Text Criticism: Criticising the Bible is not as scary as it sounds.

[@alexandersmith9385]

Thank you again for great content. I salute you and all scholars who have immersed themselves in the study of the ancient texts to help us understand God's word. I appreciate your concise clarity in explaining the orgin of the Textus Receptus.

[@noelojendiz924]

Very helpful, can’t wait for text criticism course on MBL

[@theoglossa]

Wow. Would be a great idea,

[@bma]

It’s coming :)

[@theoglossa]

@@bma Wow.

[@sgreum70]

That was a great overview, though I'd argue one thing in that - I'd push the origin of text criticism back to about the time of Origen who was trying to find an authoritative text in amongst all the early Greek copies, translations, and butchered versions like that of Marcion. His Hexapla was one of the results of his work in that. Though apparently he didn't believe that we should rashly correct the text and cited Marcion as a warning example of what happens when we do that without care. Jerome was another who engaged in a form of textual criticism as well. It would be interesting to see what these two might think of modern textual criticism - Origen in particular might think a bit more positively about it if he saw how it is done today. Other than that I don't advocate either major camp purely because we do not have the autographs and I think it is foolish to take a hard stance for any position. I've been working on an apparatus comparing various critical editions from Erasmus to the modern day with Tregelles' critical text and what I see there tells me that there is no way we can honestly declare one superior to another. That said, the vast majority of differences are so minor that we can rightly say that all the major editions bear the essence of God's inspired word unharmed.

[@kensmith8152]

My problem with textual criticism, and it’s just comes with the territory, are the motives of the critics themselves. Especially in the nineteenth century with Wescott and Hort. A good read on this is a book by Dean John William Burgon called The Revision Revised. This book explains the furor that the work of Wescott and Hort caused

[@Dougeb7]

I've read a moderate amount from mainstream scholars, TR, and majority text proponents, but I'm just an interested layman who still needs several tools to navigate the Greek. I think that one's view on if and how God has preserved the text greatly influences one's overall textual position, as it should. May I suggest that as a topic for a future video? As always, I appreciate your content (even when I disagree), and your goal of opening the Greek and Hebrew Bible to as many people as possible!

[@bma]

Thanks for your comments! I'll look at doing a video on that. Good idea!

[@iandacosta107]

Cool. Thanks for explaining where textus receptus came from.

[@tedtuttle6527]

I'm just a regular joe this is way beyond my comprehension & learning. I depend on people like u who I believe God has placed on this earth to explain how we got to where we r with our current scripture. there is way way too much for the average lay person to have the ability to even get to the point of scholarly aptitude u posses. just learning Hebrew Greek or Latin is out of my reach. I'm 70 so u c what I mean but it is interesting listening to u & picking up fragments & pieces of information that even an uneducated person like me to understand. l lean on the scripture that says all scripture is Spiritually inspired (to lazy to actually look up the exact vs). some people would consider that being ignorant of believeing something written so long ago by so many author's & interpreted by man to tell us what it means in English. well I guess I'll just remain ignorant. thank you for putting these vids out there for us ignorant people so we may have a little glimpse into how the GREATEST BOOK EVER ASSEMBLED was assembled & their meanings.

[@bma]

Thanks for watching!

[@viktorlampinen1785]

Hi. Thanks for the video! ❤️

[@bma]

Thanks for watching!

[@thegodiknowministries]

I've been watching Dr. Nehemia Gordon for quite a while now, and he really opened my eyes to textual criticism. So glad to have found you, too!!! I think the two of you could have some great conversations. He and Keith Johnson have been doing a series on the Hebrew version of Matthew from Shem Tov. Very interesting stuff!

[@salpezzino7803]

He is a Cultist

[@thegodiknowministries]

@@salpezzino7803 No, he's a Karaite.

[@fireflames3639]

Is it true that without the comma johanneum, 1 John 5:7 has bad grammar?

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

First non spam comment lol!

[@Occhiodiargento]

Lol, look all the spam. Hey, question. Is there any approach of the other disciplines (redation, form, etc) you know I can read? I want to lose the fear of this topics and read it judging them objetively without abbandoning my core presupositon on the Inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures.

[@bma]

Yes. I think we can do that. I have some fairly strong views on some of those forms of criticism. Thanks for the suggestion.

[@Occhiodiargento]

@@bma something tell me I'll agree with you jeje😜

[@clouds-rb9xt]

Thoughts on the patriarchal text of 1904 and generally the byzantine text? I've also heard some people claim that the Sinaiticus is a forgery, although this is from extreme KJV-onlyists.

[@bma]

Not specifically on that text as such, but generally I'm not a Byz only person for the reasons I've laid out in this and previous videos. Generally it is safe (and wise) to avoid extreme views and the implications of them. Siniaticus is a text like the others, it is not an inspired text (only the original autographs were inspired not the copies) so we should expect it to have issues, but I don't think the argument that it is a forgery is particularly helpful. If it is a forgery, it is a pretty elaborate one - the author had to copy out the NT and the LXX. That would have taken a long time and a lot of effort to put it together. Scholars can spot when a single page of papyrus (or vellum) is a forgery, so forging a whole codex and getting away with it would require some supernatural forgery ability. So I think you can ignore such claims. Thanks for watching!

[@larrytruelove8659]

Clouds The forgery claim happened when Tischendorf claimed to have forged it. 60 years earlier he had attempted to forge some manuscript(s) and failed. Most scholars don’t agree for various reasons. The motive for his claim is unclear, but KJVO really want the manuscript to be a forgery.

[@jaredvaughan1665]

I think copyists are more likely to leave things out than add to the texts.

[@bma]

We see evidence of both, and so we have to work out in each case what happened as as best we can ascertain, why it happened. Thanks for your comments!

[@TempGFCanada]

Just because it's older doesn't mean it's better...

[@johngilwins]

The more I learn about text criticism the more I start to lean on the TX supremacy side. But I can't lean fully into TX supremacy because I have a question that I can't seem to get answer yet. That question being: Throughout most of church history, the church said that they had limitations with the physical manuscripts that they had and had access to. Throughout most of church history the church fought to get the best manuscripts for reading and translating. But now suddenly, that's changed in the last 500 year? Why? On the other side of that, the thing that is pushing me away from text criticism is that, for all of church history nobody, absolutely nobody, looked at contextual criticism the way we do today. That is, holding to the idea that earlier manuscripts were more authentic. Instead, they looked at the manuscripts consistency with other manuscripts and on councils. But now suddenly, that's changed in the last 200 years? Why? Arguing that content gets added over time, is arguing from silence which is weak at best. Here's a statement we all know to be true. God can be trusted to preserve his Word. That statement, places a lot of credit in the TX supremacy side.

[@bma]

Thanks for your questions! I can't promise to answer them all, but here are some thoughts. One of the reasons that TC is a bigger issue today is that we've become more specific in our thinking thanks (in part) to the scientific revolution - which is why this changed over the last few hundred years (i.e. since the scientific revolution). Also, the advent of the printing press has speed up our consideration of what text do we print. So these two things combined to drive the TC discussion we're having today. God's preservation of His Word is not (in my opinion) an argument for the TR side only but for the preservation of the original text more broadly. Having said that, the differences between the TR and non-TR text bases are not great enough to warrant the war that is often waged between believers. Thanks again for your asking and for watching!

[@kensmith8152]

What is text criticism? Well if you’re Bart Ehman you’ll try to destroy the Bible in order to sell books

[@ReginaCæliLætare]

Text criticism damages faith