Loisy's response to Couchoud concerning the two pericopes of material which are not attested in Luke: Loisy - Reply - Bottom 379.png Loisy - Reply - Top 380.png Loisy's argument against Couchoud, to put it simply, is that the attestation for attributing these two pericopes to Marcion is insufficien...
II. ...... < omitted> "In order to reach an incontrovertible conclusion, one must obviously begin by comparing those parts of the gospel common to both Luke and Marcion with the sections peculiar to each. It is almost invariably the sections peculiar to Luke which come under discussion, as tho...
More precisely, Couchoud replies to Loisy as to the Marcion/Luke question in the following way (p. 442-443): I will try to show that, to the four canonical Gospels, there must be added the Gospel of Marcion, now lost but almost completely reconstituted from quotations. M. Loisy assigns it “an inter...
The Hibbert Journal also published a reply to Couchoud by Alfred Loisy. It is well worth a read, but unfortunately I have not been able to find it freely available anywhere on the interwebs.
Alfred Loisy, 'Marcion's Gospel. A Reply', Hibbert Journal 34 (1936) 378-387.
A bit of the oral history of the images: I noticed something disturbing in one of the images Ken sent me---I don't know if this is in your repo or not, Peter. But if you zoom in on the letters you will notice that image has been doctored such that there is an array of light blue rectangles over the...
Given that the Farrer theory proposes the Lucan writers had a copy of Mt, Ken, why would they have used Mk at all, when Mt had double the content and in better Greek? Would you propose something like, "well, first they only had Mk and worked on it, then a copy of Mt came along, so they pilfere...
Could you run it again with this image? I can certainly wait until tonight to see the results. Wait no longer....feast your eyes upon: ken_hi_res.png Ok, we have both requested blobs (can you tell which is which? Top is the gymnastic example, bottom is the other iota) From left to right we have: 1....
I have heard from a couple experts here myself. They have noted (a) that the character here starts out going southeast/northwest [atypical for sigma], (b) that the stroke is unbroken [not observed in sigmas], and (c) that the accent placed directly over the character is indicative in this case. A f...
Could you please do the same thing with the higher quality image of the disputed character from III 18? Sure, however, the sample for III 18 you gave in the last post (https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=172091#p172091) was a lower quality image than the one for 1 9. (zoom in, you'll se...