New Testament Contradictions and the "Ancient Biography" Argument

[Julius_Caesar]

I was talking about the way that differences in Gospel accounts are explained by scholars,

Which is people explaining “contradictions.”

 

[Gorgias]

Since you insist on me doing your homework…

You’ve made a claim that I can’t find in the literature, so I’m asking you to demonstrate it. That’s not “doing my homework for me.”

“Doing my homework for me” would be something along the lines of “Julius, would you mind writing a post for me that describes the difference between ‘doing homework’ and ‘defending one’s merely asserted arguments’?”

In any case, these screenshots come close, but don’t quite answer the question “which manuscript(s)?”, do they?

Nevertheless, you cited a partial footnote in the NET. The full footnote continues:

Instead of “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight,” one Greek ms and several Latin mss and church fathers (D it Ju [Cl] Meth Hil Aug) quote Ps 2:7 outright with “You are my Son; today I have fathered you.” But the weight of the ms testimony is against this reading.

So, the result here is “no, they’re not found in parallel translations” and “one Greek manuscript, but not utilized as authoritative in Scripture translations.”

Moreover, the assertion here is merely that the manuscript quotes Psalm 2:7. This sure looks like a scribal note which was later copied into the text. Perhaps that’s the reason it’s been discarded.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You’ve made a claim that I can’t find in the literature, so I’m asking you to demonstrate it. That’s not “doing my homework for me

You can simply pull up the footnotes in most Bibles to find that.

. . . .

 

[Gorgias]

You can simply pull up the footnotes in most Bibles to find that.

I looked at the footnotes of the Bible translations I have. Didn’t find it anywhere. That’s why I asked “which ones?”.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I looked at the footnotes of the Bible translations I have.

So you lack Google?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

And you still don’t have an answer.

 

[Gorgias]

So you lack Google?

Once you quoted part of the footnote, that’s exactly what I did. See how that works?

And you still don’t have an answer.

Sure I do – check out post #42 here!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Once you quoted part of the footnote, that’s exactly what I did. See how that works

You should be asking yourself that since you asked me to go and look up that footnote. And the point is, that is valid. Else a lot of other parts could be tossed out.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Sure I do

You haven’t answered the other footnotes I posted. So your answer’s still incomplete.

 

[sy1997se]

Why are you being so combative? There’s no reason for that.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Why are you being so combative?

Token response when someone finds themselves backed into a corner

 

[sy1997se]

Dude, I’m not the one that you’re arguing with. I’m just observing. Please stop, you’re embarrassing yourself and have caused what was once an interesting thread to completely regress

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I’m just observing.

Seriously? You call that observation?

Why are you being so combative?

:man_shrugging:t6:

 

[Gorgias]

And the point is, that is valid. Else a lot of other parts could be tossed out.

Not sure what you mean. A footnote isn’t part of the Bible – it’s just commentary by the editors. So, “valid” doesn’t even come into play. Moreover, the footnote you cite itself explicitly points out that this gloss isn’t part of any Bible translation, but comes from a single Greek manuscript.

You haven’t answered the other footnotes I posted. So your answer’s still incomplete.

Umm… ok:

The other footnote also points out that this isn’t part of any Scriptural tradition, but merely says that “ancient authorities” and “some manuscripts” say the “today…” quote. Your other footnote already is more descriptive of the situation, pointing out who the Church Fathers are who make reference to this, and identifying that it’s just one Greek manuscript that’s the source of this notion.

So, I kinda have already dealt with those screenshots. But… thanks!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

, I kinda have already dealt with those screenshots.

I kinda cleaned my room. I merely put my clothes under the bed.

A footnote isn’t part of the Bible – it’s just commentary by the editors

That references text in actual legitimate manuscripts.

And a lot of texts have that. Like Luke 23:46 for instance

 

[Gorgias]

That references text in actual legitimate manuscripts.

…that is, “manuscripts that aren’t being used in the translation of this verse.” Besides which, if it mentions one Greek manuscript and some Latin manuscripts, that means that the gloss appears only in one manuscript and is copied forward to the Latin ones. So, the gloss is apparently rejected.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

that is, “manuscripts that aren’t being used in the translation of this verse.”

And? It’s still very much there.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

that is, “manuscripts that aren’t being used in the translation of this verse.”

And? It’s still very much there.

And…therefore, that gloss is seen as not being accurate. Therefore… “not there” in any reliable translation.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Therefore… “not there” in any “reliable” translation.

Fixed it. (10 characters)

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Therefore… “not there” in any “reliable” translation.

Fixed it. (10 characters)

Please don’t falsely claim that I wrote something that I didn’t.

In any case, there’s no translation that includes this phrase.