Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pharoah · 09-02-2005, 02:52 AM

Off the top of my head, I'm aware of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. Can any of the scholars around here add to this list?

Peter Kirby · 09-02-2005, 03:21 AM

I can add the doxology of Matthew 6:13,

"For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen."

This doesn't appear in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, or the Vulgate, or any church father before Chrysostom, although at least a half-dozen quote the Lord's Prayer. It first appears in a Greek NT in Washingtonensis (5th cent.), it is dominant in the Byzantine tradition, and it is in the KJV. Curiously enough, it is also in the Peshitta. It may be as old as the Didache, assuming the Didache's only copy didn't have the doxology appended; otherwise, it is known from the Apostolic Constitutions (early 3rd century).

It certainly is quite sonorous in English, and is sometimes rendered, "For the kingdom and the power and the glory are yours, now and forever. Amen." It is not traditional in the Roman Catholic Church (being absent in the Vulgate), but it is popular with Protestants (who might therefore attempt to defend it as Scripture), and it was introduced into the new Order of the Mass in 1969.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

krosero · 09-02-2005, 06:03 AM

1 Corinthians 14, 33b-36 is often considered an interpolation ("as in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches...") because it contradicts 11.5-13; it is in all the manuscripts, but some transpose it to the very end of the chapter.

Mark 1:1 appears in some manuscripts without the phrase, "Son of God."

Zeichman · 09-02-2005, 06:22 AM

In Luke, the "Father forgive them" is absent in many codices. I can't remember the verse off the top of my head.

Many people would say that 1 Thess. 2:14-16 (if I remember correctly) is an interpolation, but I personally disagree.

Johnny Skeptic · 09-02-2005, 06:25 AM

What New Testament passages are known to "not" be spurious regarding claims of the supernatural?

Julian · 09-02-2005, 09:54 AM

Spurious: The longer readings of the Western Non-interpolations, although the issue is controversial for reasons that seem biased to me.

Julian

andrewcriddle · 09-02-2005, 02:57 PM

One obvious example is the Trinitarian interpolation in the AV of 1 John 5:7-8 which has practically no support outside the Latin.

Andrew Criddle

09-02-2005, 02:52 AM	#1
pharoah Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,729	What NT passages are known to be spurious? Off the top of my head, I'm aware of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. Can any of the scholars around here add to this list?

09-02-2005, 06:25 AM	#5
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	What NT Testament passages are known to be suprious? What New Testament passages are known to "not" be spurious regarding claims of the supernatural?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-02-2005, 03:21 AM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I can add the doxology of Matthew 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen." This doesn't appear in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, or the Vulgate, or any church father before Chrysostom, although at least a half-dozen quote the Lord's Prayer. It first appears in a Greek NT in Washingtonensis (5th cent.), it is dominant in the Byzantine tradition, and it is in the KJV. Curiously enough, it is also in the Peshitta. It may be as old as the Didache, assuming the Didache's only copy didn't have the doxology appended; otherwise, it is known from the Apostolic Constitutions (early 3rd century). It certainly is quite sonorous in English, and is sometimes rendered, "For the kingdom and the power and the glory are yours, now and forever. Amen." It is not traditional in the Roman Catholic Church (being absent in the Vulgate), but it is popular with Protestants (who might therefore attempt to defend it as Scripture), and it was introduced into the new Order of the Mass in 1969. kind thoughts, Peter Kirby

09-02-2005, 06:03 AM	#3
krosero Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 294	1 Corinthians 14, 33b-36 is often considered an interpolation ("as in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches...") because it contradicts 11.5-13; it is in all the manuscripts, but some transpose it to the very end of the chapter. Mark 1:1 appears in some manuscripts without the phrase, "Son of God."

09-02-2005, 06:22 AM	#4
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	In Luke, the "Father forgive them" is absent in many codices. I can't remember the verse off the top of my head. Many people would say that 1 Thess. 2:14-16 (if I remember correctly) is an interpolation, but I personally disagree.

09-02-2005, 09:54 AM	#6
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Spurious: The longer readings of the Western Non-interpolations, although the issue is controversial for reasons that seem biased to me. Julian

09-02-2005, 02:57 PM	#7
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	One obvious example is the Trinitarian interpolation in the AV of 1 John 5:7-8 which has practically no support outside the Latin. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.