The Fable of the Faulty

[JonC]

Not always.

Ephesians 1:1-10 in Papyrus 46: Your Compilation Is Better

www.thetextofthegospels.com

It probably is homoioteleuton. The scribe most likely looked for the five abbreviations he had just used, and in this case verse 3 begins with the same abbreviations

But we also do not rely on one manuscript. The basic principles are a collection. Not just the oldest. Not just the shortest. The oldest, shortest, as a collection.

Since no manuscripts have the verses added in manuscripts dating to the 11th century and newer it is probable that those verses were notes making their way into the text.

 

[JonC]

@Conan

Here is what I mean by older and shorter texts are typically closer to the original-

In John we read of the people at the pool of Bethesda, and the man trying to enter the pool but unable due to the crowd.

The reason the man was trying to enter the pool (and the reason for the crowd) those in Ephesus would know of the pool as they traveled to Jerusalem regularly.

But by the time the reason made its way into the text it was needed. Generations centuries after 70 AD would have no reference point.

The older and shorter manuscript is probably more accurate (there is a reason to add the explanation, but no reason to remove it and homoioteleuton cannot account for its removal).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I am posting this for the readers, not for those still replying to me. I stepped out of the discussion because it had reached the point where nothing new was being said. The arguments were being repeated in loops, and the replies had shifted from substance to personal accusations. When a discussion becomes repetitive and the focus turns to claiming victory rather than addressing the text, there is no value in continuing.

The continued replies after I left show exactly why I stepped out. They are not attempts to advance the argument. They are attempts to keep the performance going, and that is all it is, performance. The language of “thrashings” and “taking his ball and going home,” the extreme quote stacking, the constant reframing of my words, the shifting of categories to avoid direct answers, and the false claims about my motives and about my position on the KJV and the preserved text are not theological argument. They are posturing. They are strutting. They are attempts to frame the discussion as a contest that must be won, even after the actual exchange has ended.

The readers can see the pattern. When someone stops replying and the other side continues posting in rapid succession, it is not debate. It is fixation. It is an attempt to claim victory by volume rather than by truth. I am not interested in that. I am not responding to it. I am not reading it.

My position was stated clearly. Their arguments were answered directly. The replies that followed did not address those answers. They repeated the same claims, reframed my words, shifted categories, and added personal remarks. That is why I stepped out. Not because the arguments stood, but because they had already been answered and the discussion had degraded into noise.

And that is all any further replies will be, posturing, strutting, false claims and much noise.