2,258 reputation
1714
bio website
location
age 34
visits member for 2 years, 4 months
seen 6 hours ago

Feb
18
comment Contextually, which English translation/ Greek text seems more probable in Rev. 5:10?
At the very least I'd need to have some idea of the theory under which you're doubting the manuscript evidence. For example, I could understand the question "Under the theory that all manuscripts copied in Egypt were corrupted by gnostic scribes, would the remaining evidence be enough to conclude which reading is correct."
Feb
18
comment Contextually, which English translation/ Greek text seems more probable in Rev. 5:10?
I did not VTC, but I don't think I understand what the question is here. It seems to me that what you're asking is: "Ignoring the conclusive evidence that X is true and Y is false, would the remaining ambiguous evidence suggest that X is true or Y?" I'm honestly not sure what a question of that form means, and so I could certainly understand why someone would think it was not a real question.
Feb
18
comment Contextually, which English translation/ Greek text seems more probable in Rev. 5:10?
My point was just that neither Nestle-Aland nor the Textus Receptus is a translation.
Feb
18
suggested suggested edit on Contextually, which English translation/ Greek text seems more probable in Rev. 5:10?
Feb
18
comment Contextually, which English translation/ Greek text seems more probable in Rev. 5:10?
If I understand your question correctly, the title is misphrased. You mean which "reading" (that is, which version of the Greek text) and not which "translation" (that is, translation from the original Greek into some other language like English), right?
Feb
14
revised What portions of the New Testament are purported to have originally been written in Aramaic?
Added two more examples.
Feb
14
answered What portions of the New Testament are purported to have originally been written in Aramaic?
Feb
13
answered What arguments exist that would refute the theory concerning Aramaic primacy of the New Testament?
Feb
11
comment How is literary dependence or relationship established?
@swasheck: Added an attempt at an answer to that. Probably a philosopher of science (especially of social science) would be a better person to ask to get the distinctions right though.
Feb
11
revised How is literary dependence or relationship established?
added 3362 characters in body
Feb
11
comment How is literary dependence or relationship established?
@swasheck: Fair enough, then you'll have to wait for someone more expert than me. My knowledge is only at the beginner level.
Feb
11
answered How is literary dependence or relationship established?
Feb
7
comment How authentic is Codex Sinaiticus?
@FraserOrr: My understanding is that it's very rare for scholars who believe in theopneustos to think that this belief implies that the synoptics are independent. At any rate, I would be very interested to hear examples of the "serious scholars" you're mentioning over at the other question.
Feb
6
comment Literary independence of the synoptics
I'm having trouble figuring out how to clarify this rigorously. For example, I would count Matthew having memorized Mark prior to writing his gospel as literary dependence, even if he learned it orally from someone who had read it and memorized it.
Feb
6
comment Literary independence of the synoptics
I would be interested in examples of people who think that they share common oral tradition pre-dating the written gospels, but that none of the authors had read (or heard recited) any of the other gospels.
Feb
6
awarded  Student
Feb
6
comment How authentic is Codex Sinaiticus?
I've posted a question about this. hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4099/…
Feb
6
asked Literary independence of the synoptics
Feb
6
comment How authentic is Codex Sinaiticus?
In particular, I'd be very surprised to find conservative scholars who think Luke was written in isolation from the other gospels, in light of Luke 1:1-3.
Feb
6
comment How authentic is Codex Sinaiticus?
@FraserOrr: (You meant to say Matthew and Luke share a source called Q, not Matthew and Mark. As you say, plenty of scholars don't think Q existed. I did not mean to imply that disagreeing with Q was a fringe viewpoint, only that saying the synoptics were "written in isolation" is very rare among scholars (evangelical or not).)