Quick Note:
Three guys spend 46 minutes recording a YouTube video deriding me for not providing evidence about a manuscript claim I made. The problem is, if they had spent 15 seconds on this page, they would've seen where I did show that Ο23 is one of the names for the manuscript.
1. More than two weeks ago...
A 46 minute video that took 15 seconds for me to respond to, well done to that trio!
2. They seem to have a reading problem, the Ο in Ο23 is the Greek letter Omicron (not omricon or the other 5 names they gave it). 46 minutes and they still couldn't get it right.
3. One guy spent 9 minutes saying he knew about the manuscript, but his friends posted that they spent all day looking for it and he even recorded a video with them, but in that time he couldn't tell them he knew the name! Strange! What makes it worse, is that now he spends 46 minutes making another video, but somehow doesn't know it by the name I gave...? So does he know it or not know it?
4. One of the trio even mentioned he that didn't know who Brice Jones was (from the work I referenced on one of the manuscript's aliases), again, their ignorance is not my fault, funny how his friend who claimed to know the name couldn't educate his buddy about one of the world's more renowned scholars on palaeography and papyrology!
An embarrassing comedy of errors, but we thank them for the entertainment. Hopefully in the future they spend 15 seconds doing research before they spend 46 minutes making a video!
and God knows best!
Calling Christians
Quick Response to Post on Apologetics Academy -
Earlier today I saw a misleading post attempting to respond to me on Apologetics Academy. Again, we were called names such "fools" and "incompetent fools" by one of the admins on the group. He stated:
"It is obviously, not GA023".
We agree, it's not GA 023, it's GA Ο23 (it's an omicron in Greek, capital letter for Majuscule texts). It's not 023, "0" being a number here. He's got it wrong for what is the 7th or 8th time. Please see the included photo from Brice Jones referring to the text by its proper name which I used. This is why children should not be involved in apologetics.
As stated, it is correct, it is a piece of pottery and fragmentary. However it should be noted that the scholarly consensus (as indicated by the references) given by Brice Jones consistently list 1 John 2:22a as lacunose (having gaps, missing text but easily filled in), and they also list 1 John 2:22b, where the text refers to the antiChrist as an omission. Meaning that what Br. Mustafa's article contained was correct. Obviously, the admin in that group has no access to these articles and considered the reference to GA Ο23 as wrong merely because it was fragmentary.
This is why adults who understand the topic and who have looked at the relevant data can understand what the scholars have said about the text. Indeed, the part of the passage mentioning the antiChrist was omitted. Therefore, the admin has again missed the point completely. As it pertains to GA Ο23, there are various epistles in that collection, with certain pieces dating as early as the early 4th century, just before Codex Sinaiticus, which again, is what the works referenced by Brice Jones indicated.
Therefore to claim that it is from the 5th century, is to not follow what the scholars who assessed the pieces have said themselves and to ignore their direct observations following their transcriptions and reconstructions. Therefore, this admin is indeed wrong and needs to actually study the subject and mature a bit when interacting with topics beyond his age.
Regards,
Br. Ijaz.
Br. Ijaz.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق