> "There is no obvious reason why a scribe should deliberately omit [Lk 22:62],
> and the likelihood is that the words are a later addition from Matthew." ('The
> living text of the Gospels', 160)
It appears to me that the first clause above, though technically correct, is
misleading. Judging from extant conflicting texts, scholars seem to be in
agreement that scribes copying NT texts rarely omit anything deliberately.
So why does Parker mention deliberate omission, but not mention accidental
omission? Surely accidental omission would have been quite plausible here
because the eye of a scribe could have slipped from the KAI at the beginning
of v. 62 to the KAI at the beginning of v. 63.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]