Post by abreiholz on Jan 14, 2020 13:27:28 GMT -6
I finally decided to delve into the background of the note in the newer translations that says that this passage doesn’t appear in some of the oldest manuscripts. Google unearthed a long PDF that went through the arguments, pro and con, in great detail. The arguments were largely about which early manuscripts omitted the passage and about whether the text of the passage “sounds like” Mark and about which of the early church fathers quoted from the passage.
Two of the three oldest manuscripts omit the passage, but one of them actually left an unusual space that would have been sufficient to copy those verses in. Many less ancient manuscripts do include it, and Jerome included it in the Vulgate, so it has been included by the western church for centuries.
The sounds-like argument hinges on a number of words used in those verses not used in the rest of the book. Some clever soul pointed out that the previous dozen verses, which no one disputes, includes a similar number of words not used in the rest of the book.
The church fathers argument also produces ambiguous results with a lot of big names on the side of accepting the text.
I’m inclined to go with the conclusion of the essay I read, which is that the Holy Spirit would not have allowed generations of Christians to hear and read the text if it weren’t true. And, of course, most of the passage is supported by other Gospels. I would hate to give up verse 16. The only verse that has caused any mischief is verse 18, and that is more about readers getting carried away than anything else.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Two of the three oldest manuscripts omit the passage, but one of them actually left an unusual space that would have been sufficient to copy those verses in. Many less ancient manuscripts do include it, and Jerome included it in the Vulgate, so it has been included by the western church for centuries.
The sounds-like argument hinges on a number of words used in those verses not used in the rest of the book. Some clever soul pointed out that the previous dozen verses, which no one disputes, includes a similar number of words not used in the rest of the book.
The church fathers argument also produces ambiguous results with a lot of big names on the side of accepting the text.
I’m inclined to go with the conclusion of the essay I read, which is that the Holy Spirit would not have allowed generations of Christians to hear and read the text if it weren’t true. And, of course, most of the passage is supported by other Gospels. I would hate to give up verse 16. The only verse that has caused any mischief is verse 18, and that is more about readers getting carried away than anything else.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk