<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/feed/bypass/styles/feed.css" media="screen"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/feed/bypass/styles/feed.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/">

	<channel>
	  <!-- main channel info -->
        <title>Worth of the ECF&amp;#39;s </title>
        <link>http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/topic/1181/t/Worth-of-the-ECF-39-s.html</link>
        <description>
        <![CDATA[ I was recently chatting with some textual criticism folk about John 1:18 and the variant readings of &quot;theos&quot; &amp; &quot;huios.&quot;


I brought up the huge support from the ECF&#39;s for &quot;huios&quot; and also that &quot;monogenes theos&quot; was virtually never seen in the ANF except by
Arians.


However, these scholars seemed to discount the weight of the testimony from the ECF&#39;s because there is no &quot;critical edition&quot; of their writings.
In other words, we do... ]]>
        </description>

		<!-- optional elements -->
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2006, Yuku</copyright>
		<managingEditor>feeds@yuku.com (FeedMaster)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>webmaster@yuku.com (WebMaster)</webMaster>
		<!-- note: dates need to be RFC 822 formated "Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:00:01 GMT" -->
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:59:04 GMT</pubDate>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:35:37 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>Yuku Feeds 1.0</generator>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		<!-- <cloud domain="rpc.yuku.com" port="80" path="/RPC2" registerProcedure="pingMe" protocol="soap"/>-->
		<ttl>60</ttl>
		<!-- feed image -->
		
		<rating>
		{pics-1.1 &quot;http://www.icra.org/ratingsv02.html&quot; l gen true for &quot;http://yuku.com&quot; r (nz 1 vz 1 lz 1 oz 1 cz 1 ) &quot;http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html&quot; l gen true for &quot;http://yuku.com&quot; r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 ))
		</rating>
		<textInput>
			<title>Search</title>
			<description>Search Domain</description>
			<name>q</name>
			<link>http://yuku.com/search/direct/</link>
		</textInput>
		<!-- skip
		<skipHours>
			<hour>23</hour>
		</skipHours>
		<skipDays>
			<day>Monday</day>
			<day>Wednesday</day>
			<day>Friday</day>
		</skipDays>-->
		<!-- extensions -->


		<!-- channel items -->
		<!-- descriptions should be shorter than 500 char to be polite -->
		<!-- html shoud be stripped or escaped -->
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Worth of the ECF&#39;s  ]]></title>
			<link>http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/reply/9012/t/Worth-of-the-ECF-39-s.html#reply-9012</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Thanks for the replies guys :)
<br>
<br>
From chatting to textual criticism scholars, I have gotten the impression that they seem to mock the idea that Gnostics mutilated the Gospels like some of the
ECFs told us they did. Or if they don&#39;t mock the idea in general, they still think it is ludicrous to believe that any of the manuscripts we possess today
could in fact have readings from these corruptions. That is also the impression I got from the debate between Tim and James Schnapp.
<br>... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (PeaTearGriffin)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/sreply/9012</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:30:38 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Worth of the ECF&#39;s  ]]></title>
			<link>http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/reply/9005/t/Worth-of-the-ECF-39-s.html#reply-9005</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Adding to what Robert and Roger have said: The editors of the ECFs we have DID employ textual criticism. It is true that this is not exhaustive, and not on the
scale of the NT text itself. Nevertheless, it is extensive, as is evidenced by the footnotes in the printed editions, referrencing variant readings,
differences between the Greek and Latin (and sometimes Syrian) copies. There is certainly more than could be done. But to pretend no textual criticism has been
done, and to discount the... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (Tim)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/sreply/9005</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:08:29 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Worth of the ECF&#39;s  ]]></title>
			<link>http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/reply/9002/t/Worth-of-the-ECF-39-s.html#reply-9002</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Several of the ECF&#39;s document the fact that both intentional and accidental corruption of the text was taking place in their day.  So &quot;textual
criticism,&quot; or rather, preservation of the true text was of paramount importance to them.  They were on the front lines exposing and disputing with the
original corrupters.  They were there when it happend and they wrote about it.  To discount their witness now simply because no one has produced a
&quot;critical edition&#39; of their... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (Roger)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/sreply/9002</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:54:14 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Worth of the ECF&#39;s  ]]></title>
			<link>http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/reply/8999/t/Worth-of-the-ECF-39-s.html#reply-8999</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Though not an expert on the ECFs by any means, I still see some potential issues in the line of reasoning you say these scholars are employing.  You might want
to review Tim&#39;s article on the textual debate, if you&#39;ve not already seen it: <a title="http://www.pfrs.org/PFRV/preface.pdf" target="_blank" href="http://www.pfrs.org/PFRV/preface.pdf"></a><a href="http://www.pfrs.org/PFRV/preface.pdf">http://www.pfrs.org/PFRV/preface.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>
1. They are assuming that the early... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (rhawes73)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/sreply/8999</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:01:24 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Worth of the ECF&#39;s  ]]></title>
			<link>http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/topic/1181/t/Worth-of-the-ECF-39-s.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I was recently chatting with some textual criticism folk about John 1:18 and the variant readings of &quot;theos&quot; &amp; &quot;huios.&quot;
<br>
<br>
I brought up the huge support from the ECF&#39;s for &quot;huios&quot; and also that &quot;monogenes theos&quot; was virtually never seen in the ANF except by
Arians.
<br>
<br>
However, these scholars seemed to discount the weight of the testimony from the ECF&#39;s because there is no &quot;critical edition&quot; of their writings.
In other... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (PeaTearGriffin)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://thechristiancafe.yuku.com/topic/1181</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:59:04 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
    <!-- end items -->

  </channel>
</rss>