« first day (1113 days earlier)      last day (2763 days later) » 

2:12 PM
@Davïd I have updated my answer to this question
8
A: Omission of 'fasting' in Mark 9:29

ScottSA Plausible Majority Text Argument Susan's answer has correctly given the direct answer to your question when she states: This is a textual issue. That is, some manuscripts have the words and fasting while others don’t. That is the simple fact. Which manuscript tradition the particular t...

As I do believe evidence suggests a majority text argument on these related passages requires a more systematic rather than accidental omission plausibility be established.
I've therefore proposed a thesis of my own. I do not know if any work has been done by other majority text people regarding this topic or not (nor do I have time to research it out at present).
 
2:38 PM
^ ^ ^ @Susan @JackDouglas @majnemɪzdæn @FrankLuke and anyone else who has been following that question stream.
 
3:26 PM
@ScottS That's an impressive edit.
2
 
 
4 hours later…
7:53 PM
@FrankLuke @ScottS indeed! Thanks for sharing the link to the updated post, will read this evening when I should be listening to a seminar on security vulnerabilities :P
 
 
1 hour later…
9:08 PM
@ScottS (and @everybodyInterested) - I agree with @FrankLuke - that's an impressive edit! I wish I had more time to engage (alas! don't we all!), but here are some brief (well, I'll try) responses:
Note that @ n.1 in the original post (which sketches "reasons for omission"), you're still simply listing possible reasons for any omission and NOT giving any rationale for why any one of them should be applied in THIS case. It's the latter thing we need - the list itself is the stuff of textbooks (as you note). It needs to be applied.
Quote: "such early variants (accidental or not) did not likely arise in a single compiled document of Scripture to begin with" > But! this makes no difference whatsoever. .... "during the phase of independent documents" > because this was ENTIRELY the case until the advent of the codex : there are plenty of examples of this kind of thing in the DSS - all "independent docs". This is simply mistaken logic.
In the "proposal": Fact #3 - is not a "fact", in fact! It is rather part of the hypothesis you're testing, and needs to be removed from the "fact" list. > N.b. it appears at the HEAD of the "proposed thesis", which shows how fundamental this supposition is to it. But it is that - a supposition for the sake of the case (i.e., again, part of the hypothesis), NOT a "fact".
It remains, however, quite an interesting proposal! :) I'd encourage you to have a look at Cranfield's Mark commentary (1959, but "judicious" and careful).
I think that's it. :) Please don't feel the need to reply, unless you really want to, of course. I think I've about run out of steam . . . :P
 

« first day (1113 days earlier)      last day (2763 days later) »