![]() ![]() This has happened in New Testament (or NT) studies, too. And obviously, only experts aware of this development should be polled. Those opinions therefore can no longer be cited in favor of the passage. ![]() This means all those published opinions before were based on a falsehood. But by 2008 that “discovery” had been debunked in the peer reviewed literature by Josephus expert Alice Whealey: that Arabic translation was in fact of a Syriac translation of Eusebius, and the changes were thus made after him, either by a telephone game of transmission error or by scribal attempts to make the passage more believable. For example, a flurry of positive opinion arose about ten or twenty years ago from excess enthusiasm over the purported discovery of an earlier version of the text in Arabic translation that supposedly “proved” the passage predated Eusebius and said something different. Just as when they keep citing “experts on Josephus” saying the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) must derive from some authentic core, even though the “experts” they are citing are either long dead or expressed their only opinions on the matter a decade ago or more and may have changed their minds since-because more recent developments have radically altered the data and only experts aware of those developments can have informed opinions worth counting. This includes new things, developments in the field, that aren’t found in most books because those books were written a decade ago or more.Ĭhristian apologists exploit this fact often. Way back in 2012 Matthew Ferguson published Leveling a Mountain of Manuscripts with a Small Scoop of Context, and it long reminded me of how non-experts can be manipulated by Christian apologists, because laypeople don’t know basic things about paleography that we experts take for granted (so much that we forget not everyone is aware of them). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |