تم تعطيل الجافا سكربت. للحصول على تجربة أفضل، الرجاء تمكين الجافا سكربت في المتصفح الخاص بك قبل المتابعة.

الرد على الموضوع

الرسالة: [QUOTE="فادي ك, post: 3837103, member: 118247"] وفي صفحة 200 يتحدث على أنه لا يوجد دليل على الإطلاق أن الآباء استشهدوا بالعهد الجديد كنص يحتاج رعاية خاصة وأنه لا يوجد اقتباس من جملة واحدة لترتليان لا يختلف مع النص اليوناني واللاتيني وأن نصه الخاص بعيد كل البعد عن نص الأغلبية الارثوذكسي : orthodox theology (including a high view of Scripture), therefore, [B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)](3) the text of the NT found in these Fathers should itself evidence this special care, or at least should reflect the readings of the Majority text, the true descendants of these orthodox Fathers.[/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=rgb(84, 172, 210)]But what we find is precisely the opposite.[/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that these Fathers cited the NT as a text demanding their special care [/COLOR][/B]("special care" meaning concern for the precise wording). Indeed, the NT writers themselves regularly cite the OT loosely, although there is no question that they considered the OT as Scripture. In fact, in one place (Eph 4:8) Paul's point rests upon his new wording of the text, which is otherwise unknown in the entire textual tradition of the OT. In the case of [B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]Clement [/COLOR][/B]of Rome we have a Father who generally cites the OT with special care;30 [B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]yet for the NT there is not a single "citation" or allusion that is even closely verbatim. [/COLOR][/B]The closest is 1 Clem. 36:2||Heb 1:3-4, where Clement has five variants from the common NT text. (The most any known MS has is three.) The same holds true for Polycarp and Justin. The final two Fathers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, are even more instructive, for here at last we have evidence of real citations of the NT text. Despite Pickering's assertion that [B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]Irenaeus "heavily" supports the Majority text,31 the fact is that his text differs from the Majority even more than Pickering's hated Egyptian MSS do. [/COLOR][/B]But how could it have been otherwise? For even though he tends to cite the text with more care than does Tertullian, his mature years were lived out in southern France, and he used a Greek text very much like those lying behind the OL. To show the total disregard for the actual data one finds in Pickering, I will illustrate a little more fully from Tertullian. For this purpose, I went to adversus Praxean, because (1) Praxeas was a heretic, (2) Praxeas did not distort the words of the text, but misinterpreted them, and (3) in such a work Tertullian's arguments are regularly based on the very wording of the text itself. Yet does he cite with care? Hardly. I checked his Johannine citations in chapter 22.[B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)] There is scarcely a citation (and none, when the citation is at least a full sentence long) in which Tertullian does not differ both with the Greek text and with the Latin[/COLOR][/B], not to mention those several other places where he agrees with the OL (especially e) against the Greek evidence. For example, in 22.12 he cites John 10:34-38, [B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]where he has eleven variations from the Greek and Latin[/COLOR][/B], plus one (v. 38, omit και γινώσκητε [or πιστεύσητε]) that he shares with several OL MSS. A little later, in chapters 26 and 27, he has occasion to cite Luke 1:35 three different times. Each of these differs from the others and one of them reads the ex te with a c e r1 and many others.[B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)] Thus, he not only does not exercise care, but his own text is a far cry from Pickering's "orthodox" Majority text.[/COLOR][/B] [/QUOTE]

التحقق