Apikorus

From whichversion:

This is a Christian group and JWs, RCs, Agnostics, Atheists etc. etc. will not be allowed to participate in discussions.

This board is apparently an amen choir for Protestant fundamentalists.

RUmike

Thanks for the link praxeus, I will read up on it when I have a chance.

Steven Avery

Actually, it is a hotbed of fervent debate within the world of NT-as-scripture believers about the identity of the New Testament text. Analyzing and discussing the textual issues and evidences, the paradigms, the scholarly articles, the translation principles. Tis not an apologetics board for skeptics.

Oh, I actually made that pretty clear earlier

Again, if someone from a more skeptic background wants to come there to simply, say, discuss the scholarship on the Johannine Comma and 1 Timothy 3:16 or the Pericope Adultera or this or that, they could simply place an intro post asking if that is ok. If the goal really is to learn more about the text, or to discuss various scholarly references, it is likely to be acceptable, or they might recommend an alternative venue. You can even mention that "Prax" or "Schmuel" mentioned the forum here.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Apikorus

Oh, undoubtedly so. I've always wondered exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

RUmike

Hey Prax. I was just reading over the article, and it offers point-by-point rebuttal to Metzger's passage, which is exactly what I was interested in. It would seem that the author is right in saying that the JC should not be dismissed outright and the alternative (its inclusion in the text) seems, at the least, plausible. I wonder how "mainstream" text critics who oppose the JC would respond to some of the points addressed in the article, particularly the allusion by Gregory of Nazanzius c. 4th century.

Chris Weimer

You're right. It's an apologetics board for Christians. :down:

Steven Avery

Thanks for reading. And that is exactly the question unresponded to. Lots of hand-waving, obfuscation or simply repeating the Metzgerian-type position from other sources, or in some textcrit circles, assuming its all obvious and kaboshing the topic. (Some will go to the similar Raymond Brown analysis).

There really are about five critical early references (and a bunch of secondary) that one would know nothing about just reading Metzger, Ehrman, etal.

Glad the article was helpful, even I was a bit surprised that there was a point-to-point on Metzger available.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Chris Weimer

prax - that article you linked was chock full of crap. He doesn't even bother citing half of his first paragraph, and none of his conclusions can be reasonably inferred, nor does he even bother to distinguish between some form of allusion and some form of allusion to I John (cf. his point with St. Cyprian). Can you please give us something that isn't merely an apologetic?

Amaleq13

I wasn't looking for information on Erasmus but on the correction attributed to De Jonge.

Oh, I certainly agree that Metzger was incorrect to characterize Erasmus' statement as a "promise" but there appears to be no practical difference with regard to the outcome. Erasmus says he would have included the passage if there had been a single manuscript with it. When he did find such a single manuscript, he did add the passage to subsequent translations. According to De Jonge, this was despite the fact that Erasmus questioned its authenticity.

That Metzger was incorrect in speculating about why Erasmus felt that a single manuscript was sufficient does not change the apparent fact that he did nor does it have any rational bearing on whether the passage is, in fact, genuine.

Amaleq13

Why is eisi translated as "are" in 5:7 but "agree" in 5:8?