[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

First a Stongs "phonetic spelling" correction from the previous post.
dzyooce == (not) dyzooce

b-greek reference
"the DI before the vowel/diphthong coming to be pronounced ZEU-"

Which, if accurate, would have a lot to do with the forms Dia (Acts 14:12) and especially Dios (Acts 14:13) being pronounced Zeus.

b-greek
" ZEUS .. is the proper name (in the nominative) of the chief god of the Greek pantheon."

Originally Posted by chette777

I have looked at some Greek text. the dios a greek word is in the oldest Eastern text. while Zues is in the alexandrian greek texts. ... what I found is dios (a Greek word) was in the older text used for the KJV. While Zues was inserted later by the Alexandrian scribes. .

This would make the apparatus sources currently being used incorrect, since they show the same word in Byzantine and TR and Alexandrian texts and do not indicate a variant. While the word is given as dia (v12) and dios (v13) in the sources Strong's gives the transliteration as dzyooce. This is discussed above and below, as Strong may give us a dubious Greek letter substitution.

Perhaps we can agree that in the cultural and linguistic context of the Greek, a word for the 'supreme god' is a word for Zeus. While the comparable god among the Romans is Jupiter.

Chette, could you indicate specifically the Greek texts that have a different word than that in the Alexandrian text ? I will be happy to examine the question more closely but I would need something more exact than "some Greek text". The name of a text, the name of a manuscript.

When you refer to "oldest Eastern text" some may view that as a reference to Codex Bezae and I certainly hope that would not be meant as a substantive reference. Although it could still be checked just like the Byzantine MSS. The apparatus shows no Greek variants.

Originally Posted by chette777

I know that Jupioter is the Roman name of a god and that Zues is tha Greek name of a god. however the inscription found in archeology cearly say Jupiter for that City not Zues ...

Which is a good argument for the superiority of the King James Bible over the modern versions in the verses in Acts.

Originally Posted by chette777

the word Dios just means deity. Zues would be literally translated Zues.

Your first phrase is about Greek to English. You seem to be denying the possibility (or probability) that the Roman (Latin) Deity Jupiter could be written in a Greek text with the Greek dia as a reference to their specific deity Zeus. If such an equivalence is sensible then the KJB translation to Jupiter is perfectly fine, the very best translation.

A problem for your understanding on this is that Paul was also called the name of a specific Deity, Mercurius in the text. Again based on the Roman (Latin) Deity, while the Greek is the equivalent, Hermes. The same type of side-translation, or culturally accurate translation, is done.

This confluence seems to be consistent in the King James Bible, accurate, and it looks like a full explanation of the translation differences, without the need for looking for minority MSS.

Originally Posted by chette777

Strongs has dyzooce and so do few TR MM used but all the alexandrian text say Zues.

Again you are claiming a textual difference (this time based on some TR, not an 'oldest Eastern text'). Again, this textual difference is not shown on sites such as the John Hurt Greek site mentioned above, nor in the apparatus mentioned above. We have the Stephanus and Scrivener TR with dia and dios. Perhaps you have seen a Erasmus or Beza or Elzivir edition that is different, however a specific identity is needed.

I agree that the Strong's word is different, however to go into the import of this more it would be necessary to know what TR you are saying does not have dia.

You are claiming the apparatus is textually incorrect, or at least incomplete based on MSS you have seen but have not specifically identified for us. Can you give a substantive MS that we can look at to see if your claim of an error in the current representations is correct ? How that would effect comparative translation can be a follow-up question.

Originally Posted by chette777

and it is not spelled dysooce it is spelled Zues.

dzyooce is specifically given as a transliterated pronunciation of the Greek word to English. However I think we agree now that this Strong's is suspect here, or at least needs some textual support, since their letters are different than what all the MS available so far online shows.

Originally Posted by chette777

... in Strongs dyzooce is the pronouciation not the greek spelling, he shows the Greek spelling as Zues.

More specifically Zeuvß. I do not know why you reverse the 'e' and the 'u'.

Originally Posted by chette777

Ruckman and others believe in the old manuscripts that use Dios. I checked out the sources Ruckman suggested and found the greek word Dios not dyzooce or zues.

So far I think it is Strong's that has muddied the water. All the MS references I have seen have dia and dios (dioV). I'll wait for you to reference the TR MS with another word before commenting further. e.g. John Hurt has Stephanus 1550, Scrivener 1894, Byzantine and Alexandrian all as dia and dios.

Originally Posted by chette777

the last two according to him is a later corruption. See Ruckmans Commentary on ACTS chapter 14 for some info.

Apparently you are saying that dias is not transliterated as dzyooce, with, I presume, a relatively soft or silent 'd'. See the b-greek comment above, I consider all this secondary to the manuscript question.

You really have not shown any textual corruption yet in any MSS so I can't comment on what is not seen or shown.

Originally Posted by chette777

There is dia but only as a derivitive. Theos is God, Dios is deity, Dia can be both, Zues is zues.

Theos=qeovß=God we agree. Apparently in scholarly circles there is agreement that the Greek dia and dios were used specifically for Zeus in Greek. To say "Dios is deity" outside of that connection is likely unwarranted. Is an alternate word Zeus (Zeuvß) as in Strong's used as more of a straight-line spelling for Zeus in some MSS ? First we would have to identify the MS, then give our conjecture or theory of the import.

Originally Posted by chette777

I have three Greek texts a TR text dios, Strongs Zues and Stephenas Dia.

Stephanus == dia and dios, is a given, in all the sources I have referenced below. You call those two texts but that is simply the two forms, as you yourself indicated, in verse 12 and 13. I do not think you will find any MS separation whatsoever.

And dia (v12) and dios (v13) is also the Alexandrian and Byzantine text given. Despite your sharing, or at least implication, that the Alexandrian text has a different word. Within the TR you would have to indicate your disagreeing TR text for further comparison. Strong's Zeuvß so far is not a manuscript, I would say that this may be a dubious entry from Strong, subject to finding any corroboration. Apparently Strong preferred to use an equivalent proper name spelling in Greek, perhaps he was going off another TR MS. Good question to resolve. And why would the TR be split, if it is.

Originally Posted by chette777

Three different words so you have to prayerfully make a chioce which Greek OR like Ruckman says, this is one of those instances where English is clear and you can throw out the Greek. It is Jupiter but that the Greek word was Dios (deity) and the translators made sure we knew which it was by putting Jupiter there without Italics for that was the deity of that city.

We agree on the essentials of the truth and accuracy of the KJB translation here. However finding those "three different words" in manuscripts has not yet occurred and a lot of your analysis rests on this so far unfound distinction. In fact, I have yet to see even one MS that does not have dia and dios in verse 12 and 13. I cannot really comment on an analysis based on a manuscript distinction that is not specifically identified.

At times I see Peter Ruckman make what I consider scholarly errors, and/or hold difficult or untenable positions. Scholarly errors as we would see from any good prolific writer on textual and translation issues. And sometimes the borderline between an exaggeration or hyperbole and an error is small and subject to the reader's attitude (here I am thinking of another case or two). Sometimes a conjecture is lifted to a factual analysis. And I am not concluding that an error occurs in this analysis, since I have not even seen the textual division that is at base of his analysis. Nor have I seen his complete analysis.

However I can say that without any dual MSS tradition the King James Bible translation is 100% sound and accurate and even superior, that there is no need to go to a MS division for a fuller understanding. So far we have not seen the claimed division. If there is a division, we have not seen that it has had historically any substantive effect, or that it should have any translation effect whatsoever.

Shalom,
Steven