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.
Wright's article is interesting. He makes a good case for the variant reading in Galatians 2:20 but then goes with the NA27/UBS4 reading.I believe the variant reading is correct. It's hard to ignore papyrus attestation. The agreement between Alexandrian and Western text types doesn't bother me. That just tells me that the variant reading is the correct one. Neither is the internal evidence a problem. Greater weight should be given to the external evidence, since internal evidence deals with probabilities and is often contradictory. Add to this the fact that Codex Vaticanus is probably the best uncial witness to the New Testament, and the variant reading becomes as credible, if not more credible, than the text reading. As a bonus, the variant reading makes a strong statement of the deity of Christ.Gary
Both the subject and the object of the Christian's faith as well as the theologian's task is God - hence theolgy.Granted, some theologians make Christ the subject and object of theologial study and prayer, but this is contrary to sound Reformed understanding.Peter, I think your arguments are well founded and cogent and you should venture to publish your paper.Finally, the entire theological understanding of the NT writings makes it explicit that Jesus was and is God (Jahweh) in the flesh.Malcolm
Malcomb's anonymous comments seem to be generally followed by a spam ad for "wow gold".Does this happen with all anonymous comments?Here's checking.
Spam deleted. Thanks for noticing this.
Great article!! Thanks.