Toto

Markan priority has been moved to a separate thread.

Sheshonq

The # of variants per page is a meaningless statistic. I don't know if this is one of Turkel's creations, or from his source.

Why is it meaningless? Because it depends upon the size of the page, and we aren't told that data point. A large bible will have fewer pages; a pocket gideon bible will have many many pages.

A more useful metric would have been something like: # of variant (or disputed) words per 100 words of text.

yalla

A quick look [cos thats probably an appropriate measure of the value of the stats] gives 2 Corinthians the 'most pure' value of 'variant free' at about 78%.
Thats 22% not 'variant free' or, assuming there is some relationship between 'variant free' and 'textual purity', about 22% not "textually pure'.
Which is a long long way from 99.5%!

Oh and note this bit, according to the quote, the stats "exclude orthographic errors".

Amaleq13

The Johnny/arnoldo tangential argument has been split to its own thread.

gregor

I'd be interested in a scholarly argument about Revelations being written earlier than Domitian - let alone majority consensus of 60 CE.

I'm a bit confused how a 3rd Century document with a "beast number" (616) previously aware of advances the issue to a "majority" status. I wonder if numerology is as strong as other textural and historical evidence to support a dating. Feel free to read Mack's discussion of this topic and indicate where his is now well behind the majority.

gregor

bump for WWJD - Any defense of your argument?

remez

bump post 101, sorry for the delay.
I cautiously state that we share some agreement here.
You are completely and misleadingly understating the role of Textual Criticism here.
That was not my claim. To explain……I did not mean that attempts were not made to change doctrine. I meant that we have retained the preexistent doctrine despite those poor attempts. Example………………
1-------> Most importantly …..The doctrine of Jesus being the Son of God has not changed, despite the efforts to enhance or nullify.
2--------> this variant you are referring to did not support adoptionism.

Passages dealing with doctrine obviously contained variants. However, these variants have not changed the preexistent doctrine. The doctrinal issue here remains the same, Jesus is the Son of God

As I pointed out in the last post. Today’s NIV matches the Textual Criticism of the earlier MSS and doctrines today match the preexisting doctrines. So when I stated that

I did not mean that attempts were not made to alter scripture to alter doctrine, I meant that today’s doctrine matches the preexisting doctrines as they were intended.

Hopefully I cleared that up.

Iasion

Hiya,

Let's focus on one important issue of doctrine - the prayer given directly by Jesus to Christians (allegedly.)

Which version of the Lord's Prayer did Jesus intend Christians to pray :

Father,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Give us day by day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us.
And bring us not into temptation.

Or

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Or -

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen

Or

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever.


Iasion

remez

That is precisely what I did. Please examine.

Again you invited me to address your list.
So I began with this item.
Why are you jumping to another before this one is properly explored?
At this point I should like to explore them all.
So.....
What are your thoughts on this one first?

Net2004

i think there is a mathematical problem with the op. my calculations show that 99.5% deflates num of lines to 8000. 40/0.005=8000. r pears' quote of op changes num 40 to 400 dubious lines.this change will inflate number of lines in nt to 80000.400/0.005=80000