From: Jim West (jwest@highland.net)
Date: Thu Feb 12 1998 - 18:34:51 EST
At 09:32 AM 2/13/98 +1030, you wrote:
>
> [Andrew]
> Don't you mean "the pericope which many believe (including E
>Hobbs) to be non-original". Considering we don't have the originals and
>only a handful of manuscripts and fragments from the early centuries it
>does seem a little premature to pronounce the pericope as definitely
>"non-original".
>
> cheers,
> Andrew
In fact, the decision to describe the pericope as secondary is based on
quite sound scientific methods known as textual criticism. While text
critics certainly do not agree on everything, in this case I can fearlessly
say that every experienced text critic who handles NT mss would say that
this passage is an addition to the gospel. Again, perhaps it would be
useful to consult Metzger's book or that by Kurt Aland- or even the new book
by DC Parker on the text of the Gospels.
Best,
Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:03 EDT