Thursday, January 23, 2020

Rejoinder to Hixson on the CJ: Part One of Three



After I posted WM 149, Dr. Elijah Hixson (EH) posted three rather long comments (totaling over 2,000 words) to my blog in response to my review of his article. I took some time today to read and begin to write a few responses to his comments. I thought it might be better to post my rejoinders as a series of three new blog articles, rather than adding to the pile of comments.

I’ll copy EH’s comments below (in blue), along with my responses:

(1/~4?) Jeff, thanks for this. Forgive me for responding to what you’ve written. I rarely have time to listen to things, and responding to audio/video is much more difficult than responding to a recording, so I have got to go by what you’ve written.

JTR: Thanks for responding to the written notes for this episode. There were a few things in the audio version that expanded and clarified a few points. Feel free to listen if time allows, but happy you took time to respond to the written article (I think this is what you meant to write above, rather than “responding to a recording”). Hope you don’t mind me offering this rejoinder and some clarifications to your comments.


Perhaps the best way to start is to say explicitly why I did the work for the post. I’ll come back to it at the end. I decided that, since the THGNT lists more than the usual few manuscripts at 1 John 5:7–8, the best way I could prepare myself to write about that variant when I got to it in the textual commentary would be to look at all the manuscripts myself. I had no intentions of blogging about it when I started, nor did I have any idea what I would find. At some point in the middle, I realised how valuable the info is, and in light of how difficult it would be to get all the appropriate permissions to use the images in a printed book, I thought a blog would be a good way to get the info out there.

JTR: Thanks for providing this background info on how you came to write the article. As I pointed out in the WM 149 audio, everyone should appreciate your labors (whatever his views) in collecting this material (and images) together as an online resource. Thanks for this.

I had read some TR advocates appealing to known provenance (I think blog post(s) by Taylor DeSoto most recently, but I’ve seen a similar line of argument used in KJV-only literature—I draw a distinction particularly because my criticism of appealing to provenance isn’t relevant to KJV-onlyism), and that argument has always been strange to me—because (as you mention) the default Christianity before the reformation was Catholic or Orthodox, “known provenance” often includes things like Mary-worship, 2nd commandment violations, etc. It’s fine to appeal to known provenance as long as we’re clear that these are not churches that Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians would ever approve of in any other sense, and all of them accepted a lot more into the canon (Psalm 151 for example) than we do now as well. It’s difficult for me to take the ‘unprovenanced/heretical church use’ objection seriously when the provenanced manuscripts were used by churches that most reformed Christians would probably consider heretical. There’s no point in whitewashing that.

JTR: This is where things get a little cloudier for me. As I’m sure you’ll understand, without specific references to which authors or articles you’re responding to, it’s hard to know exactly where this critique was aimed, or to access its validity. In short, as I’m sure you can understand, without specifics, it might even come across as a “straw man” argument.

Contrary to what you say here, it seems to me that confessional TR advocates, in particular, are well aware of the shortcomings within the Christian movement that necessitated the Reformation, while also affirming the providential preservation of the text, despite these ecclesiastical shortcomings, and the definitive affirmation of the text by the Protestant orthodox during the Reformation.

Given that the confessional TR position does not depend on a “reconstruction” method, but a “preservation” method, the fact that the pre-Reformation churches which produced and used the now extant mss. had errant beliefs or practices seems less relevant, while it would, on the other hand, necessarily be highly relevant to the “reconstruction” approach.

You make reference to the fact that prior to the Reformation, some Christians “accepted a lot more into the canon”, and you use the apocryphal Psalm 151 as an example of this. Would you not agree, however, that any acceptance of non-canonical, uninspired writings as part of Scripture at any point in Christian history would have been in error? Psalm 151 is an interesting example. As I understand it, Psalm 151 appears in Codex Sinaiticus and some other LXX mss., but it was never accepted by Jews as part of the Hebrew Bible (and no Hebrew version of Psalm 151 was known until an expanded version of it was uncovered in the DSS), nor was it ever confessionally affirmed as canonical by Christians. This example, it seems to me, actually supports quite nicely the Confessional Text emphasis on text as a canonical issue (ergo, the title of last fall’s “Text and Canon” conference). Those who accepted Psalm 151 as canonical were in error, as were those who accepted the so-called shorter ending of Mark, the freer logion in Mark, or the expanded “Western” readings in Acts, etc.. The Protestant Reformation offered a needed providential occasion for giving clear definition to the canon of Scripture (and the canonical text).

You write: “One of the main problems I see here is that EH seems to imply that the reason TR advocates embrace the CJ is because of this sort of external evidence. That is, he assumes that TR advocates are engaged in the same sort of reconstruction methodology as modern/postmodern text critics.” Though you may have inferred it, I assure you I did not imply that. I have not ever assumed that TR advocates are “engaged in the same sort of reconstruction methodology” as I am. I do see TR advocates embracing evidence when it is convenient for the TR position though, and my point here is that it is inconsistent to do so in every case. The bigger point is that the mis-handling of evidence where mis-handling can be clearly seen points to mis-handling of evidence when it cannot be as clearly seen. Your own words about GA 177 (source: http://www.jeffriddle.net/2010/08/daniel-wallace-on-comma-johanneum.html) are: “Wallace is no friend to the traditional text, and he dismisses the value of this new witness. Still it adds some weight to the argument for the authenticity of the comma.” Going from your own words, you were quick to affirm that 177 “adds some weight to the argument for the authenticity of the comma.” Except 177 is the one that was written with a verse number in a hand that signs and dates the manuscript to a (presumably) Catholic priest in 1785—well after the Reformation.

JTR: Sorry, but it still seems to me that your discussion of these mss. as empirical evidence and your conclusion that this serves as some sort of "defeater" to the TR position misses the point of confessional TR advocacy, which is not based on “reconstruction.” I think I made a point in the introduction to the WM 149 audio (but not in the notes) that has been often made in my podcasts, namely that TR advocates readily concede that some TR readings, especially like the CJ, are not well supported by extant external evidence and are more difficult to defend on empirical grounds (if you don’t have time to listen to the entire podcast you can listen to the first few minutes and will be able to hear this). This is hardly a "whitewashing" of the evidence.

Though it may seem to you that confessional TR advocates are only pointing to the empirical evidence “when it is convenient” I do not think this is, in fact, the case. Again, many times over we have acknowledged that some TR readings (like the CJ) are harder to defend than others. The argument for the CJ is not made on the basis of empirical evidence by confessional TR advocates.

You then move on to a “bigger point” about “mishandling of evidence.” Here you give as a lone example a blog post I wrote nearly ten years ago (August 26, 2010), in which I made the briefest of references to Dan Wallace’s discovery of the CJ in the margin of ms. 177. This discovery had been made a month earlier in July 2010, and the images of it had not yet posted online. Note that at the end of DW's post from July 2, 2010, he expressed a hope that one day the micro-film of mss. like 177 would be digitized and made available for others to see online.

I stand by my comments in the article. Dan Wallace is not a friend of the traditional text. He, like everyone else (from KJVO to modern text advocate), has implicit bias and operates under the influence of his own presuppositions. The only point I was making was that the discovery of this ms. provided, from my perspective, yet more evidence for the tenacity of the CJ in the Christian tradition. And this is true even if the marginal addition is late. In this sense it does indeed “add some weight” (however slight one might assess that weight to be) to the argument for the CJ. For these reasons, I hardly think one could call my very brief comments in that blog post a “mishandling of the evidence.”

Getting back to your 2020 article and away from my ten-year old blog post, you note that the CJ in 177 includes the verse notation, it was owned by a priest who signed the ms.in 1785, and this leads to your conclusion that the CJ addition was composed “well after the Reformation.”

Let me offer some responses:

First, on the verse notation: This well may show that the addition comes after the appearance of the CJ in printed editions of the Greek NT and the editorial addition of versification in the sixteenth century. Question: Is it also at least in the realm of the possible that the person who added the CJ had BOTH an ancient ms. or mss. AND a printed edition of the Greek NT which included the CJ? If this were the case, then it would be impossible to ascertain the date for the source of the CJ addition on the basis of the appearance of the verse notation.

Second, you note that this 11th century ms. was signed by a RC priest in 1785 and you make a subjective conjecture that the same person who signed the ms. also added the CJ, though you acknowledge that the ink is different and “some of the letters are a little stylized.” You may be right about this conjecture, but I am sure you will also be willing to say that this speculation cannot be definitively proven. If the CJ was not added by the same person who signed his name, then the question of date is less certain. Whatever the marginal CJ's date in 177, the fact that this mss. was at one time owned and signed by a RC priest is irrelevant to establishing anything, pro or con, with regards to the authenticity of the CJ as part of the text of Christian Scripture.

Third, perhaps the CJ addition was made to 177 “well after the Reformation.” If it were, what exactly does this prove? The Protestant consensus on the authenticity of the CJ was settled by at least 1600. Calvin, for example, affirms it in his commentary on 1 John. It had, in fact, been known and accepted in the Christian tradition long before the Reformation. As I note in WM 149, various pre-Reformation theologians had assumed its authenticity in their theologizing, including Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153), Peter Lombard (c. 1095-1160), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), Peter Abelard (1079-1142), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) (for a listing of these and other medieval theologians who made ready use of the CJ, see Grantley McDonald’s 2011 dissertation “Raising the Ghost of Arius”, pp. 57, 62.). The fact that the CJ was added to “correct” 177 only shows the tenacity of the CJ within the Christian tradition, whatever the date given to the marginal addition of the CJ in 177.

You say it’s not about evidence, but you were appealing to evidence to support it. Without checking to see what 177 was and by assuming that it would support the TR you appealed to the evidence of a priest in 1785 as if it supports the authenticity of the CJ. What I was implying was that TR advocates would do better to admit up front that the evidence is against the TR here.

JTR response: Again, my less than 500-word blog article from August 2010 only makes brief reference to 177, a ms. which had only been “discovered” one month earlier and was not yet available to view online. One can hardly fault me for failure to examine the ms. when its images were not yet available to examine at the time I wrote this popular-level blog article, which never claimed to be an exhaustive academic study of 177. If anything, my comments on 177 were measured. For these reasons, I hardly think it is reasonable or fair to use this as any kind of an example of a TR advocate’s “mishandling of evidence.”

If we want to see real “mishandling of evidence” let’s examine how many modern critical text advocates like James White have propagated the “rush to print” and “rash wager’ anecdotes about Erasmus’s 1516 Greek NT and the CJ’s inclusion into it. Smiles.

JTR

17 comments:

M.M.R. said...

"The Protestant consensus on the authenticity of the CJ was settled by at least 1600."

Dr. Riddle,

Is there any location (i.e. variant reading) where this "Protestant consensus" does not align with the KJV?

Jeffrey T. Riddle said...

MMR,

"Wow, thoughtful question. This reflects penetrating insight into what I've written and raises notions I've never considered or heard from anyone else.", said no confessional TR advocate ever.

Of course, this post was not about translations but text, so this type of question gets tiresome.

If someone had a serous and earnest question, however, with regard to evaluating translations based on the TR in English (Tyndale, Geneva, KJV, NKJV, MEV, etc.), in any other language (the Reina Valera in Spanish, the K. Gaspar in Hungarian, the new TBS NT in Farsi, etc.), or any translation based on the modern text for that matter, I would point him to the statement in the TBS's "Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture":

"Translations from the original languages are likewise to be considered the written Word of God in so far as these translations are accurate as to the form and content of the Original."

JTR

Matthew M. Rose said...

JTR,

"Wow, what a wonderful way to *not* answer a simple question.", said everyone who has tried to engage with the convoluted position know as "Confessional Bibliology".

The question has three possible answers, and yet you have found a forth. It gets much more tiresome asking this type of question.

You state: "Of course, this post was not about translations but text, so this type of question gets tiresome."

My question was about Text. Does the KJV ever get the Text wrong? Does it ever follow the incorrect reading? I noticed that you continue to dodge the question. Sorry if it's not "serous"[sic] enough for you!--But some of us take our Bible seriously.

You brought up this phantom "Protestant consensus", which indeed is nothing but a figment of your imagination. Since you and you alone are the author of such ideas; Is there any location (i.e. variant reading) where this "Protestant consensus" does not align with the KJV?

Yes, no, or I don't know will suffice. If yes, could you please give specific examples. This is not rocket science. If you indeed believe that the KJV has errors which stem from the textual level; you should have a few residing within the Rolodex of your mind. Heck, considering that you are audacious enough to call your personal form of KJV/TR-Onlyism a "movement" and promote conferences in which the Text and Canon are expounded by your great learning; you should have a note book full of examples!

If you cannot see the importance to such a question; you have stumbled into the wrong field. And please keep in mind that I am a "Traditional Text" defender and KJV Bible reader;--not a "Reconstructionist" or whatever other term you see fit to use for the month of January. -MMR

Bruce said...

"Protestant consensus", how is this determined? Secondly, how does one come to the conclusion that "Protestant consensus" is the authoritive earmark of a true reading to begin with?


MMR's question is valid. I don't understand why you would want to be so rude and dismissive about specifics... Unless of course you are making this all up on the fly.

Steven Avery said...

Hi Jeffrey,

Superb post!

In answer to the consensus question, I would say that the most important variant where any Reformation consensus would have to be post-1600 is Luke 2:22, her purification.

Luke 2:22 (AV)
And when the days of her purification
according to the law of Moses were accomplished,
they brought him to Jerusalem,
to present him to the Lord;

Likely lots more can be added below from commentaries. Please feel free to check your libraries! :) This is the only "major" variant that I know that has this type of historical split.

her or Maries
Complutensian Geneva Bible,Bishops, Beza, AV, Elzevir, Antwerp and Paris Polyglots, Dutch Statenvertaling, Spanish Reina-Valera
Luther, Gagny(RC), John Lightfoot

their
Erasmus, Stephanus and London polyglot
Calvin, Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, John Gill
(1500s English Bibles - Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverners, Great Bible)

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY

Steven Avery said...

Superb post!
Allow me a few thoughts and notes.

Jeffrey Riddle
“TR advocates readily concede that some TR readings, especially like the CJ, are not well supported by extant external evidence and are more difficult to defend on empirical grounds ... some TR readings (like the CJ) are harder to defend than others. The argument for the CJ is not made on the basis of empirical evidence by confessional TR advocates.”

The heavenly witnesses verse is extremely well supported by extant external evidence, imho that comment must have the adjective “Greek” in two spots to be accurate. And if confessional TR advocates are not strongly defending the “empirical evidence”, may I suggest a turnaround :) .

==========

JR
“the fact that this mss. was at one time owned and signed by a RC priest is irrelevant to establishing anything, pro or con, with regards to the authenticity of the CJ as part of the text of Christian Scripture.”

Elijah shows his lack of any real background in Reformation Bible textual history with this nouveau emphasis on “RC provenance”, applied to manuscripts! He even used the adjective “dreaded” in one discussion. :) It is all quite absurd.

==========

JR
“…various pre-Reformation theologians had assumed its authenticity in their theologizing, including Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153), Peter Lombard (c. 1095-1160), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), Peter Abelard (1079-1142), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) (for a listing of these and other medieval theologians who made ready use of the CJ, see Grantley McDonald’s 2011 dissertation “Raising the Ghost of Arius”, pp. 57, 62.). “

Even Grantley’s list, while a help, is barely the tip of the iceberg. A publication, to which I have given some research support, is planned, hopefully early 2020, with a far more complete list.

============

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY

Howie said...

Dr. Elijah Hixson and Dr. Riddle: thanks for this good exchange.

Steven Avery: looking forward to seeing the addition to the list (i.e. of those who assumed and held the Comma Johanneum's authenticity) per the proposed publication in 2020 you mention. That said, the Protestant consensus on the authenticity of the CJ as settled by 1600, and known and accepted long prior, as notationly provided here by Riddle, is itself compelling if only as "the tip of that ice berg".

If you first lay hold of the truth that the Scriptures are ‘Settled and Established, with the Autographs being providentially preserved in the Apographs, it becomes relatively easy to assess which textual ‘Worldview’ or stride stands squarely on the resources of man (2 Peter 1:20) and which stands squarely on the authority of God (Isaiah 40:8). Holding that lens up is very useful; it brings into focus, if we allow it, the implications to the inescapable tenacity of the CJ throughout the ages.

As the Scriptures so clearly affirm: "Forever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89

Blessings in Christ,

Howie

Matthew M. Rose said...

Hi Steven,

Concerning Luke 2:22 you state:

"the most important variant where any Reformation consensus would have to be post-1600 is Luke 2:22, her purification."


~~The post 1600 trigger is obviously, "AV" in your system. I'm trying to understand if/why it's also the primary (apparently) deciding factor within "Confessional Bibliology". Luke 2:22 (αυτής) is unsupported by the Greek manuscript tradition and therefore it's unclear how such a reading can even be considered "authentical" according to the Confession. Especially since the TR is split on this point! Unfortunately, clear and straightforward answers are becoming a rarity in these parts.

Respectfully, this is one place (Luke 2:22) where *all* should be in agreement. Critical Text, Byzantine Text, Majority Text and TR advocates should all be able to agree on this variant unit...Yet they don't.


Steven Avery said...

Hi Stylos friends,

Nice to have a forum that seems is warm to iron sharpeneth discussion. We end up with some Conversations Interruptus on the ETC forum (hint: check their Facebook page :).)

=======

Here are some comments on the Elijah Hixson paper.

Even on the geek level, there are some real “misss” in the paper from Elijah Hixson.

Especially ms 635, where Elijah asked readers for any “updates”, and the entry is from a typo. One that causes problems in Bruce Metzger and Ian Howard Marshall, and likely UBS-1.

Elijah has simply ignored this well-documented information, which I originally posted on the Timothy Berg Facebook wall discussion, with Elijah participating. This lack of response opens up a scholastic integrity concern. Is Elijah ignoring the correction because textcrit scholars being the source of the misinformation is discordant to his emphasis on what he sees as problems in the scholarship of Reformation Bible defenders? hmmm

=============

Another problem is omitting any mention of the Lateran Council, which really should be considered in tandem with 629, Codex Ottobonianus. A century earlier, and a Latin-Greek text, a major point in the restoration of the verse to the Greek church and manuscripts.

Granted, when Elijah did the paper, he might have been unaware of the Lateran Council Latin-Greek text, since his background with the verse history is extremely weak.

A similar note about Manual Calecas and Joseph Bryennius, Greek writers referencing the verse before Erasmus, would be helpful.

=============

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY

Steven Avery said...

Howie, I agree the scripture text is settled. :) Hallelujah!

The scholastic element is interesting. Also the interpretive elements. Even the modest list from Grantley McDonald helped fill out the scholarship.

It is just nice and edifying to see the huge acceptance and discussion of the heavenly witnesses verse in the Latin church, from antiquity ro 1500.A.D. 100++ commentaries! Full acceptance.

==========

Matthew, I love the pure Bible “her purification” in Luke. Beza was awesome, covered quite well in Jan Krans’ Beyond What is Written.

Years back, I read all the various attempts to find a reasonable apologetic for the “their purification” variant. Alfred Edersheim and others. Nice tries, but failures.

And I mentioned 1600 simply because it was a date given earlier in the discussion. And I worked through the details of much of the Reformation era support of the two variants, to learn more excellently. And to share the complexity wth “TR” brethren.

===========

Steven

Steven Avery said...

Hi friends!

The following research post increases the medieval Latin heavenly witnesses references from about 15 from Grantlety to about 50.

Pure Bible Forum
medieval Latin scholars accept and discuss the heavenly witnesses
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/medieval-latin-scholars-accept-and-discuss-the-heavenly-witnesses.1110/

My understanding is that the forthcoming book will have much more.

Steven

Matthew M. Rose said...

Hi Steven,

I'm not quite sure why you would consider αυτής in Luke 2:22 as part of any, "pure Bible"; especially when it has absolutely no Greek manuscript evidence to back it. Are you of the opinion that the entire Greek manuscript tradition is corrupt in this location? It seems highly improbable that a scribe or editor would ever change "her" to "their": even more improbable is the notion that the total deposit of the Greek manuscript tradition--and mother tongue of the New Testament is in error here.


You write:

"Years back, I read all the various attempts to find a reasonable apologetic for the “their purification” variant. Alfred Edersheim and others. Nice tries, but failures."

Could you possibly elaborate on this? What is the primary hang-up from your perspective? -MMR

Steven Avery said...

MMR, I hesitate to start going into a big Luke 2:22 analysis as a guest on this blog. Unless specifically requested by Jeff Riddle. I think the discussions should be kept close to his posts!

There is a Facebook forum called PureBible which would be excellent for the discussion.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/

Or I could reactivate a spot similar to this in on in style on Blogger or Wordpress.
Even later today is possible.

Or you could suggest your fav forum spot!

And I would not use www.purebibleforum.com unless I can get some picture-Social-Facebook type of action, it is used more as a research spot.

Steven Avery said...

“RC Provence” and “unprovenanced churches”

Here is a spot where you, Jeffrey, were rather genteel with the rambling gibberish of a brand new textual-manuscript theory from Elijah Hixson. One that deliberately mish-a-moshes the provenance of manuscripts (e.g. the provenance of Sinaiticus being 1844 per the Tischenforf story, 1840 per Simonides) and the variety of church doctrines. And I will (...).various irrelevant rambles because one writing trick of Elijah is using multiplied confusions that make analysis well nigh impossible.

Elijah Hixson
.... some TR advocates appealing to known provenance ... that argument has always been strange to me ... the default Christianity before the reformation was Catholic or Orthodox,.... these are not churches that Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians would ever approve of in any other sense ... It’s difficult for me to take the ‘unprovenanced/heretical church use’ objection seriously when the provenanced manuscripts were used by churches that most reformed Christians would probably consider heretical. There’s no point in whitewashing that.

Who ever spoke of an “unprovenanced church”? Elijah is simply totally confused and/or ignorant here. And in the original paper, where he droned on and on about “RC provenance” and “non-Protestant provenance” —— of MANUSCRIPTS!

Hint ... manuscripts are not churches.

Rarely, if ever, have I seen such a confusion. Do we analyze and discuss this? Or simply smile and laugh? (With sympathy for anybody who can come up with such total nonsense.)

BATMAN said...

???Riddle me this???

"Question: Is it also at least in the realm of the possible that the person who added the CJ had BOTH an ancient ms. or mss. AND a printed edition of the Greek NT which included the CJ? If this were the case, then it would be impossible to ascertain the date for the source of the CJ addition on the basis of the appearance of the verse notation." --Dr. Riddle


"the Realm of the absurd" would be more germane.

Elijah Hixson said...

Steven Avery, I intended to wait until all three parts are posted to offer a response, but your comment deserves one now.

Did you *really* think I thought there was some such thing as an unprovenanced church? Is that reasonable at all? Or are you just looking for any reason to try to discredit me? Would not it have been better—if you *really* believed I am so confused as to think there is such a thing as an unprovenanced church within the whole context here of the discussion of provenance of manuscripts—simply to ask me to clarify that statement before accusing me of being "simply totally confused and/or ignorant here". If you have resorted to strifes of words, then you have discredited yourself. Is this behaviour what you would desire others do unto you if you ever make a statement with a phrasing that does not fit with their demands of how they think you should have phrased it?

Were you really trying to determine what I meant by that statement, or were you just looking for any reason to slander me and prove yourself right? Proverbs 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

Steven Avery said...

Elijah, you confusion between manuscripts and churches was shown very clearly, as in this example:

"It’s difficult for me to take the ‘unprovenanced/heretical church use’ objection seriously when the provenanced manuscripts were used by churches that most reformed Christians would probably consider heretical."
-
Rather than try to attack the critics, Elijah, you should consider changing the post, and any future publication. Afawk, there is NO modern unprovenanced church use objection. You surely have not shown any quotes in that direction.

There is one exceptional consideration that comes to mind, 1500-1900 years back, Egyptian gnostics and the papyri. Please see Kurt Aland speaking of gnostic influence in Egypt.

The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticisms (1987)
Kurt and Barbara Aland
https://books.google.com/books?id=RtcUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA59

====

"non-Protestant provenance" was another example. Amazing.

The whole argument in your post was false. And now you are upset with the messengers who have pointed out to you the difficulties.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY