Dear Rolf, A fourth reason is that you included the claim in your post - and I considered the statement rather mischievous, especially your use of "evidence", without anything to back it up. So I wanted to check whether you actually did have some hard data from some NT MS that I wasn't aware of - and if not, I didn't want the claim to slip through uncritiqued.
And you continue to use terms like "evidence", "sound philological methods" and "corrupt text" where there is no evidence (as normally understood), only the same astounding reasoning I have heard before from Jehovah's Witnesses - astounding because of the extreme historical improbability of such a whole-sale change with no trace left in even early MSS.
The evidence: textual variety in the LXX (and, as per Martin's reply, I think your analysis of the LXX is also simplistic); textual uniformity in the NT. And none of the standard criteria of textual criticism would lead us to emend the uniform witness of the thousands of NT MSS. I have no complaint if you keep using your argument - but please present it as "despite the fact that we have no direct evidence in the NT MSS...". Otherwise, your language of "evidence" is misleading.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.