. It wasn't his blog, his book reviews—or his Word Magazine that brought him into veiw. No, it was James R. White...and nothing more.

MMR should simply acknowedge that the whole wager approach was childish and nonsense.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
MMR
There's more layers to this. I'm almost positive that the, "is he a Trinitarian-or-a-Oneness" debacle which took place some months back is at play here, i.e. the reason why the Mod won't let him comment. This is too much! But I would be lying if I didn't say that his comment (the one I did see and reply to) was a sight for sore eyes. (After spending a few days interacting with Riddle that is.)

Yeah...Riddle should take note, because when Steven Avery is a voice of reason in comparison to yourself, you're in capital-T-Trouble! And that's about the gist of it.

And I did my part, to reach out to Jeffrey Riddle, and to reach out to MMR.

My comment is above, post #1. Jeffrey Riddle was simply wrong in the quoted statement, there was no context help, and he came off looking bad. MMR undercut his own position with the wager nonsense and his false 98% number, "generally". (On the average is not generally.)

And I actually tend to be a voice of reason and accuracy, frequently critiquing AV and TR defenders.

Btw, it is still unclear who you were quoting, from where.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
MMR
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...ake-on-the-greek-nt-man-t6327-s20.html#p81933

He does not really say anything, repeating stuff acknowledged as right.

1) the big issue was the wager posturing

2) the phony 98% “generally“ figure hurt his case

3) he went all over map on the maybe Daniel Wallace quote. Even if correct, where is the quote from?

there was also in there a silly “everyone knows” claim.

puzzling - “MMR should simply [sic] acknowedge” - probably he meant the spelling of acknowledge. Sic is in the wrong place.

The cautious compliment is appreciated.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
MMR gives a nothing, whiny response. If he wants to continue the discussion, suggest a group in Facebook for a thread. Or something like CARM.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
MMR - you insist I spell it all out to you yet again.

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

Bumble One - Your wager posturing is still inane, childish, a farce. And you have not owned up to it. You undermined your own position, which up to that point had integrity. I have rarely seen such a diversionary, dumb challenge.

Bumble Two - You never came up with a sensible explanation of your 98%. Or a retraction. Still waiting.

You corrected one bumble. .. "everyone who knows"

You finally came up with some quote on the number of pages. You played games with that for post after post.

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

We have a discussion on this on the Textus Receptus Academy on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/892134298299100/

Where I specifically rip Jeffrey Riddle. Normally, he interacts nicely, but this was really a disaster. Nick Sayers was involved too. And Elijah Hixson, as you know.

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

We have actually learned a lot the last week or so on that forum, especially about aspects related to the Ehrman presupposition of an Apostolic aversion to the virgin birth. If you understand that element, you realize that most all his textual writing is crapola. This overflowed because of Grantley's attempt to use the Ehrman Shield. This is common among unbelievers and liberals who really know nothing about the textual issues. Grantley tried to bring forth Luke 3:22 and Mark 1:1 from Ehrman the savant (sarcasm alert).
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
On your Burgon bluster, why not simply include the quote that is accessible from the:

Textus Receptus Academy post.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...k/887766438735886/?comment_id=888059242039939

Burgon on the Received, Traditional Texts - "the one great fact"
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...ed-traditional-texts-the-one-great-fact.1849/
Revision Revised (1883)
John William Burgon
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA269
=================
Burgon was far more nuanced and strong in understanding than the one-dimensional 1970s Majority and Byzantine movement.
Burgon
worked off his Seven Notes of Truth
1. Antiquity, or Primitiveness;
2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number;
3. Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity;
4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight;
5. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition;
6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context;
7. Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness
often did not take the Majority Greek
never attacked Acts 8:37 which he used in commentary
never attacked 1 John 2:23b
wrote in a classical ad hominem fashion on the heavenly witnesses
views changed over time
flipped on at least one verse
equated the Traditional and Received Text

"The one great Fact,"
Burgon

XIII. The one great Fact, which especially troubles him and his joint Editor,1—(as well it may)—is The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian,—the Text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs,call it the Received, or the Traditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at all events, is a point on which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our Readers cannot have yet forgotten his virtual admission that,—Beyond all question the Textus Receptus is the dominant Græco-Syrian Text of a.d. 350 to a.d. 400. 2

Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentially the same in all. That it requires Revision in respect of many of its lesser details, is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an excellent Text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead critical students of Scripture seriously astray,—which is what no one will venture to predicate concerning any single Critical Edition of the N. T. which has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the disciples of Griesbach's school.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
MMR embarrasses himself. He hides the Burgon quote and goes on and on, like the little child who wants a wager.
After a bunch of silly and weak posts here
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...zarre-take-on-the-greek-nt-man-t6327-s20.html
he makes himself a fool here.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...represents-burgon-surprise-surpris-t6328.html

John William Burgon - Revision Revised 1883 - p. 173
Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian,—the Text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs,call it the Received, or the Traditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions.

MMRs bluster wager attempt is still a huggee embarrassment.
His inability to admit that shows a warped thinking.

And it was a major reason why there was a communication breakdown.


The remaining 98% or so generally contain a couple hundred leaves .
Maybe 2,500 have a lot less. A large number have under 100 leaves. You mixed up average with generally.

The wager thing, however, was your big childish blunder, why your posting there cannot be recommended.

Burgon was an independent thinker..
The false claim that he was the first Majority Text proponent should be dismissed.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator
MMR is losing his mind.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...nts-burgon-surprise-surpris-t6328.html#p81945

First, he is quoting the vulgarity of the sick Bill Brown.
Second, he is avoiding putting the actual Burgon quote on BVDB, since that proves what I said was accurate
Third, the comparable part of the definition of equate totally ends his whole posturing nonsense - MMR is weak in English
Fourth, he is reverting to the wager absurdity - like a whiny child (infantile as Jeffrey Riddle said)

And then he tries again to bring in the sick non-Christian vulgar Bill Brown, as if he is of any significance at all. He clearly is a poison to MMR.

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

”If not, I promise I'll take it easy on you when I shove the only correct assessment of Burgon's view of the Traditional Text so far down your throat it surfaces in China...”

such a child, a brat

And I emphasize the quote given above.

John William Burgon - Revision Revised 1883 - p. 173
Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian,—the Text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs,call it the Received, or the Traditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions.
This quote obviously equates the Received Text and the Traditional Text.

If Burgon is inconsistent, then there is no “only correct assessment”. Logic 101
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
"Apologies, to the BVDB for posting so much of Avery's drivel over the last couple days."

Yet MMR never posted the Burgon quote with my comment, which would have exposed his absurd posturing.
Simply a trickster
.

It was understandable for Riddle to feel insulted and hassled, even when MMR was right on the initial fact.
And the brat wager nonsense, ugh.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
MMR had two threads open, the other one
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...nts-burgon-surprise-surpris-t6328.html#p81947

MMR makes a feeble attempt to say that John William Burgon was not equating the various eight editions he grouped together as a unit.

MMR is simply weak in English.

And from that basis of his own weakness he went into paroxysms of faux accusation, wager and repeating sick vulgarities. MMR wrongly thought that when things are equated they are deemed to be absolutely equal. They were equated because of strong similarities that are contrasted against the corruption text of the Westcott-Hort recension.

And I expected MMR to attack Waite in a genetic fallacy. In that section Waite wrote properly, except for “identical”.
" yet equated them for the most part as being identical", which is borderline.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
MMR could simply look at the uses of equate.
e.g. People equate socialism with communism. That does not mean they consider them identical.
People equate zionism with racism.
"the study also found that people who equate having money to success are actually miserable."

It goes on and on and on. MMR, no problem in your not understanding the word. But to spend days attacking me on your own weak vocabulary, that is pretty bad.
 
Last edited:
Top