Maestroh
4th October 2007, 12:55 PM
http://petersmythedot.blogspot.com/
In response to:
Part One (http://petersmythe.org/2007/04/30/hebrews-29-viewer-discretion-is-advised-part-1/)
Part Two (http://petersmythe.org/2007/05/01/hebrews-29-viewer-discretion-is-advised-part-2/)
Part Three (http://petersmythe.org/2007/05/02/hebrews-29-viewer-discretion-is-advised-part-3/)
Just a taste:
DOES SMYTHE ACTUALLY READ THE BOOKS HE RECOMMENDS?
One must remember that as far as Peter Smythe - like all Word-Faith apologists - is concerned, it is IRRELEVANT what the original text says, Greek grammar, syntax, and textual criticism. It means NOTHING to them when pursued honestly. They use it more in red herring form as a means of sounding scholarly. Because most laypersons are not scholars, it sounds good to them. And that is precisely why I question the motives as well as the salvation of ANYBODY who deliberately and willfully lies about such things. Lying can take on other forms such as omitting information that undercuts your position. And here I have to ask myself if Smythe actually READ the work he endorsed by Metzger. If he had, he would note the following:
"Similarly, Origen notices the two readings in Heb. 2.9, "apart from God" (xwri;V qeou:) and “by the grace of God” (xavriti qeou:) but is not interested in deciding between them, for he finds spiritual significance in both.” (B. Metzger, “The Text of the New Testament,” 2004 ed., p. 200).
Origen thus does NOT side with the Smythe reading, he merely mentions that he has it. Smythe seems to think that as long as he can produce ONE manuscript that validates his theology, that proves what the original reading was. But let's consider the textual evidence regarding this issue. I would also point out that unlike Mr. Smythe, I have actually studied textual criticism in the Th.M. area under Daniel Wallace and Joseph Fantin (Ph.D. Sheffield), and I can read the Greek New Testament. Furthemore, I submit papers for peer review, another of Smythe's deficiencies.
Xwris theou
1739 (10th century) Vulgate mss Origen
Ambrose 424 cvid (11th century in margin) Fulgentius Nestorians (no doubt deleted by Smythe due to their similarity with Hagin)
no uncials except for 0121b no papyri
Xariti theou
Aleph B C D 33 81 330 614 Origen Athanasius Didymus Cyril Chrysostom Theodoret Jerome
SMYTHE'S FIRST DEFICIENCY
Smythe reveals his utter ignorance on the issue when he states: In the last essay, we saw that the “external” evidence, i.e., the manuscripts, quotes from the Early Church Fathers, was pretty much equal for either reading. This is ONLY true if one uses 'nose counting' as a reliable means of textual criticism, which it decidedly is not. If Smythe thinks there is even a remote comparison between a couple of Church Fathers and the bulk of manuscript testimony - to say nothing of non-English versions (which he does not even mention) - then he has serious deficiencies of comprehension of the subject. That this is true is further demonstrated in his next reason why he rewrote his Bible.
In response to:
Part One (http://petersmythe.org/2007/04/30/hebrews-29-viewer-discretion-is-advised-part-1/)
Part Two (http://petersmythe.org/2007/05/01/hebrews-29-viewer-discretion-is-advised-part-2/)
Part Three (http://petersmythe.org/2007/05/02/hebrews-29-viewer-discretion-is-advised-part-3/)
Just a taste:
DOES SMYTHE ACTUALLY READ THE BOOKS HE RECOMMENDS?
One must remember that as far as Peter Smythe - like all Word-Faith apologists - is concerned, it is IRRELEVANT what the original text says, Greek grammar, syntax, and textual criticism. It means NOTHING to them when pursued honestly. They use it more in red herring form as a means of sounding scholarly. Because most laypersons are not scholars, it sounds good to them. And that is precisely why I question the motives as well as the salvation of ANYBODY who deliberately and willfully lies about such things. Lying can take on other forms such as omitting information that undercuts your position. And here I have to ask myself if Smythe actually READ the work he endorsed by Metzger. If he had, he would note the following:
"Similarly, Origen notices the two readings in Heb. 2.9, "apart from God" (xwri;V qeou:) and “by the grace of God” (xavriti qeou:) but is not interested in deciding between them, for he finds spiritual significance in both.” (B. Metzger, “The Text of the New Testament,” 2004 ed., p. 200).
Origen thus does NOT side with the Smythe reading, he merely mentions that he has it. Smythe seems to think that as long as he can produce ONE manuscript that validates his theology, that proves what the original reading was. But let's consider the textual evidence regarding this issue. I would also point out that unlike Mr. Smythe, I have actually studied textual criticism in the Th.M. area under Daniel Wallace and Joseph Fantin (Ph.D. Sheffield), and I can read the Greek New Testament. Furthemore, I submit papers for peer review, another of Smythe's deficiencies.
Xwris theou
1739 (10th century) Vulgate mss Origen
Ambrose 424 cvid (11th century in margin) Fulgentius Nestorians (no doubt deleted by Smythe due to their similarity with Hagin)
no uncials except for 0121b no papyri
Xariti theou
Aleph B C D 33 81 330 614 Origen Athanasius Didymus Cyril Chrysostom Theodoret Jerome
SMYTHE'S FIRST DEFICIENCY
Smythe reveals his utter ignorance on the issue when he states: In the last essay, we saw that the “external” evidence, i.e., the manuscripts, quotes from the Early Church Fathers, was pretty much equal for either reading. This is ONLY true if one uses 'nose counting' as a reliable means of textual criticism, which it decidedly is not. If Smythe thinks there is even a remote comparison between a couple of Church Fathers and the bulk of manuscript testimony - to say nothing of non-English versions (which he does not even mention) - then he has serious deficiencies of comprehension of the subject. That this is true is further demonstrated in his next reason why he rewrote his Bible.