>>They omit them ok, perhaps they were lost are not translated by those who did the translations of the Codices.<<
The point is Irenaeus and other early theologians quote the “missing” verses in the 2nd century. Thus the argument today older is better is not completely accurate. Thus the majority text used by the EOs based on the Byzantine.
Also, from your earlier post I wonder why you dismissed Daniel1212 and his presentation of Biblical scholarship on the matter of the LXX.
I also commented Jerome used the available Hebrew of the time for his OT translation of the Vulgate. His reasoning was enlightening.
redleghunter:
I have no interest dealing with the guy you cited. He is an typical ex Catholic with an axe to grind. I have been through these issues with him already before. I stand where I stand, he is where he is.
The point is that there were divergent texts even among the Jews. One tradition it is now clearly one from which the LXX was translated and there were some divergent source tradition even in the Gospels. Early Fathers cited the longer ending of Mark 16. Saint Jerome was aware of it as it made its way to the Vulgate. I am aware that many important early manuscripts do not include it. Saint Jerome included it in the Vulgate translation which was confirmed in the Council of Florence in 1442 and more dogmatically confirmed at Trent in 1546 affirmed the canonicity of the longer ending.
So again, all it shows is that even for a canonical Gospel, depending on what part of the Roman empire you lived in, you had a Gospel of Mark that ended at Mark 16:8 or one that went to Verse 19. Different textual traditions even among the early Church with respect to The Gospel of Mark.