Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with textual-criticism
Search options not deleted
user 2315
The art/science of textual criticism attempts to reconstruct the oldest or original wording of a given text.
1
vote
Accepted
How should the ending of 2 Peter 2:11 read?
As best I can tell, there is no major difference in the wording seen in the oldest extant manuscripts dated closest to any original text of 2 Peter. Specifically:
P72 (ca. 275-325 CE) shows ΠΑΡΑΚΥΡΙ …
- 1,031
4
votes
Understanding Jesus' apparent lie in John 7:8
I see where codices P66 P75 (both c. 175-225 CE) and 03 (c. 325-375 CE) contain ΟΥΠΟ (ουπω, not yet) at John 7:8, while the later codex 01 (c. 375-425 CE) has ΟΥΚ (ουκ, not) at that place.
I also see …
- 1,031
0
votes
Should John 1:18 read "the only begotten God"?
The OP asked:
Was the original language showing "son" or "god"?
The original language of John 1:18 is unknown. Even some of the church fathers disagreed as to its likely wording. For example:
…
- 1,031
13
votes
Accepted
Was Jesus angry and if so why in Mark 1:41?
As Wikis noted, there are many Bible versions which render the Greek aor. pass. part. masc. sing. nom. verb CΠΛΑΓΧΝΙCΘΕΙC (σπλαγχνισθεις) as "moved with compassion, " or "moved with pity".
The form o …
- 1,031
1
vote
Evidence for/against Romans chapter 16 being a later addition to the text?
The oldest extant biblical source document containing ROM 16 (𝔓⁴⁶, leaf 12v, c. 175-224 CE) shows that verses 24, 25, 26, and 27 are absent and, ergo, apocryphal; i.e., of questionable authenticity.
- 1,031