@ScottS Here's an after-thought: why don't you contact the good folks at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, and ask about presenting your work as a "guest post"? You'd get some expert and informed input there! :)

@Davïd or better still, present a summary and a link back here - I'm guessing the folks there are the sort we'd like to know we exist? ;)

@JackDouglas I can't imagine a post going up without due acknowledgement of this site's seminal significance! B-) Typically, it would need to be sufficiently full so it could be read independently, but a link back of some kind I would take as a given. (Not involved at all there, though, so my assumptions would need testing! ;)

:)

@ScottS Of course, you might go whole hog (if you could be bothered) and submit it to SBL's TC journal. That would take more work, of course.

@Davïd Being in the midst of my own dissertation work, it is not likely that I will find time in the near future to even consider being able to post in the TC journal or the blog. Quite a bit more research would be needed to make either of any value. But perhaps sometime in the future...

@Davïd I think this is an area where you and I fundamentally disagree. The reasons I listed for accidental omission to me are theoretically applicable to any omitted text, and by their nature have no further rationale that can be argued since we know virtually nothing about the actual history of the text (hence the "axiomatic" reference I made). However...

... the consistency of the multiple variations across differing texts in "fasting" terminology do offer strong rationale against any accidental omission at all, so while I believe Mark 9:29 could have be accidental, that is far less likely, and hence why I had to consider if there is an option for intentional omission.

@Davïd The context of my quote about variations in a single compiled document or independent documents was in the context of addressing kmote's quoted statement "The plausibility of this statement being accidentally omitted in both passages [referring to Mk 9:29 and Mt 17:21] by the same scribes seems extremely remote to me."

The reason I stated it as I did is because of his reference to "by the same scribes." Variations would only be arising by the same scribes if it was single compiled document, but since most did not arise in the single complied documents, it is not multiple variants by the same scribes that is in question.

@Davïd I'm not sure I follow your objection here with my Fact #3. Maybe I need to reword the fact, but really what I am doing there is conceding the argument that the omissions in the multiple passages had to be earlier than our extant witnesses (primarily Codex Sinaiticus), and so if they are not original readings (you would lean toward them being original), but in fact are variants from the original, then they had to have been early.

I do hedge Mk 9:29 in the "fact" only because its witnesses are so slim that it may in fact first be varied in Sinaiticus (but even then, I'm willing to assume not). So I'm not sure why you balk at the omissions being earlier as an established "fact." Please explain further.

@Davïd: I noticed your edit was just going through and capitalizing "vorlage," and was curious why you did that, since to my knowledge it is not a proper term needing capitalization (as that wiki link also does not capitalize it)?

@ScottS Thanks for these! Will respond to just a couple - am content to give you the last word on the others (knowing that we haven't arrived at consensus!).

...to say "and by their nature have no further rationale that can be argued" that is plain false, and this: "since we know virtually nothing about the actual history of the text" is a non sequitur! The fundamental observation of those lists is that there are conditions under which such omissions arise. If those conditions are absent (and that is the "further rationale"), then they are highly unlikely to apply.

^^^ which is the point I have been trying to make, and seems to me inescapable. I end up wondering how many manuscripts you have read/collated - as this sort of concept is grasped very quickly when handling ancient mss.

@ScottS About "Fact #3" - it is only the very simple observation that it isn't a "fact". The other four are, and #3 is just ... different! Call it a premise, or whatever, but "fact" it ain't. (That's all - not deep!)

@ScottS Well, me being pedant again I suppose. :) "Vorlage" is a German noun with plural "Vorlagen", and is capitalized even in English, usually. Feel free to roll-back, though, if you prefer.

@ScottS - Sorry - I should have said: my direct responses are linked/threaded to your comments to which they respond. If I'm more than usually obscure, see if the link to your comment helps! ;)

And in re-reading my screed, I realize the "non sequitur" forumlation in this comment is squint. Your "since..." is your premise for your "no further rationale" - but I'm saying that this isn't the case: we do know things, and they can be argued. Well - clear as mud, I suppose, and I'll leave it there.

/ / Btw (and this is @anybody), I've just run across a set of articles by Donald Macleod (the ones from 2014 in that list) attending to and exploring the relationship of systematic and biblical theology. Worth reading, if that theme is of interest.