TEXT CRITICISM AND THE BIBLE

[@whatdidtheprophetjesusteac1444]

Excellent explanation of a complex science. Thanks.

[@askabibleprof7099]

Glad you found the video helpful. Thanks for watching.

[@c.wilke7649]

I am teaching an Apologetics class at church and this was our first topic. This is concise, easy to understand and to learn, and I will be turning the information into a "tactic card" to help me remember the facts. Thank you and keep these teachings coming!!!! (tactic taken from Greg Koukl's book of the same name.

[@askabibleprof7099]

Great to know that you found it helpful. May your ministry enjoy abundant fruitful for God's glory.

[@Mrqwerty2109]

Excellent content sir! This was very helpful to understand textual criticism. Do you by chance have any videos on how they put together things like the Novum Testamentum Graece or other common bases for modern bible translations?

[@askabibleprof7099]

Thanks for the kind words and taking the time to view the video. As to your suggestions, questions regarding the NTG are probably to in depth for this channel's target audience. As to the common bases for modern Bible translations, I have actually thought about developing a video on it. However, the trick is having the time and not offending a lot of people. However, it's on my mind nonetheless. Thanks for the suggestions. Blessings.

[@jamesgossweiler1349]

It's my understanding that there are remarkably few Bible translational alterations and errors in regarded modern translations when compared to the original manuscripts. These documents and texts have been exhaustively studied, compared, and evaluated for nearly 2,000-years by millions of people...claims of translational alterations and errors are poorly founded. That being said there exists some poor to extremely poor contemporary translations characterized by shockingly poor hermeneutics and exegesis...dynamic equivalent and eisegetical translations run amok so to speak.

[@askabibleprof7099]

Right, and that is the point that the video attempts to communicate. Dr. Dan Wallace, a leading Text Critic, estimates that only 1% of the variants of the NT are considered both "viable" (meaning that there is a real question as to which reflects the autograph) and significant (meaning that the variants represent an impactful change in a verse's message). So, there are lots of variants within the manuscripts of the Greek NT as the most recent edition of the Nestle-Aland textual apparatus reveals. But the vast majority of these variants that are listed are not consider viable or impact, and most are consider neither viable or impact. Now, regarding the fidelity of modern translation, you are correct, and that is a subject for an entirely different video.

[@jamesgossweiler1349]

Sadly, some of the worst contemporary translations are not only jaw-droppingly poor but also popular and in widespread use, e.g. The Message.

[@askabibleprof7099]

@@jamesgossweiler1349 There is no denying that there are some paraphrase and amplified Bibles that are poorly translated. This situation is precisely why I steer students away from these options.

[@RUT812]

@@jamesgossweiler1349 and the Passion “translation.” 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝑔𝒽 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝑔𝒽

[@jamessheffield4173]

Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?

[@askabibleprof7099]

I'm not entirely clear if you are asking a question about something, are you? I was a little confused because your first example of 1 Jn 5.7, I think you are referring to the "Johannine Comma," which really involves vs 8 more than vs 7. Nevertheless, a consistent "Majority Text" Critic would also reject it on the grounds that it is not found in the "majority of the Greek texts." So, are you asking something about Reasoned Eclecticism, or you just explaining that it is the approach that you most favor?

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@askabibleprof7099 I am saying that I have problems with the theory. The example of the comma of John being not in the Greek, then saying a majority of the Greek texts are corrupt in my opinion involves them in a contradiction IMO. I gave other examples of contradictions. I am not giving answers but questions. Pax.

[@askabibleprof7099]

@@jamessheffield4173 Okay, I see. There are some scholars that approached Reason Eclecticism with a more disciplined approach than what you described. What you described sounded like "Radical Eclecticism," which is extremely subjective. However, Reasoned Eclecticism can be more subjective at times then the other more conservative approaches. The reality is that Text Criticism is a very complex discipline, and one that deserves much more discussion than what I have provided. KZbin holds most video to below 15 minutes. There are several very good TC scholars with many good videos. Dan Wallace's work deserves a look if you want to dive a lot deeper into the topic. My video was only an introduction that I developed for my students. Hope that helps. Thank you for the interaction.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@askabibleprof7099 While I respect the scholars you named, there are other scholars who disagree, such as, Burgon, Scrivener, Miller, Hoskier, Pickering, Letis, Maurice Robinson, and others. I just don't see how all the Apostolic Churches got the wrong texts until 1881 A.D. The dialog goes on. Blessings.

[@askabibleprof7099]

@@jamessheffield4173 And blessings to you as well.