| Integrated Coptic Orthodox Forums
|
| Author |
Message |
mikokiko
Posts: 1027
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jul 06, 2008 - 09:08 PM |
 
|
Hey guys, I was wondering what you thought of all the different additions that are purported to have been added about the Scriptures. Here is a list. Some of you might want to say which ones you think were really originally there or not:
Mark (the earliest of the Gospels) 16:9-20 (which first speak about the Post-mortem appearances of Christ.)
John 7:53-8:11 : Story of the Adulteress Woman, apparently is not found in any of the earlier manuscripts
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: the Pauline command of silencing women in Church (and permitting them to ask their husbands at home).
1 John 5:7: Known as the Comma Johanneum, the one verse that explicitly expounds the Doctrine of the Trinity, said to first have been found in the fourth century.
Put on top of this all the differences between the NU-Texts, and M-Text manuscipts found in the first century. For example in John 1:18, the NU-Text reads: the only begotten GOD, while later manuscripts simply read Son. You can at least find five variations of this nature in every chapter of the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
Remnkemi
Ask me for help!
Posts: 679
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Boston, MA USA
|
| Posted:
Jul 08, 2008 - 10:09 PM |
|
Scripture and Biblical manuscript analysis is a very difficult field, not only because of the technical difficulty but also because of interpretation. Even if we were to find a new ancient manuscript that is older than anything we have and it includes 1 John 5:7 (and the other passages you mentioned), it doesn't mean the problem is solved. One has to interpret the findings. And usually interpretation is very biased.
Take for example, the Gospel of Judas. While we all know it is Gnostic, one has to interpret the names, message and context of the manuscript. The English translation given by National Geographic (from Radolphe Kasser) is biased. One wouldn't know that unless interpretation analysis is included.
What's my point? Even if a new manuscript includes 1 John 5:7, should it supercede our Church history and Patrisitic knowledge? For the Protestants, it will. But for the Coptic Orthodox Church, if the Holy Synod did not explicitly agree or disagree, it doesn't matter what we find. Also, if the Fathers wrote about these passages, then we can conclude that they are authentic and not Scriptural tampering.
As it stands and as far as I know, the Holy Synod agrees with New King James/Smith Van Dyke texts. I don't believe there are any Patristic works, whether ancient or contemporary, that explicitly expound and agree with these passages. I think our Church is silent on the issue. But one can deduce that since our Church uses the Septugaint/New King James/Smith Van Dyke texts, these passages are authentic. And whether or not a new or current manuscript validates or invalidates these passages, it has no meaning until the Holy Synod approves any changes. This is true with any Apostolic Church.
Just my 2 cents. I hope it helped.
George |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB2 and the coptichymns.net Network of Coptic Hymns and Coptic Orthodox Sites.
| |
Productions
