Originally posted by JamesSnappJr
View Post
Originally posted by JamesSnappJr
View Post
Originally posted by JamesSnappJr
View Post
Originally posted by JamesSnappJr
View Post
Originally posted by JamesSnappJr
View Post
Originally posted by JamesSnappJr
View Post
Agreed, this has not been proven.
Originally posted by JamesSnappJr
View Post
Originally posted by JamesSnappJr
View Post
I did not say that you impugned his motives. I do not think there is any reason whatsoever to wonder about his motives. He was a very fine Christian gentleman, whom I was privileged to meet.
A fuller critical apparatus has been in preparation for quite some time now and it is obviously an enormous task. There has already been an attempt to identify correctors where significant, but this is less obvious than explicit corrections. Let's wait and see how well the critical apparatus is revised and how much room is alloted for these types of issues, which are ultimately judgment calls subject to other specific considerations. Ultimately, some issues will only be able to be considered in the scholarly literature.
I think that's a fair and concise statement, but keep in mind that a brief textual commentary on the entire New Testament may not be able to address every interesting point for every discussion of variants. I think it is worth including, but reasonable authors can have different opinions how important this is regarding fourth century evidence, when the longer ending is already attested to be widely known at a much earlier date.
Same answer as above.
Keep in mind that oftentimes commentaries barely have room even to cite witnesses, let alone characterize each one in sufficient detail. I generally expect this from dedicated monographs and journal articles.
Originally posted by JamesSnappJr
View Post
Comment