Will New Testament Textual Criticism Ever Stop?

[@mnjackson5772]

4:00 - Most compelling reason for differences between translations is that there is not ONE way to translate any text. Every translation must make choices between possible legitimate meanings, in doing so they invariably subtract meaning and simultaneously add meaning. Different translations make other choices with the same consequences. This isn't good, it isn't bad, it is just reality.

[@markwardonwords]

Right!

[@mnjackson5772]

@Packhorse-bh8qn Yawnnnn...

[@richardvoogd705]

If using textual criticism means to speak bad of the Bible, we're in trouble. If, however, it means putting our brains to work to evaluate the available evidence, bring it on! I owe a huge debt to those who are better informed than myself and who work to provide the best possible Bible for me to read.

[@Yesica1993]

That bit left me stunned. The fact that adult, educated people think this way is disturbing. If you can't understand simple, modern English terms, you expect me to accept that you understand old fashioned English? And understand it so well that you claim this old fashioned English Bible is THE only accurate one? Willful ignorance like this frustrates me so much. It makes Christians, and worse, Christ, look like morons.

[@markwardonwords]

Right!

[@MAMoreno]

@@Yesica1993 Are you responding to the correct person? Did a comment get deleted? The original post says nothing that would warrant your reaction.

[@Yesica1993]

@@MAMoreno I am not sure to what comment of mine you are responding. I can't see it. And I sure don't remember what it was.

[@richardvoogd705]

@@Yesica1993 I'm mildly confused too. On the other hand, I sometimes respond or react to someone online, and my comments mysteriously turn up somewhere other than where I expected.

[@JoshuaLeeCrawford]

Great video Mark. Thank you! I’d love to hear your thoughts on the information that has made some people up in arms lately that there will be new updates to the ESV. Perhaps you’ve heard some whispers in the office space on what these might include? Either way, I think a lot of folks are maybe unnecessarily bothered and perhaps they should breathe deep and easy that the translation probably isn’t going to be manifestly different. Thoughts?

[@Yesica1993]

I've heard that as well. I wish we knew what changes are being done. With all the trash in culture these days, it does concern me.

[@mikejohnstone2848]

I’m exasperated that there is *another* ESV update; there’s no way that English language use necessitates a revision again already!

[@MAMoreno]

@@mikejohnstone2848 From the sound of it, they're routinely considering suggestions made to the committee. It's not so much about changes in English since 2001 as it is about reevaluating their work. (If language change is a factor at all, it's probably going to be in cases where they stuck with the RSV's dated language instead of updating it more thoroughly.)

[@MaverickStreet]

White has been my guy for NTTC since 97. By providence I found you back during COVID. You two are always encouraging. For me personally, the only drawback with the constant emendations and translation updates comes with buying premium Bibles. I’m hesitant more so now to do so. As one who wanted a printed edition for so long and defended it, I now find myself reading the ESV & NASB (LSB) more online. Unfortunately that has problems likewise like being interrupted by notifications. Great informative video once again Mark!

[@langreeves6419]

We will only ever know in part...until resurrected. So until then, we will continually have to use textual criticsm, archeology, and our brains to interpret and apply the Bible.

[@markwardonwords]

Right.

[@ChristianityCommons]

Excellent video. Do you have any resources you would recommend for the letter grading explanation (for people who don't know greek) that also goes over a text example with something like a "D" rating?

[@gstevennash]

Awesome explanation and answer to the proposed questions.

[@allenfrisch]

Ooo awesome! I'm excited to get the Parallel KJV in print!

[@markwardonwords]

Me too!! I'm super jazzed about this!

[@hallboy5]

This is a great video! An analogy that comes to my mind for how the text will change due to textual criticism advances is that of a mathematical limit. Does the line ever actually touch the limit? No! But it does get close- closer and closer, as you go further and further. At some subjective point, though, the line is essentially touching the limit. In a similar way, I see no reason why the critical text couldn't also solidify to the point of being essentially unchanging. There is a finite number of extant manuscripts on this planet. If we get to the point where we find all of them and collate all of them (likely with the help of computers!), why would we think the critical text wouldn't achieve a settled state?

[@markwardonwords]

The asymptotic approach to truth, I think Carson called it. Yes, that might be a good analogy. Only we won't know till heaven how close we got!

[@jacobwjones]

Mark. Where do I start? I don't even know if you read these comments anymore, but I have to at least tell the Internet how much I thank you. I didn't want to like you when I first saw you in my KZbin feed. I was lured in with a video about the "NIV is the best translation ever". I took the bait. I have been taught to hate the NIV and to never use it. I would never have called myself "KJV only", but the stack of 20 KJVs on my desk and shelf proved otherwise. I have several expensive premium KJVs. I love them all. I would read only the KJV, and preach from only the KJV, but always said, "I'm not KJV Only". I was living a lie. Your videos kept being recommended to me. A few at first, but then more and more. I decided to get your book, mark it up, and show you where you were wrong. Then it happened. It was slow, but gradual enough that I finally started changing. It came in waves. First I had to admit that I was in fact KJV-only. Then I had to defend that stance. Then I had to accept several valid points that you made. Then I still held onto tradition and would rely on my almost 40 years of KJV reading to help me teach other people what these archaic words and false friends meant. I even felt some pride in knowing what many of the false friends meant before you told me due to my intense desire for truth and overachieving study habits. Lord forgive me for that pride. In the end, it was that desire for truth that won me over to your side. The line that tipped the scales for me was something akin to: "Sure you can teach people what each word in the KJV means, but isn't that what translations are supposed to do?" I had to sit the book down and take a walk. A long one. That line got me. I instantly recalled the thousands of times I've said, "This word means this, and that word means this", and I realized I wasn't preaching from the KJV. I was preaching from the Jacob Jones version. Earlier this year, I started preaching from the ESV. I had to do a deep dive into the subject of textual criticism to make that switch instead of the easier switch to the NKJV, but I wanted to take that dive. It was a door I had previously sealed off and never dreamed of opening. Thank you for opening that door for me.

[@markwardonwords]

Wow. So meaningful. And so well written. Do you have my personal contact info?

[@jacobwjones]

@@markwardonwords No, I do not.

[@markwardonwords]

@@jacobwjones I just wanted to say something personal, but maybe the comment area is okay for that. I'm deeply touched by your message and by the time you took to write it-also by your humility. I am praying for you now as I hit "reply"!

[@jacobwjones]

@@markwardonwords Thank you so much for the prayers and all that you do. I've dug deep enough to realize just how much work you've put into this. I'm sure most people don't even realize, but I do. I've been teaching through Matthew verse-by-verse in the ESV for several weeks. We're on chapter 21. Before doing anything else, I open the KJV Parallel Bible and read through the variants of each chapter I’m about to teach. It is the fastest way to compare them. I start with your tool, and then I refer to the NA28 and the NTVMR when I encounter major differences (which is very rare). I now have valid answers for anyone in the congregation using a KJV and wondering why I didn’t cover verses like Matt 18:11. KJV-onlyism is the new Vulgate-Onlyism. In a way, you're like the new Wycliffe.

[@4jgarner]

What is the debate you reference? I'd like to watch it.

[@4jgarner]

Or just who is the opponent?

[@michelleadams5609]

It might be the one against Ross? that was excellent.

[@pastorandrewbrady]

Thank you for another great video Mark. The more I hear your defense of textual criticism, the more trust I have in my English translations (even the ones I would pridefully ignore and not use).

[@markwardonwords]

Excellent! That's the point!

Would one have to be a program-enrolled Phoenix Seminary student to take these classes you mentioned or is there another way to take them (asking for myself)?

[@markwardonwords]

Not a class-it's just four video lectures they sell on their website! textandcanon.org/events/scribes-video/

[@genejoy637]

Mark, great video as always. I appreciate your thoughtful and kind approach to a debate that is often given to vitriol. By the way, I don't know if you have already covered this, but the KJV uses the word "roll" in multiple places where modern translations use the word "scroll": one example is Ezekiel 3:1 where God tells Ezekiel to "eat this roll" in the KJV. How would "eat this roll" likely be interpreted by modern readers of the KJV as opposed to an early 17th century reader of the KJV?

[@Yesica1993]

FURBY! My great niece, age 7, has one! I couldn't believe it. I didn't think they were even being made anymore. I wish I still had mine from childhood. /pointless comment

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

Thank you, Brother Mark🌹🔥⭐🔥🌹

[@dustinburlet7249]

Such a great video - have already sent to some of my 'nerd' friends - will be discussing this more - I thoroughly appreciate your work my friend and as much as I am able will continue to support you in thought, word, and deed :-)

[@markwardonwords]

Awesome, thank you! I always wonder what it is I can teach someone with your level of knowledge, Dustin! Maybe my NT emphasis helps an OT guy?

[@Yesica1993]

6:42 I love that picture of people sitting at a table strewn with books and papers. (Especially if it's to do with God's Word.) Geek heaven! You know, it didn't occur to me that unbelievers would even have an interest in this work. As long as they are honest and have the knowledge/skills necessary, it may even be a good thing. It lessens the accusations of bias.

[@markwardonwords]

That latter point is a worthy one.

[@GJP1169]

I just worry that liberal ideologies will creep into interpretation and people's biases conforming to today cultural beliefs.

[@Yesica1993]

That is exactly my fear. It's already taken over everything else.

[@fnjesusfreak]

That's why actual believers tend to avoid the NRSV and NRSVUE, and why the NIV11 took so much flak.

[@KevinDay]

And you're more okay with "conservative" biases making changes like inserting the word "their" to force the choice of "wives" to work instead of letting the English reflect the actual Greek, "Women, likewise..." in 1 Timothy 3:11? Or calling Phoebe a mere servant instead of a deaconess? Or when Eve is said to be taken from Adam's rib, instead of an entire side of his body, which would make her too equal for the ears of traditionalists? You're okay with those biases, just not the ones you don't agree with...

[@nobodyspecial1852]

Ideology shouldn't be shoehorned in from any ic, ian, ism, ist etcetera. There are plenty of doctrines I can think of that aren't "woke" but are contra-biblical. My comments tend to get deleted when I mention them.

[@langreeves6419]

​@@nobodyspecial1852the bible is the most woke book i know! We are commanded to be awake.

[@richiejourney1840]

What I want to see is that no Bible excludes any verses we normally see that may be in dispute. Simply note the issue’s in the footnotes. I think God will sort it out for us.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Interesting discussion. I've been thinking about this question as well... Part of the reason I haven't staked a claim among the TR crowd is, as you've stated, a prophet has not come down and proclaimed the work completed, but it's also worth noting the goal of text criticism. Maurice Robinson quotes the late William Pierpont: "The textual critic should work himself out of a job". and goes on to share what this would look like in a practical setting. Ironically enough, Bart Ehrman has suggested that text critics are merely 'tinkering with the text', indicating from the view of an unbeliever that the eclectic method has done all that it can do. I'm still not sure what to do with unbelievers, liberals, and even Mormons having a hand in textual criticism... I don't like it, and as far as I know, this isn't an issue among the Byzantine text tradition (but perhaps that's because it's a much smaller crows). With that being said, if this were to come up, is it a matter of rejecting it altogether, or simply holding my nose and plugging away?

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

Plug away,Brother Dwayne. Love your program, although it's often above my head. I stand on your sincerity and faithfulness, and have learned much. Blessings.🌹🔥⭐🔥🌹

[@G.D.9]

Great comment, always enjoying your content Dwayne!

[@PrimitiveChristian-m3p]

I love Dr. Robinson and am a great admirer of his work and his writing.

[@ChrisThompson-ew2eb]

I agree. I believe God has always used a few holy men to handle his sacred words.

[@Martin.T.C]

...I am probably the least informed commentator on this post...but wouldn't the 'TR' be a critical text, only derived from evaluating a different group of source texts and selected using different criteria than used for 'CT' or 'Majority' texts?

[@markwardonwords]

Yes! The TR is a CT, and the CT is a TR!

[@chiakum]

We trust in God and His Word, textual criticism is putting the text into test without fear. Textual Criticism must and should be continuous work of faithful Christians.

[@erichoehn8262]

Regarding the third question, I think we it would be wise for us not to slip into an argument from adverse consequences. But we should also be sensitive to the negative consequences and address them openly.

[@maxxiong]

I can understand the liberal concern (should someone who doesn't take the text seriously handle the text?), but at the same time I wonder how many people that are so liberal would care about textual criticism in the first place. The concern about Catholics is inconsistent. KJV onlyists still acknowledge that the old testament was primarily preserved by unbelieving Jews.

[@markwardonwords]

That latter point is a very, very good one. I've never thought of that.

[@CC-iu7sq]

Could you elaborate on the last sentence?

[@michelleadams5609]

Unbelieving as in Rudolf Kittel? Is that who you reference?

[@maxxiong]

@@michelleadams5609I was just talking about the Masoretic text.

[@michelleadams5609]

@@maxxiong I see, but which unbelieving Jews? I've never heard that argument.

[@austin1658]

Hey, Mark. Sorry for the late comment. Recently, someone has told me that modern translations like the ESV, etc. will slowly stop being made. Especially if they stop the copyright. Do you think this is true? Will the KJV take over modern translations?

[@markwardonwords]

No. This has no basis in fact.

[@ElMcMeen1a]

I think that "In the beginning God" and "Jesus wept" are pretty safe. :)

[@markwardonwords]

I think so, too!

[@fnjesusfreak]

If you look at the NRSV, "In the beginning God" is relegated to a footnote.

[@mattc.6526]

​@@fnjesusfreaksmh nothing is sacred anymore lol.

[@tonimccoy9778]

I think you mess with the kjv msg @ your own peril.I personally use the nkjv more than kjv.I do however have the utmost respect for the kjv.I fully respect the new versions but they do have many mistakes and heresies in them.I see many times their small changes are actually huge. Making Christ a liar about going to the party with his blood relatives is solid proof of malfeasance by the committee. Mark, think about it..that glaring mistake of leaving out "yet" went thru along list of supposed scholars. Be very careful about your defense of all those deletions...Take care..Toni's husband

[@leechjim8023]

​@@fnjesusfreakThat is a woke "Bible"👎

[@lbd0723]

Is there any good reason why publishers/translators couldn't leave the main body of the text alone except for a once every generation update, but update the marginal notes more frequently for scholarly purposes? Choose the readings that have been most widely used and trusted by the global church throughout history to go in the main body, then note variations in the margins. Not an expert, but seems like that should be a reasonable compromise 🤷‍♀️

[@MAMoreno]

I think that an early update may be justified if problems are spotted by readers that were missed in the editing process. Additionally, it may be smart for a translation to release the translation initially in ways that don't require a large investment before the bugs are worked out (an online edition, for example, or even a really cheap standalone New Testament or Old Testament in paperback). But once it's set, I agree with you: avoid updating the main body unless there's some serious issue that has to be addressed.

[@jbchapy]

This is why I like the NKJV. There is the "received text" in the main body of text, and "matter of fact," "neutral" notes on significant textual variations in the marginal notes, that do not disparage other text traditions (many modern translations disparage readings from the entire Byzantine family, whether TR or Majority Text). There is also the Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version, with the "majority text" in the main body, and more textual variants than the NKJV, and percentage frequencies of the variants. Having a main text update once a century would be more to my taste, but I still regularly read the KJV...

[@AltayKruveun]

Which translation of the Bible do you believe is the most reliable and accurate in terms of linguistic fidelity, without altering or misrepresenting the meaning. I watched your video about the NRSV compromising on homosexuality, and I want to know if there is one translation that doesn't compromise like that.

[@markwardonwords]

I trust all the major modern evangelical English translations to be what they say they are: sincere, skilled, but human attempts to translate God’s word accurately and readably. NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB, NLT, NET.

[@AndrewKeifer]

I see NT textual criticism as being similar to archaeology. It's a search for the truth that doesn't end for fear of finding controverting evidence. What I see when I consider the differences between translations and manuscripts is that the Word of God transcends the letter on the page and manuscript traditions. In fact, I'd say that's a part of how its preservation is ensured.

[@michelleadams5609]

An apt metaphor: archaeology. Textual Criticism is also...propped up by academic interests, publishing and publisher demands, and at the end of the day, you're still digging through manure and turning over graves to make a discovery your betters had already unearthed.

[@AndrewKeifer]

@@michelleadams5609 some people worship God, others worship a translation. 🤷‍♂

[@michelleadams5609]

@@AndrewKeifer LOL, if it were only that simple. How can the one who is looking for God's Word and believe Him when He said that He would preserve it, find such a tome and then read it and believe it? Yet, the one who is told by his church... here are 12 translations, take your pick they all "say the same thing" and God's Words are not inspired, but it's all about the "message"? And then when you realize that these publishers give your church $$$ to promote their Bibles and teach how to "transition" your church away from the KJV? And yes, I've seen the materials for this. You gotta wonder. Tell me who loves God more.

[@AndrewKeifer]

@@michelleadams5609 you know what, I owe you an apology. My reply to you was antagonistic and unChristlike. I sowed strife when I should've been sowing peace. I'm sorry if what I said offended you. The KJV is an excellent translation and I would never tell anyone not to read it. I certainly use it frequently in my daily readings. So far, it hasn't contradicted anything I've found in the more modern versions that I utilize, but if you don't think it's right to use other translations besides the KJV, then that's your prerogative. May God bless you and those you love richly in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior!

[@michelleadams5609]

@@AndrewKeifer Oh, no problem. I didn't take any offense. I hope you didn't think I was being sardonic. It's hard to be sincere, blunt and succinct without sounding a little "biting". I hope that people will keep an open mind, and give us all a bit more grace online.

[@travismoore7938]

This is a question … but I have spent several months listening to you, Dwayne Greene, A Nickels Worth Reviews and Disciple Dojo on the different translations and as I listen to you on this issue the question becomes more prominent. Isn’t Bible translation stability an issue? I understand language change, readability and the desire to bring the most accurate rendering of the text from languages that do not necessarily match up with English but the issue I am wondering about is the constant desire to keep updating the translations being put out. The KJV is stable, the NKJV is stable from what I understand but at what point does a stopping point need to be reached? At this moment, I have 7 Bibles in front of me from KJV, NKJV, NLT etc., but when do you say enough is enough? As you have said on multiple videos, we have an embarrassment of riches but is there a time when we say that we have too much? This is a sincere question, which I just rewatched your video on the word sincere and wanted to use this joke, and not a criticism. The ESV update got me wondering about this. Thanks!

[@markwardonwords]

I'm with you, I am. I've argued publicly that it all needs to stop. But if it doesn't, what do Bible-believing Christians do? We educated ourselves and try to appreciate what we're given. All the same, I'm working from my end to stop it.

[@travismoore7938]

@@markwardonwords Thanks for your response and all your work. I have learned a lot since I found your channel.

[@JonathanToole]

For a long time I bought the argument that KJV defenders used, which was that the oldest manuscripts aren't automatically the best ones (I get why they say that) but then they use that to say therefore they are wrong (like with Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). I get the sentiment to say that somebody could have gotten something wrong in one of the oldest ones, but how much more so if somebody copied an error. Honestly I'm still confused on it, but I did find this video helpful. Thanks Mark!

[@markwardonwords]

We don't have the originals; we cannot know with certainty what approach to New Testament textual criticism is best. I think it should be fine that some Christians go more for majority rule and some go for oldest is best. I just don't want to see them demonizing one another. =(

[@JonathanToole]

@@markwardonwords Amen to that!

[@stevefrancis5885]

Dell Johnson was one of my college Bible professors and I held that position for years until I studied the whole issue from the other point of view. It was then that whole thing fell apart and began to appear more like a conspiracy theory.

[@markwardonwords]

I went through his videos carefully a few years ago, and I was not impressed with the level of argumentation. =(

[@stevefrancis5885]

​@@markwardonwordsat the point I was in college I had never asked questions before and had come up in it so I just accepted it as fact. I always wondered why so many I had gone to college with had peft the kjvo stance. Now I understand it.

[@AntiChristExposed]

What the KJV only-ists don't realize is that textual criticism is precisely the method that produces a single text. If everyone has a copy of the Bible and one person alters their copy, then everyone else will know because when they compare everyone's Bibles that one person's copy is different. That comparison is called textual criticism.

[@CC-iu7sq]

Here’s a question I’ve been wrestling lately actually regarding our New Testament. If you ask many Christians, many of them assume Jesus spoke Greek because they know the NT manuscripts are in Greek. But what I find online is that he spoke Aramaic due to where he grew up. Here’s my question for you Mark. If the NT authors and Jesus spoke mostly Aramaic (with Hebrew or Greek as secondary languages) due to their geological location; is it possible that most of our New Testament was actually recorded in Aramaic, but early scribes were tasked with immediate translation to Koine Greek since it was the common language to many non-natives?

[@markwardonwords]

Possible. But unlikely. And the object of information is the Greek. www.logos.com/grow/did-jesus-speak-greek/

[@billcook4768]

The hidden Pompeii manuscript will reveal that one of the 12 apostles was named “Steve.” Probably the one we now known as James the Lesser.

[@InternationalChristianClassics]

Although it's good to see you try and tackle this question, your argument taken to its logical conclusion is a huge problem, it means that at the very best, we cannot be sure of those verses that have variants, which would be hugely problematic for the confidence a Christian (who knows of textual criticism) or a Pastor because it implies their confidence that they can have in the meaning of a Bible text is proportionate to the confidence they have that they have chosen the right variant which although may be 90% as an example, they will believe in the meaning of the passage but with 10% doubt because they doubt their own study into the variant or didnt have all the information or some other scholar had a differing view which might be correct... isn't that going against what the Bible says about having a more sure Word of prophecy, even more than revelation in 2 Peter 19:20?

[@markwardonwords]

A valid question. But the same God who inspired that statement in 2 Peter 1:19 gave us the situation we have, in which we do not have warrant to claim perfect, absolute, complete certainty about every jot and tittle of Scripture. The fact is, however, that those variants almost never change Christian doctrine. As Scrivener said: "Be the various readings in the New Testament what they may, they do not in any way alter the complexion of the whole book, or lead us to modify a single inference which theologians have gathered from the common text, as it is now extant in our Authorized version. ‘Even put them into the hands of a knave or fool'-I employ the pointed language of Bentley, in the sequel of a passage I have cited before (p. 13)-'and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it will still be the same.'" Lecture V: Discussion of Important Passages in the Holy Gospels Pages 118-119 "Certain passages, it may be, will no longer be available to establish doctrines whose proof rests secure upon a hundred besides, and this is the very worst that can happen: others, upon whose genuineness suspicion has been rashly thrown, will be cleared and vindicated by the process of exact discussion: some will assume in their new form a vigour and beauty they possessed not before. The main result of all investigations will be a thankful conviction that God’s Providence has kept from harm the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance of His Church and people." Lecture V: Discussion of Important Passages in the Holy Gospels Page 119

[@anthonytylernecerato4289]

@Mark Ward can you do a video on Reuben Swanson’s “horizontal line analysis” of the NT. Ross kept using it to say there’s triple digits worth of text with no support. I looked in your parallel Bible and there was almost no difference. Meanwhile James Snapp said you could do the same thing with the KJV in over 1000 places. It doesn’t make much sense

[@glstka5710]

I have some of Ruben Swanson's work. I think that this is a good way of comparing texts. I sometimes think that he got distracted by later minuscules though.

[@JamesSmith-zs8fl]

Is there any influence from, or discussion of, Scripture documents that were left out of the Bible?

[@zimriel]

I think that's an important comment. If (probably when) the full Gospel of Peter is found, I suspect it will force a number of changes to Luke (especially). A variant of the early letters of Paul would force the same for other NT texts.

[@fnjesusfreak]

The NIV references 1 Esdras in its translation of Ezra-Nehemiah.

[@richiejourney1840]

Ton’s…like the very statement you just made. Should we include it?

[@captainnolan5062]

Which version of the TR was the Geneva Bible of 1560 based on? Did Geneva Bible Onlyists voice opposition to the fledgling upstart King James Version at the time? Why did the Bible in use for 51 years need to be 'changed' in 1611? Would a KJV Onlyist transported back to 1560, and raised on the Geneva Bible, have been a Geneva Bible Onlyist, and therefore would have have resisted the changes made to their favorite Geneva Bible back in 1611? And why was the Gutenberg Bible, printed in Latin in 1455, changed? Which version of the TR was it based on? It seems that ever since the printing press was invented that changes to the Bible have been the norm, rather than the exception. According to the Google AI "The first critical edition of the Greek New Testament was published in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus' work, Novum Instrumentum Omne, was based on multiple manuscripts because he didn't have a single complete work." In addition: "The term "Textus Receptus" refers to the series of printed editions of the Greek New Testament that began with Erasmus' work. Other editions of the Textus Receptus include those by Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, Colinaeus, and Scrivener. Karl Lachmann's 1831 edition is considered the first "critical edition" of the New Testament because it was compiled using specific rules based on the readings of a large number of important manuscripts."

[@IamGrimalkin]

The Geneva bible was based on Stephanus's text. This as relevant because it's the first Greek text that included verses, so the Geneva bible was the first translation with verses. People often preferred the Geneva Bible because they liked its study notes, but they weren't "onlyists" for it because its advocates were far too busy opposing Vulgate-onlyists. However, King James did dislike the Geneva Bible, which was part of why he commissioned the KJV in the first place. He disliked it because its study notes seemed to disavow the divine right of kings. Eventually he banned it because the KJV still couldn't replace the Geneva Bible.

[@richiejourney1840]

The first “tr” “textual criticism” was the polyglot. Way early church

[@travismoore7938]

@@richiejourney1840 Question - The polyglot was the one that was being worked on a little before Stephanus’ translation right or was it Erasmus’ translation? I just watched a video on that. It’s a bit hard sometimes to keep it all straight.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@travismoore7938 “polyglots” go back to even the OT days under many names. It simply means in our case a Bible in many languages. The early Church fathers were aware of many different mss’s. e.g Origen’s Hexapla The earliest known Bible with several versions was compiled by the early church father Origen of Alexandria, sometime before A.D. 240. Contained 6 versions of the OT. The first Bible which may be considered a Polyglot is that edited at Alcalá (in Latin Complutum, hence the name Complutensian Bible), Spain, in 1502-17, under the supervision and at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes, by scholars of the university founded in that city by the same great Cardinal. It was published in 1520, with the sanction of Leo X. Ximenes wished, he writes, "to revive the languishing study of the Sacred Scriptures"; and to achieve this object he undertook to furnish students with accurate printed texts of the Old Testament in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages, and of the New Testament in the Greek and Latin. Complutensian Polyglot Bible Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros commissioned a group of scholars to compile this Bible, which was printed between 1514 and 1517. The Old Testament was printed in three columns, with the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin versions. The New Testament was printed in two columns, with the Greek and Latin versions Seems to be a conflict in which Cardinal is to be given credit lol

[@travismoore7938]

@@richiejourney1840 Thanks for the information. I will research that.

[@militarymarch3006]

For fifty years, the only Bible I read was my KJV I received as a Christmas present back in the 1970s. I recently purchased two other translations. Both are much easier to read than KJV, without any significant changes in meaning. Again, having only read KJV for fifty years, I don't understand the KJV only position.

[@chrisbranton65]

@militarymarch3006 No translation is perfect. As a pastor, I will tell you to read any passage in multiple translations to help you get the best idea of what the native language is trying to say. Just keep in mind that the KJV translation is not tracking the Critical Text like most modern translations. So, readings will be slightly different. If you want more translations that follow the Greek text the KJV uses, then have an NKJV or MKJV on hand.

[@michelleadams5609]

You don't understand the KJV Only position? I suppose I can only speak from my experience in that regard. I was saved at an early age in a non-Christian home. I memorized the KJV and read it everyday. It shaped my life. As a got older and went to college, I read what my pastors were reading....from the KJV to the NIV to the NLT, the CSB, the NKJV, to finally the ESV. After 26 years studying the Bible (even formally), I learned that the Modern translations were taken from different and subsequently inferior and dubious texts. I was lied to. My professors told me that there were no "doctrinal issues" that were changed between the translations. Then I found those changes and confronted them and they backed down. Never confirm something that you haven't investigated yourself. It's poor scholarship. Then, my churches I attended lied to me and insisted that the KJV was in the same ancestry as the Moderns, which is completely ridiculous and if you watch videos showing those "where we got our Bible?" (including James Whites), they tend to promote the Moderns by their association with the KJV and wave away the differences. For me, the last 12 years returning back to the KJV after asking so many Christians, friends and pastors, elders about this issue caused me to see just how poorly people can't defend their Bible. I started writing essays and encouraging people to look into these issues. Some did and thanked me, left their churches and found KJV churches. Some couldn't bear to research it because they didn't want to know the differences. It's not something I took lightly. I researched and knew that God had preserved His Word and with the time left on this mortal coil, I will warn people about this agenda and it is an agenda. $$$ are made, spent and wasted to get people not to read the KJV (The NKJV translators were honest about that).

[@anthonytylernecerato4289]

Which debate was this? Riddle or Ross? Both pastors you have addressed

[@brettmahlen722]

Riddle, it was actually two amazing debates

[@anthonytylernecerato4289]

@@brettmahlen722 oh ok. I watched both, and I remember this point coming out more times with Riddle. I honestly just wish Dr. White would have built a stronger case for the exclusion of Mark 16:9-20. I do however agree that it should be excluded.

[@brettmahlen722]

@@anthonytylernecerato4289 I rejected the ending of Mark too, once upon a time.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

Can you do a video that introduces translations and variants for 10 year olds?

[@markwardonwords]

I’ve thought about this. Good reminder.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

@markwardonwords thanks it would be awesome because it would be best to be teaching our kids and grandchildren rather then having to wait till they are in an adult Sunday school or on a college campus. So many non Christian college students don't understand translations at all and think it's an argument against the Bible. I would love to be able to teach my own kids on translations. Plus the atheist youtube channels appeared to be aimed at children - as they use cartoon characters. I've read that many children that decide to leave church decide while they are in middle school (before age 14). I'll admit that it appears that all your videos are aimed at adults or those who have studied these issues already.

[@genewood9062]

Hi Brother Mark: There are so very many texts, fragments, and quotations; in several languages, that I do not see scholars ever coming to one established text. ............ May I note 2 passages where I think the TR is right, and one where it is wrong. 1) I do think John 8:1-11 is Scripture. It is perfectly like Jesus. And it quite conforms to the OT "Holy Nation" calling of Israel. 2) I also think Mark 16:14-18 is Scripture. It so completes the other 4 portions of the Great Commission, found in Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts. 3) BUT, I do not think Acts 16:31 is Scripture. Or at least, not the title "Christ". Paul preached "Christ", to Jews, "Lord" to Greeks! 3a) To a Jew, an "oiled person" was the Messiah. 3b) To a Greek, an "oiled man" was some naked wrestler.

[@richardvoogd705]

Interesting perspective. There are times when I wonder if there's a possible connection between Jesus talking about false Christs (e.g. Matthew 24:24) and false teachers who claim to be annointed - the false teachers are oily!

[@rosslewchuk9286]

God's Word is indeed perfect! But because of our sin, its physical manifestation takes place in a fallen world. Knowing our pride and arrogance, God is keeping us humble via "the embarrassment of riches" of NT mss. I see the 2 positions in light of "iron sharpens iron" because we "see in a mirror dimly." If we think we "have arrived" in terms of the text, we wil be less inclined to to diligently study it. So, let the work continue on, but in mutual love and respect. “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” (James 3:17-18, NKJV)

[@zimriel]

"God's Word" is taking on a lot of weight. The endstate of "God's Word is perfect" is the Sunni Muslim position, where they raise a holy text to the same place in the Godhead that belongs to Christ. Christ is thereby demoted.

[@Yesica1993]

This is my take as well! (You just saved me the work of figuring out how to word it in such a lovely way as this.)

[@richiejourney1840]

@@zimrielGod’s Word is perfect. Full stop. However, the transmitted TEXT of the Bible has some minor variations, that are not very concerning to me.

[@chrisbranton65]

I am not KJV-only. But I believe the majority text is the best for Bible translation. The critical text isn't trash, but I have a feeling that all this textual criticism was already done in the first few centuries of Christianity.

[@markwardonwords]

Those are viewpoints you have liberty to take as a Christian-as long as you don't condemn other people's Bibles as trash! And you haven't. That's good!

[@chrisbranton65]

@markwardonwords The only time I would trash someone's Bible is when that translation doesn't follow the Greek text it is supposed to be following. Such as changing God's gender to fit someone's whim. But the two main Greek texts, Critical and Majority, on the key points are so close that the biggest issues are how the translator translates literal or dynamic, and all translations do some of both. My personal preference is literal with dynamic only when it makes sense. Example Old Testament the native language don't remember if it is Hebrew or Aramaic uses "stomach to stomach" most English translations would be "face to face" or "mouth to mouth".

[@williambranch4283]

As long as Sola Scriptura is a basis for apologetics, that will be an avenue of skepticism. ;-(

[@richiejourney1840]

Everything is an avenue of skepticism….

[@williambranch4283]

@@richiejourney1840 Hence polemics. Nihilism awaits.

[@Outrider74]

What was White’s response?

[@markwardonwords]

I don't recall!

[@spartakos3178]

What is the smallest change needed in the oldest text to support something like arianism?

[@bretclement3197]

It’s funny, I think the KJVO and CT people are after the same thing, for the same reasons and in much the same way. The CT crowd believe that the older the manuscript the more reliable it is. By old manuscript they mean in the original language and hopefully from the right part of the world. The KJVO crowd also want the oldest manuscript, which in English is the KJV (I know about the Geneva Bible, Bishop’s Bible etc but they went by the wayside and the KJV is in many people’s heart and mind the original English translation). Each side has their points but regardless of the manuscript tradition, by God’s providence doctrine doesn’t change from one to the other. I think each side should read Romans 14 (in their preferred translation) and see that this is not something to divide over.

[@Ricksbookshelf]

While reading my LSB the other day I ran across a strange word in Deuteronomy. Votive. I think "voluntary" would have been a better choice of words.

[@richiejourney1840]

Note it in your margin and contact the translator committee

[@Ricksbookshelf]

@@richiejourney1840 actually thought about doing that. Noticed something else today. I'm making notes.

[@shrewdthewise2840]

Most of the translations I read have it as “vow” offering. “Votive” means the same thing but it’s definitely not a word we use very often anymore (except to describe a type of candle). I really like the LSB, but some of their choices are definitely peculiar.

[@receivedtext]

Mr. Ward, why not just link to the debate so your viewers can hear both sides? It is obviously one of these: Timestamp 1:06 of Dr. Jeff Riddle vs. Dr. James White | Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text DEBATE | Eph 3:9 Timestamp: 1:53 of DEBATE: Textus Receptus is equal to NT Autographs- Dr. James White vs Dr Peter Van Kleeck

[@markwardonwords]

I am not currently engaging with CB. I’ve kept silent for two years. But that will change next week!

[@receivedtext]

@@markwardonwords Not true. You criticized my Confessional Bibliology booklet only 10 months ago.

[@markwardonwords]

@@receivedtextI criticized a booklet being used at a major IFB KJV-Only college. I admit to logic-chopping!

[@markwardonwords]

@receivedtext That booklet was given just days ago as an assignment to a college-age friend of mine at that large IFB, KJV-Only institution. It is my understanding that it is assigned to all students.

[@receivedtext]

@@markwardonwords I’m glad to hear that Confessional Bibliology is being introduced to the KJVO world. You still shouldn’t conflate categories and then excuse it through casuistry.

[@ianholloway3778]

I've never like 'textual criticism' or 'critical text' as terms. There must be a better term that does sound so critical like 'analytical textual reconstruction' or something? And then then you'd have the 'Analytical Reconstructed Text'.

[@guymontag349]

Will New Testament Textual Criticism ever stop? This is a question I ask myself upon rising every day.

[@williambrewer]

This weekend I keep having the mental image of me walking on a Greek string of texts and suddenly the word I walk on giving out from beneath my feet and me falling through to the fire below.

[@markwardonwords]

I feel for you. Maybe this will help: if you get one interpretation of one passage wrong, will you face the same result?

[@roberthunt9143]

3rd attempt to post. This was a mostly good video but felt out-of-date from the start because it didn't mention the best new critical Greek New Testament (the SR-GNT at GreekCNTR and especially see the very useful Collation pages) which doesn't consist of arbitrary decisions of old men sitting in a room somewhere in Germany (6:34). I recommend reading at least the Overview from their Resources page.

[@lloydcrooks712]

My issue Mark is the canons of modern textual criticism adopting shorter reading rejecting majority of manuscripts focusing on a local early Egyptian text focusing on the harder reading even it is erroneous like John 7 v8 there is not an issue with TC but it biased towards the two main codecies while rejecting the majority of manuscripts I'm not Kjvo but the underlying text

[@Turn-The-Other-Cheek-1Kings22]

If I hand a KJV to a teenager interested in the Bible they will no understand it because the English is to old . Gods word is the Hebrew . Gods word is the Greek . Everything else is an interpretation.

[@captainnolan5062]

Handing a teenager a Bible written in Hebrew and Greek will not make the Bible more understandable to them. Perhaps giving them a copy of the New Living Translation or the Christian Standard Bible would be a better solution.

[@Turn-The-Other-Cheek-1Kings22]

@@captainnolan5062yes sir we are spot on thinking the same thing . My point was the deep truth is the original languages , if I hand a Bible to a teen they should be able to read it and if they wanna study they can read a literal version if they wish . Etc But to many people have had a KJV their whole lives and have no idea when I bring up Bible stuff . It’s a problem

[@captainnolan5062]

@@Turn-The-Other-Cheek-1Kings22 Excellent.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@Turn-The-Other-Cheek-1Kings22I didn’t read the Bible for a long time because of the KJV language and that was all that was ever given to me until one sweet elderly Christian lady gave me a NKJV…then I never looked back and found many others and have just started learning the NT Grk.

[@philtheo]

It may be instructive to compare, say, the NT manuscripts with the Quran's manuscripts. Or rather (others more knowledgeable please correct me) my understanding is that the Quran has a single manuscript tradition and that's it, for the third caliph Uthman chose a single Quran and had all other variants discarded. Hence the Quran does have a single unchanging manuscript tradition where we no longer need to further investigate. Uthman was the bottleneck. In this respect, Muslims got with the Quran what these KJB Only advocates wish they could have with the Bible. Yet, for non-Muslims, this doesn't exactly grant a lot of credibility to the historical reliability of the Quran. In fact, rightly or wrongly, it casts considerable doubt on the historical reliability of the Quran! How do we know the Quran is historically reliable if there's only one manuscript tradition? What did all the other manuscripts say? By contrast, the NT (and to a lesser degree the OT) has a large number of manuscripts (roughly 5000 or so) from different parts of the Roman empire with many variants and so on and so forth. Yet something like 98% of the NT is consistent with all the other extant manuscripts. That itself helps attest to the historical reliability of the NT. As such, it's a good thing that we have so many manuscripts that we can keep investigating, not that we have a single unchanged never to be investigated ever again manuscript like Muslims apparently have or so I'm told.

[@arjanstoel]

What do you think about the Hebrew Gospels?

[@glstka5710]

It seems like the KJV only guy is saying "My mind's made up don't confuse me with the facts".

[@danbrown586]

I don't think you've really addressed the more serious question about your hypothetical ms from Pompeii. If such were to be found, it would be the earliest known NT ms. by a significant margin (and I'm inclined to believe it would contain the entire NT, with the possible exception of 1-3 John, as I believe all the rest, including Revelation, was written before AD 70). What if it did have a completely novel reading in, say, John 3:16? And what if we started to find other very early mss. with the same reading? I think your answer would have to be that that new reading would at least be given serious consideration--and I think that would be the right answer. If we have a dozen first-century mss. with the same reading, I'd think we have to take that reading seriously, even if it's one we've never seen before. But it's hard to have "warm fuzzies" about that idea.

[@MAMoreno]

It would probably depend in part on how different the variant is in John 3.16, right? There's already a variant in verse 15, where the Greek words behind "not perish, but" is present in a wide number of witnesses (and thus appears in the KJV, NKJV, and MEV). Now, since those words are already in verse 16, it makes no difference to the larger passage, but it does suggest the kind of variant that could show up for verse 16. Imagine if we found a manuscript that left out ὁ πιστεύων from verse 16. At that point, it would say something like, "That everyone in him would not perish." Now, would that mean that the meaning of the passage changed? No, not really: those same Greek words already appear in the previous verse, so we'd know that the πᾶς ("everyone") of verse 16 is still limited to the πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ("everyone who believes") of verse 15. The worst consequence from discovering such a variant would not be the sudden affirmation of universalism in the church but rather the annoying necessity of changing all of those John 3.16 stickers to say John 3.15-16.

[@danbrown586]

@@MAMoreno The hypothetical I'm suggesting (building off Mark's hypothetical ms) would involve a significant, and heretofore unknown, variant--category 4 (or perhaps even 5), as he's previously categorized them. He says as a matter of faith--and I emphasize that I agree with him--that the manuscript tradition we have today contains all the extant readings. But if we're hypothesizing the find of a first-century ms, we can also hypothesize finding more. If we hypothesize a minor variant (and there surely would be many of them in a ms of the entire NT), we can also suggest a major one. Perhaps what we know as John 3:16 is missing entirely, for example. If we find enough first-century mss where that text simply doesn't appear, at some point the textual scholars will have to take seriously the possibility that it isn't original. "We have dozens of first-century mss that don't have it" wouldn't be the end of that conversation, but it's certainly a conversation that would happen at that point. And that's the KVJO concern. If we accept the principle of textual criticism, then there's no text, no matter how precious, that we can say _a priori_ is off-limits to change. They are right in that regard, even though I believe that's really the only way it can be--the only consistent alternative is Ruckmanism. But "it's the only way it can be" still doesn't give warm fuzzies.

[@CountryMusicFan-i2q]

Speaking of the KJV, think we'll ever get a KJV Parallel Bible for the Old Testament similar to what was done for the New Testament?

[@MAMoreno]

What would be the basis for comparison? The current standard Hebrew text is nigh identical to the one underlying the KJV. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't cover enough of the Old Testament to offer a complete alternative. Maybe the LXX or the Vulgate could be used, but at that point, we're comparing an original-language text to a translation of an original-language text, and it's hard to be sure when the translation is reflecting a Hebrew variant instead of a translator's interpretation of the same Hebrew words.

[@allenfrisch]

You mentioned correctly that none of the CT readings are baseless. However, there are SO MANY variants that we do end up with NUMEROUS verses that are strung together by the opinion of the experts without a single manuscript matching the verse from beginning to end completely!

[@markwardonwords]

I feel the force of that argument, I do. But that's true of the TR, too, when approached at any zoom level above that of the verse (or maybe paragraph or section?). The only real alternative to the situation you've described is just to use Sinaiticus or Vaticanus or some other single manuscript-a "diplomatic edition," as it's called. I'm open to that. Whatever will stop the fighting.

[@allenfrisch]

@@markwardonwords LOL You're not wrong, but I would argue that the Byzantine Text is the "diplomatic edition!"

[@MAMoreno]

@@markwardonwords The best Great Uncial is the one that you read! - Jerome, probably

[@Superman111181]

Have you tried reaching out to Robert Breaker? He is a goofball but has 750k followers on KZbin. He just put out another video about KJVO. Full of bad arguments.

[@markwardonwords]

In regard him as too extreme for a conversation. :( Prov 26:4.

[@Superman111181]

@@markwardonwords I think you know what I'm going to say... Vs 5. But the real purpose is for the 750k people are listening

[@markwardonwords]

@@Superman111181I don’t disagree. I just feel that the kind of people who find him persuasive are people I cannot reach.

[@Superman111181]

@@markwardonwords surely there are plenty who would listen! KZbin channels Gen2434 and Barry Awe, to name a couple

[@Superman111181]

@@markwardonwords my responses are being deleted for some reason

[@loveisall5520]

It is easier to fuss and gripe and whine and complain about Bible ephemera rather than take on the hard part of Christianity, which is living the life that God wants us to live.

[@markwardonwords]

Absolutely true.

[@brettmahlen722]

Jeff Riddle, of Word Magazine, definitely won that debate with James White. I was amazed! Riddle's Word Magazine episode on 1 John 5:7 really shocked me too.

[@BrotherDevinMichael]

Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ himself, could come back down here and hand us a perfectly translated edition of His Holy Scriptures in the English language. And if it matched the King James Bible, word for word, the "textual critics" would still find fault with it.

[@MAMoreno]

But it also works the other way around. If the CSB had descended from the sky, it would still be rejected by those who've made a cottage industry out of translation paranoia.

[@BrotherDevinMichael]

@@MAMoreno The thing is, most KJO folks believe that God has kept His promise of perfectly preserving His words. And that there is an inspired translation that His words are still perfectly preserved in English. Bible critics don't believe that we can ever truly have God's words in a book. Let alone translated into English. They have doubt, we have faith. Faith that God kept His promise. We call Jesus Christ the Truth, they call Him a liar.

[@MAMoreno]

@@BrotherDevinMichael Most KJO folks also don't seem to recognize that the KJV contains a small number of conjectural emendations to the Hebrew and Greek texts, a fact that flies in the face of the concept of "perfect preservation." If the reading in the text is based on a scholar's guess, that's not preservation. That's hypothetical reconstruction. Two notable cases are 2 Samuel 21.19, where the KJV inserts "the brother of" based on a sum total of zero manuscript evidence, and Revelation 16.5, where the committee embraced a reading invented by Theodore Beza based on his assumption that the text was faulty. Again, if you have to correct transmission errors present in every single witness, then the words "perfect preservation" no longer make any sense. So you're left with two possibilities: either there is a perfectly preserved text that most certainly isn't the KJV, or else you've misunderstood certain passages of the Bible to be teaching the idea of a perfectly preserved text when those verses are actually making a completely different point. If you hold to the first position, then you're in luck: the Geneva Bible and Bishops' Bible have the preserved readings in 2 Samuel 21.19 and Revelation 16.5, so they at least have a chance of qualifying. More likely, though, you're taking verses that are about something else--the utter reliability of a prophecy, the assurance of God's promises to protect those who have faith in him, or both--and mistakenly assuming that they're about the immaculate transmission of accurate readings across the manuscript tradition. It's only when you reject that misinterpretation that you can come to a place where you start attempting to correct potential faults in the text based on your best educated guesses, as the KJV does. (None of this is to say that the translators were necessarily wrong in 2 Samuel 21.19 or Revelation 16.5. In the former case, you'll see that the NIV, NLT, and NET do much the same thing to harmonize this passage with 1 Chronicles 20.5's parallel reading. But again, to make that jump, you have to believe in something less than perfect preservation. You can believe in sufficient preservation or adequate preservation, but if it's perfect, it doesn't need emendation.)

[@aar0n709]

@@BrotherDevinMichael Nowhere does Jesus mention the KJV

[@BrotherDevinMichael]

@@aar0n709 And when exactly did I claim He did?

[@JohnSivewright]

It absolutely should stop. God's written Word is not some puzzle that we need to keep trying to solve. It was written down by the inspired original authors and the copies we have today, translated in many languages, are faithful and reliable copies, preserved by the Lord. To continue the study of textual criticism suggests that what we currently have is not enough. Do you, Mark, believe that God hasn't preserved his Word properly? Do you believe that the bibles we have today aren't enough and we need something more? If you own an NIV, an ESV, an NKJV, a KJV, a CSB or one of several more reliable translations, that is all you will need for the rest of your life to get to know the Lord, as was the case, for example, for hundreds of years when people only used the KJV. You don't need an updated version in 10 or 20 years because some textual critics found something new. Let's be honest - textual criticism only continues because new translations of the scripture are a huge money making exercise. That's it. If everyone decided to stick to the translation they currently use and not buy a new one, that would put a lot of translators and textual critics out of work, and we can't have that now, can we!

[@richiejourney1840]

There is always need for bibles to be printed. The publishers don’t just print bibles. That is an unfair criticism you made. Also, you’re saying that science should stop. That’s what textual criticism is, a science.

[@MAMoreno]

The thing is that the KJV itself wouldn't exist--certainly not in its current form--if not for textual criticism. Nor would the Vulgate exist without textual criticism. You have to establish the text you're translating before you translate it, and there's always pushback when the text differs from how it read in the previous standard text. Jerome was criticized for following readings that differed from the ones people knew. Erasmus was criticized for following readings that differed from the ones that people knew. Yet in both cases, their work went on to be the standard for the next few centuries. Maybe Nestle and Aland didn't need to keep tweaking the work of Westcott. Maybe Estienne and Beza didn't need to keep tweaking the work of Erasmus. It can indeed start to get a little finicky at a certain point. But is it really any better to choose one particular manuscript and agree with it 100% of the time, even when it appears faulty? At some point, you have to compare the evidence and reach a conclusion.

[@JohnSivewright]

@@richiejourney1840 Oh of course we need new bibles printed, but of existing translations. We don't need brand new translations when there's already so many in existence.

[@aar0n709]

@@JohnSivewright No Textual Criticism will continue whether you like it or not. Nobody cares about your opinion 🤣

[@JohnSivewright]

@@aar0n709 What exactly was that second sentence meant to achieve? Don't forget about brotherly love when you engage with people online, friend. If nobody cares about my opinion then should they care about yours? It's okay to cordially disagree with people without being insulting.

[@igregmart]

NT textual criticism will never stop because the Bible Industrial Complex wants the money from new versions.

[@markwardonwords]

That is pure malice, my friend. An open violation of New Testament teaching.

[@G.D.9]

''Bible Industrial Complex" made me 😂

[@MAMoreno]

It's far more about the compulsive need to tweak and adjust minutiae than it is about making money. In fact, some committees are made up of volunteers, while others offer little compensation for the scholars' time. If any textual critics out there are sitting on big wads of dough, it's not from doing the textual criticism itself.

[@aar0n709]

You can make more money selling beer than bibles babe. Just look around you

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

Hello Mark, You said that you have a bigger pool of Greek manuscripts than the Byzantine text. About the 21 minute point. It is the Byzantine text that boasts more than 6 thousand Greek manuscripts. Your modern critical text is based on 9-12 manuscripts, with Vaticanus/Sinaiaticus being the most used. Nestle Aland is a work of the Roman Catholic church. Bruce Metzger, Kurt and Barbara Aland along with Cardinal Carlo Martini. How can any thinking Christian trust a document that is so obviously corrupted? You always seem to stay away from Codex Sinaiaticus. Why? Word of warning... Dan Haifley is going to challenge your view of codex Sinaiaticus. My prayer is that you return to the truth. I love you brother. God's best to you and yours. I am looking forward to your upcoming debate.

[@MAMoreno]

I think he's counting the Byzantine manuscripts as part of the pool.

[@Charlene916]

We have the original manuscripts. They just aren't shown to the public.

[@markwardonwords]

Practically all the manuscripts known to us are digitized or are planned for digitization by the CSNTM and other organizations.

[@Charlene916]

They are not so different than the ones available. Don't worry.

[@MAMoreno]

[citation needed]

[@aar0n709]

@@Charlene916 If you have seen them then show us, we very much want to see the originals

[@Charlene916]

@@aar0n709 Only if you're an Orthodox. Good luck with that then.

[@olegig5166]

Will the criticism ever stop? chuckle chuckle...... Kinda like asking if man will ever stop sinning. Now please, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a sin to criticize the text; however I do feel man has a problem with full and complete submission to a higher authority.

[@Yesica1993]

Textual criticism is not "criticiz[ing] the text."

[@shrewdthewise2840]

“Criticism” is also defined as: “investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, especially Biblical ones: textual criticism.” It doesn’t mean to pass judgment or point out faults in this context

[@olegig5166]

Seems irony abounds.

[@davidbraun6209]

Re 6:35: Why, you should wonder, do I as a Catholic look upon your entire discourse as to the "textus receptus" (not actually accepted by the Catholic Church) with such wonderment and with a bit of concern about your coming off as something of a "Know-Nothing?"

[@MAMoreno]

Funny that it's not accepted by the Catholic Church considering that a Catholic compiled it. 😉

[@billcook4768]

I’m … uncomfortable … with the way you are conflating “liberal” with not believers.

[@spartakos3178]

What do liberals believe in but child sacrifice and genital mutilation?

[@markwardonwords]

I mean theological liberals who deny cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.

[@billcook4768]

@@markwardonwords I appreciate the answer. But is liberal the right word? Isn’t someone who denies fundamental doctrine more like a heretic? To me a liberal Christian still believes fundamental doctrine, but is, say, open to women pastors, is more interested in feeding the poor than condemning LGBT, believes the creation stories in Genesis should be taken symbolically, etc.

[@MAMoreno]

@@billcook4768 Terms like "theological liberal," "progressive Christian," and (as they said a century ago) "Christian modernist"can be somewhat hard to peg down definitively. Some who fall under this category reject the most fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, i.e. those expressed in the ancient creeds. It can't be assumed that all of them are also LGBT-affirming, nor can it be assumed that all progressives who are LGBT-affirming are also opposed to the credal Christian beliefs. But there is definitely some major overlap between those two groups, especially in North America.

[@spartakos3178]

@@billcook4768 All the initial denominations who started with women pastors have "progressed" to heresy.

[@amptown1]

Aaaah James White.

[@Yesica1993]

He's great. Listening to his Holiness Code for Today series now on SermonAudio.

[@richardvoogd705]

Whenever I see the name James White, my mind flits to one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I have a hunch that I need to retrain my thinking!

[@Yesica1993]

@@richardvoogd705 I don't know that one. But it sure ain't this one. LOL!

[@fredandjaci]

Mark Ward Your view that it's a benefit to translation to have unsaved Catholics and Lutheran's etc. On translation, committees leaves the Holy Spirit completely out of the translation process. Aside from the new versions almost exclusively coming from Westcott Hort theory I have seen so many versions being improved and changed as they compare their version to the King James. An example is the ESV when it was used by the Gideons. It was changed because of obvious differences. So we now have another version of ESV the Gideon version, which is still wrong in many doctrines. Your rant once again is to tear down the Bible that God brought into use. Spiritually, God has used the King James to reach the hearts of people for 400 years. You tear up the King James with your view of "false friends" I still have no good way to answer a Muslim friend of mine who said he did not have to be born again. He said John 3:7 was for Nicodemus and him only. The only way he could get that idea was from reading a different Bible than the King JAMES! None of your new versions separate 2nd person plural from singular. I could not break through to this Muslim because of men like you who continue to push for new versions. You take obscure verses and say you have a problem with the King James "false friends" I know some parts of the English language has changed meanings over centuries but a simple view in an accurate dictionary, which by the way many dictionaries are not very accurate. You can tear apart men who have been collage deans and professors like Del Johnson, who was way off on the modern translation problem. But that began 30 years ago. When the attacks to the King James was in full swing and taking place in many colleges. But, anyone with a pea brain could resurch and see the error of many of the false Bible professors. Heck even me with my pea brain could see the difference between someone who loved the words of God and someone who wanted to tear God's word down. And today we have more subtle and man wise but God foolish people trying to tear down the version that has thee and thou and ye, plus hundreds of other translation helps where new versions go wrong. It seems your arguement is always against the King James? Is it because of the leading of the Holy Spirit or against the Holy Spirit? As I said at the start, new translations have people on their committee who are not Spirit led.

[@MAMoreno]

If you think Lutherans are "unsaved" (let alone Catholics), then wouldn't you just as likely assume that 17th century Anglicans were "unsaved"? If so, why would you trust their translation, named after the royal head of the Church of England? As for John 3.7, check the footnotes: - NIV: The Greek is plural. - ESV: The Greek for you is plural here - NLT: The Greek word for you is plural - NRSV: The Greek word for you here is plural Or sometimes the translation will spell it out in the main text: - Good News Translation: you must all be born again - God's Word Translation: all of you must be born from above - New Century Version: You must all be born again - New English Translation: You must all be born from above

[@ChristopherAlsruhe-si9ff]

I personally believe that all who operate in and believe in textual criticism are theological liberals ultimately. THere comes a point, and that came along time ago, when you stop raising more and more and more doubts about the Greek text and start living what any of the Greek texts say. When it comes to virtue and theology, they all say the same thing. When it comes to the will of God expressed by Jesus Christ, they all say the same thing. Translate them accurately into the target language and start living it. And by the way, James White is a fake scholar, so I don't know how he's deemed so important. Not to mention that he's very rude can scriptures with directly rebuke him.

[@MAMoreno]

Does that apply to Erasmus, Estienne, and Beza, too? They were the textual critics who upset the apple cart in the 1500s and dared to move people away from the trusted Vulgate readings that had been prominent in the Western Christian world for centuries. So were they theological liberals?

[@aar0n709]

Well textual criticism will continue whether you want it to or not

[@frisco61]

Thanks Mark for lumpiing faithful Catholics in with the “liberals” so charitable of you. Please do tell how we don’t share your belief of “Biblical gospel” with Protestants when you can just read the Catechism for yourself instead of disseminating this nonsense? How can Catholics get this wrong when we’re the ones who read and theologized the Bible for 1500 years before any Protestant came along?

[@markwardonwords]

I take standard Protestant views of the gospel. I do not believe that all Catholics are unregenerated. But I do believe that the Catholic Church empirically preaches a different gospel. It adds enough accretions to it to end up obscuring and even, in general practice if not always in theory, denying it. I don’t deny that faithful Catholics and Protestants share much precious belief, especially the Trinity and deity of Christ.

[@MAMoreno]

Even if Mark Ward did consider Catholics to be completely distinct from theological liberals, can you really say the same thing about the King James Only advocates that he's addressing? The larger rhetorical point he's making is that fundamentalists need not fear the Nestle-Aland Boogeyman, whether that Boogeyman is a skeptical Mainline Protestant or a "dirty Jesuit."

[@deeman524]

I have given you work Ward please talk about the KJVER, but I can understand why you won't

[@markwardonwords]

I really want to, my friend! It's in a box! I do plan a video on this and the Simplified KJV before the end of 2024.

[@PrimitiveChristian-m3p]

James White lost that debate soundly. He got whooped because he debated "KJV-Onlyism" but the premise of the debate was "The NA28 and LSB are "superior" to the KJV and TR translations". White failed to demonstrate that and lost.

[@MAMoreno]

I left that debate feeling like there was no winner. Ross rightly pointed out that White was arguing against a straw man, but he also fell into dubious historical claims regarding the history of the texts--and of Christendom itself. Plus, his presentation was dire: you don't just throw a wall of data at people when there's no time to digest it.

[@PrimitiveChristian-m3p]

@@MAMoreno I don't disagree, and Ross's presentation skills are definitely lacking as well.

[@bibleprotector]

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 2Ti 3:9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. The critical textual approach does not believe in coming to finality. The faith approach is about coming to finality. Bible prophecy therefore is that the critical textual approach will not ultimately prevail.

[@markwardonwords]

And you arrive at Textual Absolutism, Matthew-via the same means by which Catholics have arrived at the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption: tradition.

[@bibleprotector]

@@markwardonwords Catholics, Islam and cults do make "absolutist" claims, because they are usurping impostures of true "absolutism". God has the master copy of Scripture in the Heavenly tabernacle, which must be "absolutely" perfect. When Scripture was first given by inspiration on Earth, those writings being inerrant, etc., can also be upheld as an "absolute" inception. Why then have a deistic rather than providentialist model of Scripture transmission? If the origin is "absolute" why not the outcome? Thus my comment. Further, it is not "Christian" or "consistent" to argue that since entropy, imperfection and variation are observed or manifest that this must be the end of God's sovereign will. That would be walking by sight (empiricism) and carnal reasoning (rationalism) rather than by a believing faith approach. Every parable of the kingdom of God is some sort of triumph and ultimate state, e.g. full maturity, finding a lost thing, etc., which means it is consistent that in history believers are to obtain the wise counsels and possess the true knowledge of the words of God, not be on the wrong side of 2 Tim. 3:7-9.

[@MAMoreno]

@@bibleprotector You said the following: *God has the master copy of Scripture in the Heavenly tabernacle, which must be "absolutely" perfect.* I'm pretty sure that this is literally a Muslim belief, not a Christian one.

[@bibleprotector]

@@MAMoreno It is a Christian belief, I think many Reformed Christians believe that.

[@aar0n709]

@@MAMoreno Yeah its a muslim nonsense belief

[@jamessheffield4173]

If you followed recensions, text-types, process, and now CBGM AKA GIGO, just wait until 2030 for the complete ECM. Then from an ancient garbage dump in Upper Egypt we find a new scrap. Methinks, I'll just stick with the AV. Peace.

[@MAMoreno]

As much as I disagree with much of what you said, I do think that a number of popular translations should have waited until the ECM was complete before they underwent an update. (I'm thinking especially of the NASB and NRSV.)

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@MAMoreno I see no way the different Apostolic Churches could have edited their texts in the same way, since they never agreed on much. I think Burgon was right, but the dialog goes on. Blessings.

[@leytontroydohnahue2373]

You can have all the head knowledge in the World. Criticize scripture all you want. Go on about Liberal and Conservative Theology. Change Biblical Text to please your own biased mind. Argue over what Church denominations are apparently correct. However, if Christ through His Spirit is not living in your hearts. It means nothing! I have been to Seminary. Worked in Churches in three countries. Heard loads of different interpretations of scripture. Preached countless times. And I am telling you. I have seen more faith in those who are not educated in scripture, than those "who claim they actually are!" You can argue all day over different meanings in the text. But honestly, if you are too busy trying to be scripturally intelligent. Then you are in danger of not knowing the Author. And what did Jesus once warn again? I would rather walk with Him in my heart, than just in my head. Because then I am walking in the heritage of Him that redeemed my soul and the Apostles teachings. I would rather live in my identity as a Son. Because as my King once stated. "It is like a man who finds a pearl." Instead of criticizing scripture, you should be listening to our Father. The big picture of the Bible is the love that our Father as for us, by giving His Son for our Redemption!

[@markwardonwords]

Pray for me, my friend.

[@MAMoreno]

But don't forget this point: "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all" (1 Cor. 12.4-6 NKJV).

[@leytontroydohnahue2373]

@@MAMoreno So that is a reason to cause division now is it? Especially since scripture clearly states that God is a God of order, not disorder. Yes there are different gifts of the Spirit. But you ignored the text that states these gifts are for the "building up" not dividing the body of Christ. Another case of taking scripture out of context to prove a point!

[@Yesica1993]

@@markwardonwords You're doing important work. Don't let people like this get you down.

[@Yesica1993]

He's not "criticizing scripture." You can have all the... whatever it is you think you're achieving here, and have not love (as you are demonstrating here), you're like a noisy gong or cymbal. Hm, where have I heard that before?

[@brettmahlen722]

@Markwardonwords It is disingenuous, dear brother, once again, to call Riddle King James Only. That is not his position, he holds to the Confessional Text position. I still don't think you have read Chapter 8 of Letis' Ecclesiastical Text, and I still don't believe, given this video, that you are ready to critique the Confessional Text position. It appears that your critiques will continue to miss the target. Call us what you want, we are not triggered, but a missed target is still a missed target.

[@MAMoreno]

When Jeff Riddle lists his five nitpicks with the NKJV in an article and follows them by saying, "These questions and others should bring one pause before uncritically abandoning the classic Protestant English translation of the Bible and embracing this or any other modern translation," he is declaring himself to be de facto KJVO.

[@brettmahlen722]

@MAMoreno Your comment shows you are not equipped with the prerequisite understanding to enter this debate. Parroting rebutted arguments will win you no points; try again.

[@MAMoreno]

@@brettmahlen722 I have read and listened to Jeff Riddle on numerous occasions. I'm familiar with his positions, and they're completely consistent with the line I quoted from his article (which I took directly from the article itself, not from someone else's attempted takedown of him). He is, for all intents and purposes, a King James Onlyist, regardless of the caveats and qualifications he offers to distinguish himself from the extremists. He might as well say, "I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm very wary of abandoning my all-vegetable diet in favor of any meats that are currently available."

[@fbcl8532]

Textual critics will not stop because the prophecy of the Lord Jesus describes these narcissistic critics in Revelation 3:17.

[@aar0n709]

Christian stupidity knows no bounds, not as much as Muslim or Woke maniacs, but boy is it bad

[@koosvanzyl2605]

You must be terribly bored?

[@markwardonwords]

Haven’t been bored since high school!