- إنضم
- 29 مايو 2009
- المشاركات
- 1,503
- مستوى التفاعل
- 39
- النقاط
- 48
مدرسة النقد النصي الذين يتبعون المخطوطات النقديه يقولوا المخطوطات الاقدم اهم واوثق من الاحدث .. بينما مدرسة النقد النصي التقليدي الذين يتبعون مخطوطات النص المسلم يقولوا هذا ليس شرطا :
"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony. That it is not by any means always so is a familiar fact. To quote the known dictum of a competent judge [Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener]: ‘It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syriac Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen, thirteen centuries after, when moulding the Textus Receptus.' Therefore Antiquity alone affords no security that the manuscript in our hands is not infected with the corruption which sprang up largely in the first and second centuries." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 40]
ويقولوا ان المخطوطات القديمه دخل فيها الهرطقات المقصوده من قبل تسعه هراطقه تلاعبوا بالاناجيل عاشوا خلال القرون القليلة الأولى من عصر الكنيسة:
"And the Written Word in like manner, in the earliest age of all, was shamefully handled by mankind. Not only was it confused through human infirmity and misapprehension, but it became also the object of restless malice and unsparing assaults. Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Heracleon, Menander, Asclepiades, Theodotus, Hermophilus, Apollonides, and other heretics adapted the Gospels to their own ideas." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 10]
ثم يقولوا ان النص التقليدي كان موجودًا ومهيمنًا منذ السنوات الأولى للكنائس :
"As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period under review. Let any one who disputes this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or for the Text of B and Aleph, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that which has been now placed before the reader." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 116]
انا تهت في هذا الكلام ومش فاهمه فيا ريت التوضيح !
"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony. That it is not by any means always so is a familiar fact. To quote the known dictum of a competent judge [Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener]: ‘It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syriac Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen, thirteen centuries after, when moulding the Textus Receptus.' Therefore Antiquity alone affords no security that the manuscript in our hands is not infected with the corruption which sprang up largely in the first and second centuries." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 40]
ويقولوا ان المخطوطات القديمه دخل فيها الهرطقات المقصوده من قبل تسعه هراطقه تلاعبوا بالاناجيل عاشوا خلال القرون القليلة الأولى من عصر الكنيسة:
"And the Written Word in like manner, in the earliest age of all, was shamefully handled by mankind. Not only was it confused through human infirmity and misapprehension, but it became also the object of restless malice and unsparing assaults. Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Heracleon, Menander, Asclepiades, Theodotus, Hermophilus, Apollonides, and other heretics adapted the Gospels to their own ideas." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 10]
ثم يقولوا ان النص التقليدي كان موجودًا ومهيمنًا منذ السنوات الأولى للكنائس :
"As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period under review. Let any one who disputes this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or for the Text of B and Aleph, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that which has been now placed before the reader." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 116]
انا تهت في هذا الكلام ومش فاهمه فيا ريت التوضيح !