Missionary Mishap: Steven and Vladmir
Edit: Steven has apologized for his behaviour.
Recently, following a meeting with a colleague of mines I gave him some manuscript information regarding a passage from 1 John, specifically 1 John 2:22. Following his article, it seems to have caught quite a few internet missionaries off guard, to the point they began to throw insults and mockery, as can be seen here:
There’s a couple things to note here.
Firstly, Steven Tilley spent all day searching for the manuscript I mentioned (GA Ο23 – note, Br. Mustafa has corrected a typo in his article), since he was unable to find it, it meant to him that it did not exist. Not very smart reasoning here. His inability to locate something, does not prove its non-existence. His lack of ability is not an argument against the validity of the source being examined. One of the reasons I gave just one alias of the manuscript was to see how well they were educated and skilled. It would therefore seem that without knowing the other aliases for the manuscript that they can’t find any other information about it. Quite embarrassing to say the least.
Secondly, his colleague, then proceeds to call me an idiot and refers to a Wikipedia page that does not mention the other aliases of the manuscript. In his wisdom, he then claims I pulled the source out of…well, he was trying to throw an insult.
Here’s the fun part though. Anyone with access to ECM, will know the proper name of the manuscript and its contents. In fact, using the alternative name of the manuscript, going to the museum’s page, it lists what the manuscript contains:
So not only were they not smart enough to find the alternate names for the collection, they were unable to locate the museum data about the collection and its contents as it relates to 1 John 2:22. Furthermore, they would have actually gotten a great deal of information if they consulted the NET’s Textual Critical notes on 1 John 2:22-23 which actually comments on the missing words from one of these passages and the textual tradition which omits them.
To make it even more interesting, it seems as if they think the passage only lacks the word “antichrist” as Steven has argued. This is actually incorrect, thus demonstrating their further inability to comprehend basic textual critical issues. 1 John 2:22 is lacunose between the two initial occurrences of, “εστιν”, while completely omitting the rest of the passage (as found elsewhere) following the words, “εστιν Ις”. Thus completely omitting, “is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist–denying the Father and the Son.”
That’s quite a lot more than just the word, “antichrist”.
There’s two other aliases by which the manuscript goes by, if after searching all day they can’t find it, then it goes to show their limited grasp on New Testament textual criticism and their inability to do simple research. All they really had to do was consult Jones’s work on Amulets.
and God knows best.