Quote:
"Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers
Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the
New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known
to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and
discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text
in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus
dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer
(Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-
22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the
angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in
adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness (I Tim. 3:16)."
<Hills, pp. 198-199.>
|
Apparently, Erasmus and the Reformation era translators did not share the view that variant readings give us confidence in the organic inspiration of the scriptures.
Mr. Rafalsky, to be fair, are you aware of any scholarly works that refute the assertions of Cloud, Letis, Hills, Burgon etc? Or are they simply ignored? And if so, what reason do modern text critics give for their silence?