Search results

And in further checking, I'm not at all inclined to go with the thought that it was originally from Luke but got put in John because Luke ran out of space, because if that were the case, I think it would have appeared somewhere before the canon was established, yet it only appears after canon...

And, if it is true that the NT canon was established in the third century, and the earliest mss we have including the story is in the 4th century, I have serious doubts as to whether it should be in Johns gospel.

Ah, so the woman caught does also not appear in Sin or Vat, which both predate the codex it is first found in (Bezae). So this is another case of having two older witnesses against a newer witness. Couldn't find one of those nifty charts though.

Well of course I want someone else to do all of the work for me regarding these other disputed passages, but I'll go see if I can find a list like the one oldhermit gave and post it here for the woman caught in adultery passage. One that shows which mss it's in and which it isn't. Might take me...

You gave me humongous goosebumps there ralph!

It will be interesting to see if Sin and Vat agree in this passage as well...and if the later one disagrees again...

I didn't know this was a disputed passage! Maybe oldhermit will give us another of those stupendously awesome lists that show which mss it's in and which it's not, as he did for us with the mark passage!

Well I'm not a scholar of NT greek. :) But if given the choice of going with two older mss that are in agreement or one mss newer by a century that is not in agreement, I am practical and would go with the older two witnesses that are in agreement than with the newer witness that is not in...

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me that if it was copied a century later (Alex mss) that is sufficient time (100 years) that it is possible that what it was copied FROM might have been damaged or fragmentary. That might account for why the other portion mentioned was missing, even though it is...

And of the Vat, Sin, and Alex, the two from a century earlier than the Alex do not contain the disputed portion, so the two oldest manuscripts are in agreement and it is the one of a century later that includes it. I'm not a scholar and am a a simple woman, but that gives me sufficient evidence...

Well already the Washington Codex seems not the best to me. It contains the disputed section and does not contain an undisputed section?

I don't know...I'd rather go with manuscripts of the actual books rather than commentaries/lectionaries written by men...but I may be missing your point.

Okay...but the man wants to discuss what he wants to discuss. Why is it a problem for you to just let him have his discussion? Is he harming you in any way? If you wanted to discuss hockey, I'd let you have your discussion in peace but I wouldn't be able to add to it because I don't know a...

I am following...but, are we talking about a case where the earliest manuscript we have contains only a fragment/fragments of Mark? Does that earliest manuscript appear to have a torn last page of Mark?

I didn't say you attacked him. I just wondered why you would tell us we were wasting our time in desiring to find out what passages weren't in the earliest manuscripts. I think it's a fruitful discussion. But if I didn't, I wouldn't tell people they were wasting time. I would just not enter the...

No need to apologize. :) I for one am very interested to learn which verses or passages are not found in the earliest manuscripts in our possession. :)

I didn't find anything offensive...you seemed to be chiding him for "wasting time", and seemed to be the one taking some sort of offense at what he chose to discuss...

I think you are not understanding the mans intent with the thread. He wasn't seeming to me to be desiring a conversation on interpretations but rather on passages or verses that are not found in the earliest manuscripts we have...

This man opened up a discussion on what he wished to discuss. Why would you put him down like this when you could just bypass the discussion if you find it unhelpful or uninteresting?

And do the lectionaries pre-date the actual manuscripts that are earliest?