Hi Folks, JW : All categories of evidence support Gerasenes as likely original to Mark . Steven Simply not true. Let s ignore the internal evidence for now,
Message 1 of 1
, Feb 25, 2012
All categories of evidence support "Gerasenes" as likely
original to "Mark".
Simply not true. Let's ignore the internal evidence for now, even
though Origen was correct on that point and the internal evidences is
against Gerasenes, since it was a trivially easy Alexandrian corruption,
based on limited geography knowledge far from Israel.
a) The vast majority of Greek
manuscripts do not support Gerasenes, and even the uncial support is
b) The ECW do not support Gerasenes - in addition to the Origen
and Eusebius splits:
For - Juvencas
Against - Diatessaron Eusebius Hesychius Ps-Chrysostom Theophylact
c) Versional - against Gerasenes Coptic split
For - latin
Against - syriac gothic coptic armenian ethopic georgian slavonic
If you do not have your basic fasts right,
your conclusions will be to no purpose.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer.
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.