Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mark 10:24 ending change, why? | Mark 10:24 | Beja | 239278 | ||
Justme, There is no way to know for certain. Textual Criticism almost never gives us that luxury. In "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" 2nd ed. by Bruce Metzger it states, "The rigor of Jesus' saying was softened by the insertion of one or another qualification that limited its generality and brought it into closer connection with thte context." Then he goes on to list the textual varients. Bruce Metzger's book explains the text criticism decisions made by the UBS 4 Greek New Testament. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
2 | Mark 10:24 ending change, why? | Mark 10:24 | justme | 239279 | ||
Beja: Thank you much. But I wonder how far back those words were included. If added by a scribble that's understandable. But removed by Textual Criticism alone makes no reason for me. I want to go deeper as to when and why. Any suggestions? Thnaks for your help. justmei |
||||||
3 | Mark 10:24 ending change, why? | Mark 10:24 | Beja | 239282 | ||
Justme, Unfortunately I am not well trained in text criticism. However, from what I can tell the earliest appearance of that phrase is from the fifth century. However, I don't want to skew the data, because from what I can tell the earliest copies of Mark that I'm seeing in this list are from the 4th century. So the fourth century texts omit the phrase then it shows up in the fifth century. Now text criticism is far more complex than this. You have to consider what are called "text families" as well as internal considerations before making any well informed decision. Simply based on what Metzger stated in his book he seems to think that with the earlier texts attesting to the phrase not being there, they then felt comfortable suggesting that it is far easier to understand why the phrase would be added for the sake of clarity by later scribes, while it makes no sense for the phrase to be omitted by a scribe. They followed the principle of which reading best explains the rise of the other readings. If you want to do research into the text traditions. It looks like the big hitter, Sinaiticus, along with Vaticanus and some other less ancient texts as well all do NOT have the phrase. The earliest that contain the phrase are Alexandrinus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Ephraemi Rescriptus and then some less ancient texts. That is about as far as my expertise goes, I can not really tell you how much weight to give to certain texts. I know the two which reject the addition are significant texts but I can't help much further. Best of luck on it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
4 | Mark 10:24 ending change, why? | Mark 10:24 | justme | 239284 | ||
Beja: WOW!!!! thanks so very much. I was watching Adriam Rodgers this Am and that is how I got interested. Mu Bible NASB did not have what he said. This tweeked my wondering. Thanks again. justme |
||||||
Up | Down | |||
Questions and/or Subjects for Mark 10:24 | Author | ||
|
justme | ||
|
Beja | ||
|
justme | ||
|
Beja | ||
|
justme |