Acts 8:37 claimed support

Theo1689 said:
No, I'm not ignoring that at all.
When it's absent earlier manuscripts, and inserted only in later manuscripts, that is evidence that it is not original.

Do you believe the Comma to be original, since it is "included in some manuscripts", namely those from the 16th century?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Along with the ending of Mark.
 
cjab said:
As Hort, in "Two dissertations" says, "The Greek original being
lost, the text may be due either to Irenseus or to his translator,
who frequently transcribes an Old Latin version of the New
Testament when he comes to a quotation, even in cases where
the extant Greek shews that Irenseus had other readings."
Click to expand...
Lets see you affirmed the Greek text was lost

We have an early source which purports to have known that Greek source by quoting it

seems pretty reasonable he was quoting the lost text
 
fltom said:
Lets see you affirmed the Greek text was lost

We have an early source which purports to have known that Greek source by quoting it

seems pretty reasonable he was quoting the lost text
Click to expand...

Yet we're supposed to believe you're not dogmatic on the issue?
 
fltom said:
Lets see you affirmed the Greek text was lost

We have an early source which purports to have known that Greek source by quoting it

seems pretty reasonable he was quoting the lost text
Click to expand...
Sure Hippolytus, and Epiphanius quote him (mainly Chapter 1). Your Irenaeus Acts quote is Book III, Ch. 12(8).
 
Reformedguy said:
You said "could have been" not I. The bulb is getting dimmer as we speak.
Click to expand...
Not in regard to the quotes but in reference to how the text could have been lost from earlier manuscripts because they were in fact quoted at an early date
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top