>
>Bob Eyer wrote to Mark Bloss about MARK 16.18
 BE> Could you please provide citations when you quote?
 
 Okay.  
 BE> When you omit the citation, the reader is entitled to interpret
 BE> your quote as your words, notwithstanding your quote marks.  The
 BE> standards of crossreferencing among us are much higher than those
 BE> used in the Bible.
 
 Most likely, the reader is entitled to remain ignorant also.  However, 
 an unwillingness to study the subject matter is mal-appropriate to those 
 who _think_ their cross-referencing among them is of a higher standard.  
 It is a MUCH higher standard still to be well-enough versed in the 
 subject matter, where no one needs a citation!  Nevertheless, here it 
 is: 2 Cor 13:1, being a direct quote from Deut. 19:15, and used again 
 in Matthew 18:16 and referenced by Jesus in Jn 8:17.  Ah!  Four witnesses 
 establish this critical asperity within the scriptures.  And which all 
 agree with _you_ and find you in _agreement_ with them.  It isn't a new
 idea with critical scholars - seems it has been a practice since early
 Hebrew times, and may have even been a standard of Egyptian law practice.
 
 >facet of the scripture - whether it is to be rendered more or
 >less reliable, must be stated twice or three times to _establish_
 >it as reliable or important, as each instance is considered a
 >"witness" to it.
 BE> Well, I really wonder whether Paul thought mere instances were
 BE> witnesses.
 
 Not in the context of Paul's writ of the "second" Corinthian letter.
 But rather the law of Moses itself, the progenitor of all the other
 references to it.  As it may indeed be considered instances NOT from
 the same author, but from different authors (being the witnesses
 involved).  It is a simple matter of defining the word "author" and
 "witness" properly.  Obviously, "witness" is the biblical English word
 used - where modern English readers prefer the word "author".  More 
 plainly perhaps, in the English Bibles we read today, generally speaking, 
 "witness" is simply another word for "author"; or at least can be
 inferenced from the context as such in many places.  Other places the
 word is "eye-witness", carrying the connotation not of an author, but 
 of a testomonial presented as fact.  
 BE> The criterion of multiple attestation used by modern critical
 BE> scholars does not refer to multiple INSTANCES, but rather multiple
 [snipped] and all was very interesting and fascinating and educational.
 Thank you!
 
 
... A tagline is like a government. Takes up space, no known function.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------