This is a forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
The membership of this blog is made up of evangelicals involved in academic study of textual criticism. Those with appropriate expertise and theological convictions who wish to be considered for membership should contact Peter Head or Tommy Wasserman. Those applying for membership must indicate that they have read either the OT or the NT in its original language(s), should be actively involved in text-critical research, and should be already contributing to the blog through comments. They should give e-mail details of an academic and a pastoral referee, a summary of their academic and/or ministry involvement, a statement of their doctrinal commitment (which may be by reference to various classic evangelical statements of faith, e.g. 39 Articles, Westminster Confession), and an indication of their area of interest within textual criticism. Non-members who wish to comment are not expected to be evangelical, but they are requested to respect the blog's ethos.
4 Comments:
I didn't know that baptists recognised Advent.
Check A. Globe, ‘Some Doctrinal Variants in Matthew 1 and Luke 2, and the Authority of the Neutral Text’ CBQ 42(1980)
It looks like some theologically motivated scribe with a view to christological controversy just could not wait for the story to unfold in the following verses so he decided to make more details of the nativity narrative explicit in the genealogy.
... Also, the most likely cause of concern behind this christologically motivated variant was the expression TON ANDRA MARIAS which could hardly be misunderstood in light of the following narrative but read in isolation from the context might have been the source of mischief among the enemies of orthodoxy.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home