source document, Kannaday posits that scribes performed a systematic reworking of the transmissional lines.
However, Kannaday claims there was no such systematic work. Even if there is some credence to the claim concerning apologetically motivated scribal alterations, it was in no way systematic
(to AD 300) has long been recognized as ‘wild,’ ‘uncontrolled,’ ‘unedited.’ ” 23
The wild development supposedly ended with a textual standardization motivated by ecclesiastical powers. As Parker explains, “the growth of influence of a number of key sees, particularly Antioch, Alexandria
the original words of the New Testament.” 83 The two scholars contended the many new finds and transcriptions by Tischendorf had thoroughly supplanted the late date of the mss. used to create the TR . The new material motivated and warranted creating a new text independent of the TR . 84
observation of language acquisition, it is not a given that a theory derived from direct observation of living speakers (as in some manner was the case with contact linguistics and the study of spoken creoles such as Gullah) can apply to dead languages preserved only in writing. 6 Most contact linguists
grammatical features of Ezekiel’s vision in Ezek 1. 46 In detailing the appearance of the four living creatures of his vision, the prophet introduces his depiction with a deictic pronoun used predicatively in Ezek 1:5: זה מראיהן , “this is their appearance.” The suffix on “appearance” is a feminine
commotion, in a few cases of noise, and occasionally of life itself. This last sense overlaps with דמה II , which refers to destruction and death. As stated, the derived forms often do not semantically match the root they appear to derive from, nor is it always clear what they mean. Some refer to rest