Talk:Ivan Panin

Explain deletion
I deleted "However, Panin used only one version of the New Testament, the Westcott and Hort Greek edition." for two reasons: McKay (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is a reply to criticism but this has to come from a reliable source, not an editor's opinion.
 * 2) It is false.  Compare Mark 16:9-20 for example.  Panin removed a letter in 16:10, divided the first word of 16:11 into two, etc.
 * 3) Westcott and Hort don't give a single version but indicate very many variants (there is a large section on them).  Panin selected as he wished.


 * It is correct. What is your problem Sir? You gave as an example from Mark 16:9-20, but this text Panin rewrote from Westcott and Hort word, by word. Westcott and Hort gave critical apparatus with some variants, but not so much as you think, f.e. on the page 159 only two textual variants. "Panin removed a letter in 16:10" - Panin did not removed a letter in 16:10. "divided the first word of 16:11" (κακεινοι - κα' κεινοι). Compare please (without accents and breathings):
 * * εκεινη πορευθεισα απηγγειλεν τοις μετ αυτου γενομενοις πενθυοσι και κλαιουσιν κακεινοι ακουσαντες οτι ζη και εθεαθη υπ αυτης ηπιστησαν (from 2007).
 * Text of Panin is very close to Westcott and Hort (closer than to NA27). The same omissions - with some exceptions like in Matt. 12:47 - Mark 9:44.46. The same order of NT books. Text of Panin is very different from Textus Receptus. Thousands of differences (8000 or 9000 differences). In Mark 16:9-20 Textus Receptus has 7 words less than text of Panin.
 * Sometimes Panin used different variants than Westcott and Hort, but these variants we can always find in critical apparatus of Westcott and Hort. It means he used only text of Westcott and Hort.

Are you supporter of corrupt Textus Receptus? That's your problem. Do you realize how many errors in Textus Receptus? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't support any text and I'm not here to discuss textual criticism. I'm only concerned with the Wikipedia article on Ivan Panin. McKay (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) As the 3rd last word of 16:10, WH have πενθοῦσιν and Panin has πενθοῦσι.  They are different, you can see for yourself.  But maybe it is a typo; I will check Panin's pamphlet on Monday.
 * 2) In several places Panin divides a word into two.  At the start of 16:11, WH have κακεινοι and Panin has κα' 'κεινοι.  I can see at least two other similar cases in this passage.  This word division probably has no significance whatever to the textual meaning, but to Panin's numerics it is very significant indeed.  Panin's list of "features" begins with the number of words being 175 = 25*7.  But the number of words in WH is not a multiple of 7.  Panin created the multiple of 7 by dividing some words into two.  So it is not correct to say or imply that Panin found his patterns in the text of WH.
 * 3) In general, being "very close" to WH is not good enough.  For Panin's numerics, the exact text including word division and precise spelling is significant.
 * 4) If WH have 10 variants in a passage, that gives Panin 210=1024 texts to consider.  For 20 variants, 1048576 texts.  So Panin had plenty of opportunities to manufacture "features" by selecting variants.  He didn't even deny it (but he described it as identifying the correct variant, by circular reasoning).
 * 5) It is fine to list differences between Panin's text and other texts, but you should give a citation for the list.  Otherwise what you are doing is original research and that is not allowed in Wikipedia.


 * What kind of edition do you use (I use reprint from 1885). In my edition of WH text there is πενθοῦσι not πενθοῦσιν (in fact it is the same word, abbreviated because of hiatus). What kind of edition do you use, because you do not cite correctly. Textus Receptus used πενθοῦσιν. κακεινοι - it is not one word, but two words connected because of hiatus (και + εκεινοι -> κακεινοι). Do not use this kind of arguments. Dividing of κακεινοι is not error. Compare this text with other editions (f.e. with Textus Receptus).
 * "It is fine to list differences between Panin's text and other texts, but..." - scholars do not interest with the text of Panin. It has not textual value. Text of Panin is not domain of Textual Criticism. In that case you will never find good sources. Supporters of KJV also do not interest with text of Panin, because text of Panin is against Textus Receptus (hundreds of omissions from their point of view - rather non-interpolations).
 * Text of NT has about 400 000 variants, but WH gave only about 5 000 variants. Critical apparatus it is also part of WH edition.
 * Panin made some changes, f.e. Δαυειδ changed into Δαυιδ. These changes were intentional. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"(but he described it as identifying the correct variant, by circular reasoning)." It's not circular reasoning. It only seems that way if you think that all his goal was to prove the inspiration of Scriptures. It was so in the beginning, in the 1899 letter to the New York Sun, but not always. When he put together his Greek New Testament, for example, he obviously was doing something else. Critics of his proof of Scripture's inspiration should concentrate in his early works.Maque (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Westcott and Hort
I changed not neutral sentence:
 * "However, Panin used only one version of the New Testament, the Westcott and Hort Greek edition." - perhaps "version" should be changed into "edition". It can be enough.

into more neutral:
 * "Panin used the edition of Westcott and Hort of the the New Testament, as the basis for his work, but very often made use of the many alternative readings that those authors suggested."

More neutral, though it is not true that WH gave "many alternative readings" and Panin very often used them. (The article was written by someone who do not like WH text.) Alternative readings in WH edition are not numerous. Panin rewrote Mark 16:9-20 without changes (divisions of κακεινοι has only grammar meaning - original text was written without separations between words). For now I can not find better internet source, but as I said good sources are not available in that case. According to some internet sites even believe that Panin support KJV. It is nonsence. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * this page was written by another supporter of TR. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

need an example
The article would be better with an example of Panin's patterns. But it should be brief, just a few lines, or the article will get out of control. McKay (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivan Panin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://store.khouse.org/store/catalog/BK119.html?mv_pc=KHAR-102
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815114753/http://members.cox.net/8thday/panin.html to http://members.cox.net/8thday/panin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is basically hagiography
I suggest that this article should be overhauled, because it fails to mention that Ivan Panin's hypotheses have failed to make any impression on scholarship of the Bible. It gives a misleading idea of Panin's importance and how his speculations have been dismissed. The few vague mentions of criticism do not come anywhere near to being neutral on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelclaws (talk • contribs) 11:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I was about to say the same thing. Wikipedia articles normally summarize and link to dissenting opinions or critical reviews. This is just a fan piece. The really crucial point is that Panin is not a part of mainstream biblical scholarship -- the major reference works do not mention him. - Michael Covington, University of Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.15.192 (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT, I tried to fix it. More sources would help this stuff. jps (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)