We are often told that there are no variants in the New Testament that affect core Christian beliefs, yet for some odd reason, we keep coming across scholastic literature by conservative textual critics who continue to prove the opposite, time and time again. Last year I posted a video in response to David Wood’s use of Luke 23:34a that caused a dispute between David/ Sam and other Christian apologists. Once again, scholarship has determined Luke 23:34a to be of significant interest. The verse in question reads as:
“Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Over on the Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog we read:
“The final variant of this series is, in my view, even more important and one with considerable theological ramifications. Come to think of it, I am not sure if there are many variants that have a bigger impact on New Testament Christology than Luke 23:34a.”
NA26-28 has these words in white square brackets, claiming that these words are certainly not part of the original text of the gospel but have been inserted at an early stage.
Read the full article here.
Categories: Biblical scholarship, Christianity, Islam
Blogging Theology 
Ijaz,
Of course this passage along with others like the last 12 verses of Mark and the PA have considerable theological considerations – but this statement you quoted above from the CT Texts – is an assertion that needs to be proven
[NA26-28 has these words in white square brackets, claiming that these words are certainly not part of the original text of the gospel but have been inserted at an early stage]
Ijaz, do you understand the evolutionary worldview that the German rationalism of the 19th century came out of?
If your going to maintain the hypothesis that Luke 23:34 a is not original and an interpolation of the text, then please document the historical means it was inserted into the official versions of the Greek, Latin and Aramaic Ecclesiastical texts that were publically read before the congregations.
Any one text can be corrupted – but how do you corrupt the churches text that is down the street, and then how do you get it into thousands of other Greek, Latin and Aramaic church texts throughout the ancient world – Now if you were able to document an Ecumenical council where this was done (which you can’t) – these churches like Antioch where Chrysostom actually preached on this passage goes all the way back to Peter, and Ireneus who witnesses to this passage was part of the official churches of St John, and he was appointed bishop in Lyons –
Ijaz, can you point me a letter from Apostolic Bishop, or an Ecumenical council that said this passage was interpolated – or who was arguing for this passage to get into the biblical text. Jerome changed one word in the book of Jonah and the bishop noticed the changed and the congregation rioted and denounced the translation as false – yet the north African churches or Augustine did not complain about his version of Luke which includes Luke 23:34.
I find it strange Ijaz that you are quick to accept the German scholarship of the 19th century when it comes to the New Testament, but I’m sure you don’t accept their views when it comes to the Koran.
God Bless
Jonathan S
LikeLike
Hi Jonathan Sheffield,
Thanks for your comment, just a few words:
[[Now if you were able to document an Ecumenical council where this was done (which you can’t)]]
I’ve never actually claimed that to begin with. Though should you believe I did, please refer the source where I did so. As for this statement:
[[these churches like Antioch where Chrysostom actually preached on this passage goes all the way back to Peter, and Ireneus who witnesses to this passage was part of the official churches of St John, and he was appointed bishop in Lyons]]
You have a lot of guesswork here, you jump from a man in the mid to late 4th to 5th centuries CE, and then somehow jump to 275+ years earlier based on the, assumption, “this passage goes all the way back to Peter”, where’s the extant proof of that?
Lastly, try to have one conversation at a time, there is no need for a tu quoque.
Regards,
Br. Ijaz.
LikeLike
Thank you for your reply Ijaz
Let me first respond to your comments:
When you stated [I’ve never actually claimed that to begin with (regarding an ecumenical council). Though should you believe I did, please refer the source where I did so. As for this statement:]
My intention wasn’t to imply you stated that – but you did cite this statement below from ETC blog and not provide any historical support for such an assertion: [NA26-28 has these words in white square brackets, claiming that these words are certainly not part of the original text of the gospel but have been inserted at an early stage]
An example of historical support for that assertion that claims Luke 23:34a was interpolated would be an Ecumenical Greek council where they discussed adding this passage to the text or a letter from a bishop of any of these Apostolic Churches like that challenged this reading as an interpolation.
So Ijaz, you have to document that such an event ever happened – otherwise the assertion is just make believe – so if you support such a hypothesis from the German rationalism of the 19th century, you need to show historical documentation to support the statement that the passage isn’t original. An Ecumenical Council, a Synod, or letters from Bishops in Apostolic Churches would substantiate that assertion. But we well know no such document exists.
I also noticed that you also didn’t provide empirical support to show how they could have interpolated this passage into the Greek, Latin and Aramaic Church texts without anyone every noticing – Ireneus & Tertullian recognized the changes Marcion in the Second Century was making to a biblical text of Luke/ten letters of Paul; Gaius from Rome named and noticed 4 people altering biblical texts, and the churches of North Africa noticed the change in Jerome’s translation in Jonah which promoted Augustine’s letter to Jerome. In each of these historical situations there was a response to those textual changes – yet there is no word coming out of any of the historical churches about the verse Luke 23:34 where Jesus is forgiving the Jews when history is a witness of the Anti Semitism of the Period.
Eusebius letter documents his conversation with someone who speaks about texts without the last 12 verses of Mark – and Jerome was well of aware of Eusebius comment, as well as Victor of Antioch. Augustine spoke about people removing the PA from some biblical texts as well as Nikon. What you seem unaware of Ijaz, is the fathers of the churches were well aware of alterations to the biblical texts and variants throughout church history. The Versions, Lectionaries and bishops of the Apostolic Churches support this reading in Luke 23:34a.
The text of Sinaticus proves that the first corrector took it out of a biblical text – and I documented above that in the second and third centuries that there were groups such as Marcion, his followers redacting scriptures from Luke; and the ones Gauis names that were removing scriptures from biblical texts – so to find texts like P75 and P66 is to be expected – especially if we can’t ascertain who authored/created these documents or where they came from.
Moving onto your next comment:
[You have a lot of guesswork here, you jump from a man in the mid to late 4th to 5th centuries CE, and then somehow jump to 275+ years earlier based on the, assumption, “this passage goes all the way back to Peter”, where’s the extant proof of that?]
Ijaz – Bukhari used Ayaid Chains aka chains of reports as one of the tools of authenticating his prophets hadeeths – yet you reject the legal of chain custody that is established by our succession of bishops that were appointed as guardians of the text of scriptures in the official historical churches of the Apostles? We are talking about thousands of independent witnesses coming up with the same reading in churches that trace back to the apostles through their succession of bishops.
This is what Ireneus appeals too against the textual claims of the gnostics/marcion to rule out their texts when he says in his third book against the heresies “When we appeal again to that tradition which has come down from the apostles and is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches”…and shortly after when Ireneus states “The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth. We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time…and further on Ireneus establish this for the churches of Asia Minor where he was from when he says “Simillarly Polycarp, who not only was taught by apostles and associated with many who had seen Christ, but was installed by apostles for Asia, as bishop in the church of Smyra…He always taught what he learned from the apostles, which the churches continues to hand on…the Churches is Asia all bear witness to this, as do those who have succeeded Polycarp.
This passage is witnessed in the historical churches of the Apostles, that can legally trace back to the apostles through their succession of bishops in the churches. You do know that the official church of Antioch still exists, as well as the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Rome who have lists that trace back to the Apostles – all the apostolic churches had a system like this as confirmed by Eusibius in his church histories and Tertullian in his prescription against heresies and Ireneus.
this is the same argument that Ireneus and Tertullian used to rule out Marcion’s shorter readings in Luke/Ten letters of Paul – because the official churches of the apostles witness to the official writings of the Apostles – whereas the gnostic could not show that their writings could track back to the apostles – The criteria was the text has to be both Apostolic & Commonly received –
I’ll be waiting for your reply
God Bless
Jonathan S
LikeLike
Hi Jonathan,
In all you’ve written, it’s summed up basically in this claim:
[[ We are talking about thousands of independent witnesses coming up with the same reading in churches that trace back to the apostles through their succession of bishops.]]
Using extant evidences, in any of the Churches you mentioned, can you provide person by person complete successional attestation and affirmation of that verse as part of Scripture. I’m not speaking merely of being used in a sermon but being identified as Scripture. I read your comment but I did not see this being provided, maybe I missed it?
You seem to rely on 4th century authorship recollections of history to establish your claims, but this is uncertain at best, do see:
https://callingchristians.com/2017/01/19/mythmaking-of-early-christian-history-by-eusebius/
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ijaz,
I see you keep ignoring my question I posted to you above and your trying to divert from answering it – if Luke 23:34a was interpolated into the textual traditions of the Greek, Latin and Aramaic Apostolic Textual Traditions, then explain how it was empirically done with actual documentation to support it.
You are making the accusation that the churches added it – then document who created the passage, when they did it and how they were able to get into the majority of independent Greek, Latin and Aramaic Church texts without anyone ever noticing.
Ijaz, where is the presumption of innocence for the Apostolic Churches
in any normal court of law if I accused you of a crime, the prosecution must prove that you did it. Since you are accusing the churches of adding it, you must historically prove that hypothesis.
I have clearly shown that the reading is found in the historical versions of the Apostolic Churches and quoted by the historical fathers of the churches as early as the second century by Ireneus who was a bishop and from the official churches of John in Smyrna and was included in Tations Diatessaron. thats two different areas of the world as early as the 2nd century –
Actually Ijaz my documentation goes all the way back to the second century; Yet these claims and theories you rely on come out of the german rationalism of the 19th century.
Who made those claims about Luke 23:34a in the second, third or fourth century? and How did it get into the Majority of Greek, Latin and Aramiac Church texts.
God Bless
Jonathan S
LikeLike
Hi Jonathan,
So let’s just be clear here, you’re asking me for evidence that it was interpolated, while claiming to have evidence that it wasn’t, but you’re unable to supply that evidence for some reason? You claimed to have an unbroken chain from of extant witnesses from multiple Churches, all I did was ask you to qualify that.
This isn’t a court of law, I’m not lawyer, but I am pretty sure if you do follow up on this there’s something called disclosure and you seem to be ignoring it. I’m not the one claiming there’s evidence from multiple Churches, you are. So when you can provide it with your many many witnesses, do let me know.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ijaz,
The point you seem fain to answer is if the passage isn’t original (meaning it wasn’t there in the first place) then how did it get in the historical versions of the Apostolic Churches text in Greek, Latin and Aramaic – The Latin Vulgate was publically read in the historical western Churches – those texts witness to this reading – The Aramaic Peshitta witnesses to this reading in the text used by those historic apostolic churches – and the overwhelming majority of Greek Manuscripts supports this reading.
Are you asserting that these versions that have come through these churches such as the Peshitta, Latin Vulgate and the Greek Texts are not witnesses to the text and readings in those churches?
It boils down to this, I have established that the reading was in Ireneus Text as early as 180 A.D by an official Bishop appointed to a church who quotes it as Jesus saying it from the cross. If the reading isn’t original, how did it get into his text. How did it get into the Tations Diatessaron also in the second century. How did it get into Jerome’s Vulgate – we know Jeromes methodology that he went to early greek texts – he was trained by Gregory Nazian – and Augustine didn’t find anything to object too after he compared his gospel translations to the texts he had access too. How did it get into Chrysostom’s text at Antioch. Why are we assuming that the text of Antioch was corrupted with this reading.
Ijaz, do you see how your ignoring all these witnesses – if someone added it to Chrysostom’s text, then who did it.
These are independent witnesses from different areas all coming up with the same reading – if its not original, then someone had to physically add it to the text. All I’m asking you to demonstrate is who added it?
Ijaz, you have to deal with physical evidence, and you haven’t demonstrated any historical evidence that this passage was actually added to the scriptural texts. This whole theory came out of the german rationalism of the 19th century and based on a handful of documents that no one know where they came from with an assertion that the texts of the historical churches like the Greek Majority Text, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate are all secondary in origin.
LikeLike
Hi Jonathan,
I asked you for evidence and you gave me this:
[[It boils down to this, I have established that the reading was in Ireneus Text as early as 180 A.D by an official Bishop appointed to a church who quotes it as Jesus saying it from the cross. ]]
What’s the date of the extant manuscript that you’re referring to as your basis? I read your soliloquy but was unable to find it.
Thanks!
LikeLike
Ijaz,
Here is the textual evidence on this passage from Dean John Burgeon
“Burgon (14) p 83-5, states that the words are found in every known uncial except B, D, in every known cursive except 38, 435, a, b, d and in every ancient version except one of the Egyptian texts. Burgon also cites: 2nd Century: Hegesippus, Irenaeus; 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Clementine Homilies, disputation of Archelaus with Manes, Hippolytus, Origen, Tatian; 4th: Century: Acta Apostt. (Syrian Acts of the Apostles), Acta Philippi, Acta Pilati, Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Dionysius Areopagus, Ephraem Syrus, Ephraim, Eusebius, Gregory Nyssa, Hilary, Ignatius (c), Jerome, Justin Martyr (c), Theodorus; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Theodoret; 6th Century: Anastasius Sinaita, Hesychius; 7th Century: Andreas Cretensis, Antiochus the monk, Maximus; 8th Century: Amphilochius (c), Chrysostom (c), John Damascene. See also Fuller (32) p 139. Hills (3) p 132, (38) p 74, states that the words are omitted by Papyrus 75, B, D, W, Theta, 38, 435, some copies of the Old Latin, the Sinaitic Syriac and the Coptic versions but retained by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, including Aleph, A, C, L, N, certain manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Curetonian, Peshitta, Hardean and Philoxenian Syriac. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Even Dr Bart Ehrman concluded based on the evidence that it was the original reading in Luke’s text
“It appears, then, that Luke: 23:34 was part of Luke’s original text.” – Misquoting Jesus, p. 160
Dr Ehrman agrees with John Burgeons assessment that the passage was most likely removed from some biblical texts due to the Anti-Semitism of the period.
Ijaz, the majority of this evidence I go over in my video: https://youtu.be/0deEwz_BhvI
So if you still maintain the assertion that the passage wasn’t in the original texts of Luke – please historically document the means by which this person, group or magician was able to infiltrate almost all the historic church texts in all these different languages to sneak this verse into the text of Luke without anyone ever knowing –
I can only image all the frequent flyer miles this unknown scribe earned to accomplish such an extraordinary task. Lol.
God Bless Ijaz
Jonathan S
LikeLike
Hi Jonathan,
Please do give the manuscript dates for Hegesippus and Iranaeus.
Thanks!
LikeLike
Ijaz,
The quotes of scriptures from the fathers like Irenaeus on this verse in Luke 23:34 comes from the writings that have come down to us today? So are you asking for the dates of the copies of his works that we have available today?
I think you are missing the point .irenaeus as an appointed bishop in an apostolic church at lyons and was writing at around 180ad does quote the passage in question as comming from jesus.
So we have a quotation from a bishop in an apostolic church, who had access to the scriptures who grew up in Asia minor and learned from Polycarp who was a bishop appointed by st John according to tertullian.
Irenaeus is in a position to testify to the scriptures that were handed down in an official church of the apostles (smyrna and lyons). Now unlike p75, a document we can’t ascertain where it come from, who wrote it and what group it belonged too. Therefore it can’t be relied upon to witness to the official scriptures of the churches if it can be shown the document was part of any the official churches. Do you get that concept ijaz?
LikeLike
Hi Jonathan,
What is the date on the extant manuscripts on which you rely for the second century?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ijaz,
Obviously we don’t have the original copies of the Ireneus works or any of the other fathers or copies from the second century – naturally surviving copies are late and very late that we are getting our information from regarding the quotes from the fathers – So if your new assertion that the copies of all the fathers works were corrupted, and these scriptural passages were added to them after the fact – I know late 19th century scholars tried to use that argument too like Kenyon – but Ijaz – you then have to demonstrate who added the scriptures to those fathers works.
So Ijaz – can you tell me who added the passage of Luke 23:34 to all the versions it is found in – and all the works of the fathers from the second century to the 8th century
Ijaz, you make it seem like my only evidence is the second century, but why are you ignoring all this testimony for the passage
Burgon (14) p 83-5, states that the words are found in every known uncial except B, D, in every known cursive except 38, 435, a, b, d and in every ancient version except one of the Egyptian texts. Burgon also cites: 2nd Century: Hegesippus, Irenaeus; 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Clementine Homilies, disputation of Archelaus with Manes, Hippolytus, Origen, Tatian; 4th: Century: Acta Apostt. (Syrian Acts of the Apostles), Acta Philippi, Acta Pilati, Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Dionysius Areopagus, Ephraem Syrus, Ephraim, Eusebius, Gregory Nyssa, Hilary, Ignatius (c), Jerome, Justin Martyr (c), Theodorus; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Theodoret; 6th Century: Anastasius Sinaita, Hesychius; 7th Century: Andreas Cretensis, Antiochus the monk, Maximus; 8th Century: Amphilochius (c), Chrysostom (c), John Damascene.
Can you please answer who interpolated the passage into the scriptures and now the works of the fathers? You quoted NA26-28 which stated these words are certainly not part of the original text of the gospel but have been inserted at an early stage.- so please tell me who added it, and when, and where and how did they get it into the versions and works of the fathers – someone had to add it physically to the text, so can you please tell me who did it?
LikeLike
Hi Jonathan,
I made 0 assertions so far, but you were quick to impose such on me, one has to ask why?
So you still haven’t answered the question. What date are the extant earliest manuscript witnesses from?
You said, not from the 2nd century, so what century are they from?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ijaz,
you stated [I made 0 assertions so far, but you were quick to impose such on me, one has to ask why?]
So what’s your position on Luke 23:34a; is your position it was in the original text of Luke, or as the NA 26-28 states that it wasn’t certainly in the originals?
You stated [You So you still haven’t answered the question. What date are the extant earliest manuscript witnesses from? You said, not from the 2nd century, so what century are they from?]
I’m sure you can find exact dating for extant manuscripts of the works of Ireneus online – do you really want me doing all your homework Ijaz. lol – but we do have against heresies in Latin, and a copy of his Apostolic preaching in Armenian – and several fragments – plus we have what has come down from the copies of Eusebius.
Do you understand Ijaz that your quoting theories that originated in the 19th century scholarship of the German Rationlists
LikeLike
Hi Jonathan,
So after I don’t know, 10-12 replies, you initially told me you yourself traced it back to the 2nd century, I ask for evidence, you don’t give it for the one question I asked, eventually I repeat it enough and you tell me to go look online. You know, I know the date, it’s why I’m asking you in the first place but I don’t know what scholars you follow to date them, and I’m not in the business of assumptions. So if you don’t want to tell me, I understand but that just kills the conversation.
I already posted my views on Eusebius and I’m not even sure what your position was on that article, it lays out my foundation for skepticism of him, that would be a good place to start on apostolic history. I also take interest in Allison Jr., Pelikan and Bockmuehl, thought I am not sure in your understanding or acceptance of them when it comes to Church history.
Kind Regards,
Br. Ijaz.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ijaz,
thank you for your reply
Would have got back sooner but the NCAA tournament was on, plus I needed to see the Stormy Daniel 60 minutes interview..
Anyway back to our discussion:
I cited John William Burgon an Anglican Divine who in his works cited Ireneus bishop of Lyons as a second century witness to Luke 23:34; Burgon also cites other bishops and fathers of the Apostolic Churches as witnesses to this reading in Luke 23:34 listed below.
Burgon also cites: 2nd Century: Hegesippus, Irenaeus; 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Clementine Homilies, disputation of Archelaus with Manes, Hippolytus, Origen, Tatian; 4th: Century: Acta Apostt. (Syrian Acts of the Apostles), Acta Philippi, Acta Pilati, Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Dionysius Areopagus, Ephraem Syrus, Ephraim, Eusebius, Gregory Nyssa, Hilary, Ignatius (c), Jerome, Justin Martyr (c), Theodorus; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Theodoret; 6th Century: Anastasius Sinaita, Hesychius; 7th Century: Andreas Cretensis, Antiochus the monk, Maximus; 8th Century: Amphilochius (c), Chrysostom (c), John Damascene
Dr Ehrman, who is no friend to the Christian texts, after reviewing the textual evidence came to the conclusion that this passage was in the original text of Luke, and even took Burgeons side in why this passage was removed.
Help me understand, why the estimated dating of extent works of Ireneus is so critical to the evidence? we have evidence it was in second-century Gospel harmony, the Diatessaron ,another witness . But Ijaz, our case doesn’t hinge on Ireneus Testimony – but on the independent testimony throughout the epicenters of Christianity down through the ages. This is just the tip of the Iceburg, because according to Burgon the passage is in every ancient version except one of the Egyptian texts. So do the math Ijaz, it has come down in the official versions of the Apostolic Churches (The Latin Vulgate, the Peshitta, Hardean and Philoxenian Syriac, the overwhelming majority of Greek Texts) and we have all these bishops from churches quoting it
By the way as An Anglican, I am naturally biased toward John Burgon, Edward Miller, Scriverer, Hoskier – you can put me down as following those.
I haven’t seen your Article on Eusebius, you can send me the link if you like.
Ijaz, are you willing to try to understand it from my point of view?
God Bless
Jonathan S
LikeLike
Hi Jonathan,
I wouldn’t be willing to “see it from your point of view” if I wasn’t having this conversation in the first place.
Does Burgon not consider the Diatessaron as 2nd century evidence? I see you referenced it but he didn’t. Please clarify, thank you.
LikeLike
Do note Jonathan,
It seems to me the NCAA has to do with basketball, have you tried watching a real sport? Football/ soccer is a much better sport, I would recommend reviewing your tastes in that regard.
LikeLike
Thanks for your reply Ijaz,
Actually I’m a really big fan of soccer. Some friends and I from work even tried to secure tickets for the world cup in Russia to no avail. So If you can find tickets, please let me know. My youngest child is already taking private lessons in soccer to learn the forward position, and I actually played right half back in middle school and high school, and played on many club team as well.
LikeLike
Ah the coincidence believe it or not, i was thinking about you yesterday Jonathan…
LikeLike
Aaah our friend Jonathan.
The man of assumptions.
LikeLike
Ijaz.
It seems remarkably unfair and inconsistent to reject the apostolic tradition and demand a “succession of names”, but accept the interpolation narrative without the same. It seems you are setting different standards of engagement.
Wouldn’t you agree?
LikeLike
Hi Paulus,
I’m not the one that made that claim, I don’t have to accept it just because someone said it, and having had this conversation with him before, I’ll ask, he’ll claim to have some evidence, then he’ll never give it to me and round and round we go. It’s easy to fall back on the “but muh apostolic tradition”, *wew lad*, that apostolic tradition seemed to have forgotten how to pronounce Koine Greek altogether, so if there’s no extant aural/ oral tradition, why would I expect otherwise? It’s just common sense at this point.
Thanks for your comment.
LikeLike
You may have not made the claim, but you certainly endorse it. Ergo, on what basis do you reject the apostolic tradition for an interpolation theory? Do you have a chain of narrators for interpolation?
Answering these questions will highlight your consistency of methodology
LikeLike
There’s no evidence of a successive apostolic tradition. It’s really that simple. I mean look at Jonathan’s comment, he argues for three ancient churches having successive witnesses and then ends up giving me none of that. How many times do I have to repeat extant manuscript date until I get it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ijaz,
Do you under stand what the apostolic polity of the churches is and have you actually read irenaeus, tertullian and Eusebius works on it? Because in my Debate with Dr Ehrman, he understood exactly the system I was referring to. You seem confused on what it is. I thought since Bukhari used a similiar chain of report system to validate his prophets hadeeths, you would be able to relate. It’s how the apostles set up and organized the historical churches and appointed successors to preserve what have been received from the apostles(i.e the scriptures). So it’s the succession of bishops that go back to the apostles in the case of the church of Antioch which was set up by peter who appointed leadership to carry on the teachings of the apostles. Know paul churches were set up in the same way, as well as St johns foster churches, st marks churches in Alexandria etc. These bishops are not only witnesses to the scriptures that have come down through the historic churches, but they were also the Guardians/protectors of the scriptures against corruption. These historic churches were spread throughout the ancient world, so how did corruption effect all those Greek, latin and aramaic churches that had bishops guarding the scriptures get luke 23:34 in those texts?
Do you notice how you still can’t provide me names, dates and location when the so called interpolation happened? I can send you some of the succession lists if you like.
God bless
Jonathan S
LikeLike
When in doubt, obfuscate by abstracting your opponent’s understanding of methodology or knowledge. I don’t really care who you’ve debated, or who you haven’t, but feel free to mention it.
As for actual matters at hand, is there a reason you’re unwilling to list the dates of those manuscripts of Hegesippus and Iranaeus? I mean, I see you writing lots of paragraphs, many replies, except to that one question. That one lingering problem for you. Do list it when you can.
Thanks!
LikeLike