Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

10

This is a textual issue. That is, some manuscripts have the words and fasting while others don’t. The NA28 includes the text similar to the GNT you quote: . . . τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ (NA28) . . . this kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer (ESV) The apparatus notes the variant you ask about (the ...


8

A Plausible Majority Text Argument Susan's answer has correctly given the direct answer to your question when she states: This is a textual issue. That is, some manuscripts have the words and fasting while others don’t. That is the simple fact. Which manuscript tradition the particular translation in question is following determines the omission or ...


6

Another addendum to Susan's fine answer and ScottS's alternative account. All manuscripts are not the same, which is why the text critic's job is not simply that of counting noses. We have two possible scenarios an original shorter reading, which was subsequently expanded in transmission by the addition of "+ and fasting" after "prayer"; an original ...


6

The Gospel of Thomas Logion 114 is fairly controversial and (like many questions on BH.SE, it seems) has generated a healthy specialist bibliography.1 The translation alone is disputed (or at least discussed!); the one provided by OP is that of Thomas Lambdin (a very fine scholar). OP: What reasons are there to think that it is or is not an addition? ...


4

You're not alone in having noticed this repetition. Various hypotheses have been proposed for its existence, from those suggesting it is a thematic choice by the narrator to highlight Elijah's change in character, to a more critical position that there was an intentional addition (perhaps from an alternate tradition of the same story). While in the process ...


3

The problem occurs in v. 10 as well, where variant readings between "Amos" and "Amon" occur. That is, like "Asaph" and "Asa," the words are near homonyms with the respective psalmist Asaph and prophet Amos. In this regard, the late Bruce Metzger (1994) comments as follows on these verses: 1:7–8 Ἀσάφ, Ἀσάφ {B} It is clear that the name ...


2

After reading through the few books I have on the Apocryphal Gospels, I was unable to find any direct evidence for logion 114 being a later addition. I also am unaware of any Greek fragments of 114, so as far as I know, we only have this in the Coptic text. The closest Greek fragment is logion 77, so we cannot say for sure it is not in the Greek text. The ...


1

Analysis of Sinaiticus (yes, א is the symbol) has led to the conclusion that there are three general periods of additional editing. So the symbols represent information about these periods. Per the NA28 Introductory material on the critical apparatus: א by itself means the only reading present. א* Is a notation for the original reading when a later ...


1

"In any dispute between the Hebrew text and the Greek translation, I would favor the Hebrew, it being closer to the source." Not always. Just because the Masoretic text is the majority and is written in hebrew does not mean that it trumps other texts. The internal evidence supports the ending of Deut 32:8 to read as "sons of god." Ps 82 does not make sense ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible