New Blog for Nazaroo

Nazaroo has a new blog to continue his old blog:

Old Blog : The Nazaroo Zone - http://nazaroo.blogspot.ca/

New Blog: The Nazaroo Zone II - http://nazaroo2.blogspot.ca/

Matthaei's 1786 Critical GNT - John's Gospel: Rare Variants for Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11)

Recently Dr. Maurice Robinson has brought to attention the fact that some variants and even manuscripts are no longer available either directly or through modern 'critical editions' of the Greek NT, which either oversimplify or omit key data that might be of help in reconstructing an accurate text:

He commented on the Evangelical NT Blog the following brief note:

maurice a. robinson2:26 p.m., May 15, 2015

'There remain some gems in the older works, particularly in relation to MSS no longer extant or not currently available. Example: for the Pericope Adulterae, Matthaei's (reasonably complete) collations are all that remain available for GA MSS 238, 241, 242, 252, 258.'

In the interest of making those collations (readings published in the footnotes of Matthaei's Volume on John) available, we have taken screenshots and provide them here for researchers to ponder and make use of (pg 138-147 inclusive):

What were the Earliest New Testament Documents?

There is no way of knowing what the earliest document in the NT is,
but its very reasonable to pose that:

(a) Essential contents of the gospels were in written form before Paul was converted.

(b) In a literate community like the Jews of Judaea and Galilee,
a larger than average percentage of the population was literate,
because the whole religion centered around written documents,
an organized schooling system, and REQUIREMENTS that Jews
knew their own history and the Law, and participated.

Examples of the proof from the gospels are the fact that
although nominally the son of a carpenter,
Jesus Himself, took His turn in public reading of the synagogue,
including the reading of SCROLLS (i.e., Isaiah in Hebrew),
even in Galilee.


This means that most indigenous adult Jews could speak and even read
Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as converse in Greek and Latin for commerce.

It would be preposterous to suggest that a literate organized group like
the disciples and even their enemies would not keep any written records
of Jesus' teaching and important public events in His life.

We must presume that as Luke himself claimed, early "Nazarenes",
namely Jewish Christians and Messianists had written records composed
before Jesus was even arrested and crucified. They would also have
copies of the O.T. Holy Scriptures, as indicated by the NT and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Therefore, the oldest written documents would NOT be Paul's letters,
but rather the gospels and other records in their earliest WRITTEN form.

Even Paul himself plainly quotes OLDER WRITTEN records,
such as the document regarding the LAST SUPPER which Paul quotes,
and confirms was in possession of the Christian community before he wrote
his own letters.   (cf. 1st Cor. 11:17-34)

Roman Catholic scholars also confirm this fact, because it is necessary
in order to establish the Eucharist ritual and its antiquity.

The oldest written records are therefore EMBEDDED in the surviving documents,
such as the gospels and Acts, as well as Revelation,
and predate Paul and his letters.

An obvious letter contemporary with Paul is 
James (Jacob) To the Twelve Tribes of Israel,
written while James was still alive and head of the Jerusalem Church.
It speaks plainly the Jewish Christian viewpoint on gospel and behaviour,
and is clearly an authentic NT writing predating most of Paul's letters.

The writings of Nicodemus preserved in John's Gospel also predate Paul
by a large margin (possibly decades), and being eyewitness accounts,
have far more authority and credibility than Paul.

In addition, there in fact was no recognized "New Testament" until the Catholic Church formally canonized the Bible in the 4th century A.D. ---some three-and-a-half centuries later. - Roman Catholic Apologist "Cruciform"

Another incredible load of nonsense by a Vatican supporter.

There are plain indications in the New Testament itself
that Paul, Barnabas and Luke had in their possession
copies of the Gospels, probably very close in form and content
to the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, (and obviously Luke).

Paul in his letters refers to copies of "the scriptures"
which they are carrying with them,
and the context suggests strongly they are
referring to the very first copies of the early Gospels,
which they used to proliferate Jesus' teachings.

"When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments." - 2nd Tim. 4:3

These could not be simply copies of Paul's letters,
many of which he had not written yet,
nor were they likely collected into a single book
until after his death.

Instead, Paul here refers to two sets of documents,

(1) the scrolls, his personal copies of probable gospels and sayings of Jesus, and

(2) O.T. parchments such as Isaiah, Daniel, and other books central to Christianity.

The Gospels themselves betray a form and structure
DESIGNED to hide them from Roman authorities,
which is why the Roman Catholic "church" today
doesn't even have copies of these early documents.

If the Roman Catholic Church were authentic,
they would have copies of these documents.

For instance, Matthew in scroll form would appear to be titled as "a Geneaology"
and the first two feet of the scroll would be a boring list of Jewish names:
This is precisely how to hide a Gospel under the Romans' noses.

"What you got there?" "A family genealogy: See? It is a list of names of Jewish inheritance." "Okay. You may go."

And that's how early Gospels were smuggled right past Roman idiot-guards.

Islamic Bible Fraud: Lies about Slavery

In a recent defense of Islamic Slavery practices,
an online Islamic apologist made some gross misrepresentations
of both the Holy Scriptures and the position of both Judaism and Christianity.

In his explanation, he did not condemn slavery at all,
but made the lame (read indefensible) argument that slavery was okay
because both Jews and Christians thought it was okay!

This approach can only have been inspired by years of immersion
in one of the worst, and ungodly writings ever penned by an illiterate moron:
The Quran.

Leaving aside the morally shocking excusing of slavery inherent in his position,
he dares to pull a fast one and suggest that "Slavery" is not even in the New Testament!

The question he raises is what Paul actually said in 1st Tim 1:10.
He fraudulently suggests Paul never mentioned "slave traders" here.

To protect himself from an accusation of deception,
he involves himself in a chain of quotations as follows:

He quotes what Dr. Siddiqi said,
about what a pastor said,
about what Paul said,
about slavery.

In fact Dr. Siddiqi claims the pastor ADDED a word to the text of 1st Timothy,
and 'supports' this with a (mis)quote from the Revised Standard Version (RSV).

The unidentified pastor is not available to respond,
and the online apologist acts as if the case is proven.

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America and Director of the Islamic Society of Orange County...states the following: 'The author claims that “the Bible condemns slavery” and “one who practices slavery contradicts right teachings.” In order to prove his point he even adds “the slave traders” in 1Timothy 1:10. There is no such word there in the Revised Standard Version.' Actually in the whole Bible this word does not exist.

Did the pastor really add a word?
Does the RSV have a shorter text at 1st Timothy 1:10?

No.

There is no textual variant of significance regarding this verse here.

All the Greek texts (TR and Nestle/Aland etc.) have the same words.

1st Tim. 1:10 πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται, 'for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine' - NIV

The issue isn't the presence of a word, but the interpretation of that word.

Some popular renderings for ἀνδραποδισταῖς (andrapodistais) are:

'slave traders' - NIV, NLT, KJV 2000, World Eng.,

'slave dealers' - Weymouth,

'kidnappers' - NET, ISV, Holman, Darby RV, God's Word,

'enslavers' - ESV, Amer KJV,

'menstealers' - KJV, ASV, Douay-Rheims, ERV, Websters, YLT,

It is true that this particular word and form only appear once in the New Testament.

But its meaning is easily established because in secular literature
it is a very common word, with a clear meaning and usage in a wide
variety of contexts.

As a Compound Greek word it breaks into two simpler parts:

(1) ἀνδραποδα- ("andrapoda") = 'slave' i.e., as a result of war, capture, or breeding. This meaning rather than a mere (indentured) "servant"
or "footman" (hired squire etc.) is easily shown by its usage among many ancient authors.
(although etymologically formed from "man"(andros) and "foot"(poda),
it does not carry the English meaning of 'footman' or soldier.)


Thucydides - "sheltering runaway slaves", "onboard the ships were the slaves", "they sold the slaves", "20,000 slaves deserted", all using ἀνδραποδα.

All this word's cognates, derivatives, nouns and adjectives are
connected to slavery throughout the literature.

One can understand how the KJV translators (circa 1600)
arrived at 'menstealers', since more modern terms didn't exist.
'kidnapper' was popularized later in reference to pirates,
while 'slave' apparently came from 'Slav' i.e., Eastern Europeans
who were enslaved by muslim hoards after 630 A.D.

'enslavers' may describe part of what slave-traders do,
but its too narrow a word to carry the intended meaning of the Greek here.
Overall, 'Slave-traders' is the best fit for an English rendering of this word,
and the modern claim of our online Muslim apologist that it is
'not in the Bible' is simply smokescreening and hand-waving.

The general idea of the compound word is 'slavery', 'slave trading'.
One could use one form for making or buying a slave, and another for selling.

But there is no special notion of "making a free man into a slave".
This is wholly artificial, and interpreters who try to insert this meaning
here, do so for one of two reasons:

(a) To make the crime appear more wicked, i.e., a violation of Roman law,
and make it into essentially 'freeman-stealing' or 'kidnapping'.
This would make it harmonize better with other crimes
in Paul's list, to those inclined to view them worse than slavery.

(b) To excuse the 'legitimate' buying and selling of legal slaves, in an attempt to harmonize the verse with other statements by Paul,
who appears more tolerant of slavery in other passages.

Stealing was indeed expressed in Greek by klepto (κλεπτω),

The Greeks also used the word ανθρωπωκλεπτιας (literally man-stealer),
but reducing a (free) man to slavery was a different
and specialized legal idea entirely.

But a slaver was normally covered by Paul's choice of word.
Had Paul meant 'man-stealing' unconnected to slavery,
he would would have used analogous language.

Thus the word 'slaver', 'slave-trader' is indeed in the Bible,
where it is listed as a heinous crime, equivalent to bearing false witness,
adultery, etc., all death-penalty offences.

The Muslim claim that Paul approved of slavery is completely destroyed
by Paul's use of this word in this passage, listing heinous crimes.

(see Studies on Slavery: In Easy Lessons, By John Fletcher 1852, pg 566 fwd)