Exposed: The Textual Criticism of Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace

[StanJ]

Yes, basically a W-H type.

Thanks

Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: History

No, not basically wh type. Read the words carefully.

Nestle compared the three most significant editions of the Greek New Testament from the 19th century (Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort, and Weymouth; the last mentioned was replaced by the edition of B. Weiss in 1901). Wherever one of these versions differed from the other two, Nestle adopted the reading given in the two identical versions and supplied a note in the apparatus showing the divergent reading.

WH was only adopted when it agreed with one of the other versions.

 

[fredoheaven]

No, not basically wh type. Read the words carefully.

Nestle compared the three most significant editions of the Greek New Testament from the 19th century (Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort, and Weymouth; the last mentioned was replaced by the edition of B. Weiss in 1901). Wherever one of these versions differed from the other two, Nestle adopted the reading given in the two identical versions and supplied a note in the apparatus showing the divergent reading.

WH was only adopted when it agreed with one of the other versions.

Well, if you know the canons of textual criticism then you know it's just the same...

thanks

 

[StanJ]

Well, if you know the canons of textual criticism then you know it's just the same...
thanks

I've just shown you it's not the same so I really don't know what you're on about?

 

[KJV1611]

No, not basically wh type. Read the words carefully.

Nestle compared the three most significant editions of the Greek New Testament from the 19th century (Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort, and Weymouth; the last mentioned was replaced by the edition of B. Weiss in 1901). Wherever one of these versions differed from the other two, Nestle adopted the reading given in the two identical versions and supplied a note in the apparatus showing the divergent reading.

WH was only adopted when it agreed with one of the other versions.

Is Nestle-Aland supposed to be the most accurate New Testament?

 

[StanJ]

Is Nestle-Aland supposed to be the most accurate New Testament?

[FONT=&quot]The NA26-28 and UBS4, commonly known as the Critical Text or Alexandrian Text, most closely resemble the Original Autographs.


[/FONT]

 

[KJV1611]

The NA26-28 and UBS4, commonly known as the Critical Text or Alexandrian Text, most closely resemble the Original Autographs.

Those were done many centuries after the original wiritings had disappeared so how can we say with any certainty that any translation even remotely resembles the originals?

 

[KJV1611]

Codex Vaticanus, also known as “B,” was found in the Vatican library. It is comprised of 759 leaves and has almost all of the Old and New Testaments. It is not known when it arrived at the Vatican, but it was included in a catalog listing in 1475, and it is dated to the middle of the 4th century. Vaticanus was first used as a source document by Erasmus in his work on the “Textus Receptus.” Because he viewed the text of Vaticanus to be erratic, he seldom followed it when it differed from other Greek texts.

Can the Vaticanus be found any earlier in history than 1475?

 

[Angela53510]

KJV1611, there are extant manuscripts that date back to the 2nd century. I am not sure which family it belongs to, if any, since it is probable it was written between 100-175 AD at the absolute latest. The Rylands papyrus is a very important piece of parchment, seeing it is thought to be one of the earliest manuscripts that are currently known. Of course, it is extremely small, but it does show how early the NT has been around, so no one can say that the NT was written centuries after Jesus died. It was very interesting reading about how much studying has been done of this small piece of codex, because it does represent the earliest piece of Scripture yet discovered.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52


The Vatican has a copy of a very early Codex Vaticanus thought to be from 300-350 AD. It was kept in the Vatican since it was discovered in 1475 AD century, which might be where you got that date. I believe it said in one article that it differs in numerous places from the TR.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus


Of course, Codex Sinaiticus is the other highly significant text discovered by Count Tischendorf in 1859, the man who sheltered the Moravians while they had their 100 year prayer meeting, and started sending out the first missionaries in modern times. It was partly found in a monastery, and partly in their dump.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Codex-Sinaiticus-Vaticanus.html

For me, knowing that Daniel Wallace is right now in the libraries of Greece and Byzantine monasteries looking for copies of very early manuscripts is very important. This work continues, and who knows what remains to be found, when God's timing is right?

PS. As much as some people don't like to admit it, Wikipedia is usually quite reliable. Because the articles can and have been considerably edited, most of the material is accurate. Of course, we do need to check out other sources. I have read there are several studies of randomly looking for truth in Wikipedia articles, and they have been held up as being accurate to a high degree. (Not directed to you KJV1611, but other people who call me on using Wikipedia!)

 

[StanJ]

Those were done many centuries after the original wiritings had disappeared so how can we say with any certainty that any translation even remotely resembles the originals?

The fact is there are no autographs of the New Testament but never the less all the manuscripts that are accepted are very close to the originals if not exact. Scholars agree on most of this and where there is dissent I will let Scholars defend themselves.

https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

https://bible.org/article/some-second-thoughts-majority-text

https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

 

[StanJ]

Anybody who is interested in manuscripts should bookmark the following site.

Home - CSNTM

 

[fredoheaven]

I've just shown you it's not the same so I really don't know what you're on about?

Well, i have not seen so far but this maybe an off topic...

Going on to the OP...

It is reported by Dr. John W. Burgon, in his book Unholy Hands, that Dr. Hort claimed that the reading characteristics of the Received Text are never found prior to about 350 AD ‘ the text of the second half of the fourth century’.

Also asserted by D.A Carson -"There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine Text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century,"

But this is farther from the truth. Here is some documentation for the early patristic quotations

[TABLE="width: 590"]
[TR]
[TD]KJV Mark 1:l, 2
Irenaeus (130-202)[/TD]
[TD]"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ., the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets..." "Mark...does thus commence his Gospel narrative; 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets,.., Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him...whom they confessed as God and Lord" (Against Heresies III:10:5, 11:4, 16:3).[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KJV Mark 16:19
Irenaeus (130-202)[/TD]
[TD]"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." ''Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: so then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." (Against Heresies III:10:6).[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KJV Luke 22:44
Justin (100-165)[/TD]
[TD]"And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible., let this cup pass.'" (Trypho 103:24).[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[KJV1611]

KJV1611, there are extant manuscripts that date back to the 2nd century. I am not sure which family it belongs to, if any, since it is probable it was written between 100-175 AD at the absolute latest. The Rylands papyrus is a very important piece of parchment, seeing it is thought to be one of the earliest manuscripts that are currently known. Of course, it is extremely small, but it does show how early the NT has been around, so no one can say that the NT was written centuries after Jesus died. It was very interesting reading about how much studying has been done of this small piece of codex, because it does represent the earliest piece of Scripture yet discovered.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52


The Vatican has a copy of a very early Codex Vaticanus thought to be from 300-350 AD. It was kept in the Vatican since it was discovered in 1475 AD century, which might be where you got that date. I believe it said in one article that it differs in numerous places from the TR.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus


Of course, Codex Sinaiticus is the other highly significant text discovered by Count Tischendorf in 1859, the man who sheltered the Moravians while they had their 100 year prayer meeting, and started sending out the first missionaries in modern times. It was partly found in a monastery, and partly in their dump.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Codex-Sinaiticus-Vaticanus.html

For me, knowing that Daniel Wallace is right now in the libraries of Greece and Byzantine monasteries looking for copies of very early manuscripts is very important. This work continues, and who knows what remains to be found, when God's timing is right?

PS. As much as some people don't like to admit it, Wikipedia is usually quite reliable. Because the articles can and have been considerably edited, most of the material is accurate. Of course, we do need to check out other sources. I have read there are several studies of randomly looking for truth in Wikipedia articles, and they have been held up as being accurate to a high degree. (Not directed to you KJV1611, but other people who call me on using Wikipedia!)

I agree with you on Wikipedia's reliability. From what I've read there seems to big a pretty big difference between TR and Vaticanus in some areas, why do you think this is so?

 

[phil36]

Anybody who is interested in manuscripts should bookmark the following site.

Home - CSNTM

Thats a good website Stanj..... Ive just read Rylands p52. Quite excited now

 

[StanJ]

Well, i have not seen so far but this maybe an off topic...

Going on to the OP...

It is reported by Dr. John W. Burgon, in his book Unholy Hands, that Dr. Hort claimed that the reading characteristics of the Received Text are never found prior to about 350 AD ‘ the text of the second half of the fourth century’.

Also asserted by D.A Carson -"There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine Text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century,"

But this is farther from the truth. Here is some documentation for the early patristic quotations

[TABLE="width: 590"]
[TR]
[TD]KJV Mark 1:l, 2
Irenaeus (130-202)[/TD]
[TD]"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ., the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets..." "Mark...does thus commence his Gospel narrative; 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets,.., Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him...whom they confessed as God and Lord" (Against Heresies III:10:5, 11:4, 16:3).[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KJV Mark 16:19
Irenaeus (130-202)[/TD]
[TD]"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." ''Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: so then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." (Against Heresies III:10:6).[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KJV Luke 22:44
Justin (100-165)[/TD]
[TD]"And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible., let this cup pass.'" (Trypho 103:24).[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

These are not what I was referring to in my comments or the links I provided. You're still not explaining what point you're trying to make? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the OP?

 

[KJV1611]

The fact is there are no autographs of the New Testament but never the less all the manuscripts that are accepted are very close to the originals if not exact. Scholars agree on most of this and where there is dissent I will let Scholars defend themselves.

https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

https://bible.org/article/some-second-thoughts-majority-text

https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

But the TR is hardly identical with the majority text, for the TR has numerous places where it is supported by few or no Greek manuscripts.

This comes from the first website, do you know what parts of the TR are not supported by Greek manuscripts?

 

[fredoheaven]

These are not what I was referring to in my comments or the links I provided. You're still not explaining what point you're trying to make? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the OP?

Hi StanJ,

All Critical text or that pass under the Lower Criticism has rules to follow and basically what they offer are the same that all text bears scars.

I've listen to the video of the OP for a while and my understanding is that he is trying to put the importance of the early quotations of the church fathers of value as they are an early witnesses to the copies of original autographs.

I said this argument is not new, and long before the three new scholars mention in this OP, it was already been used for a quite centuries back.

God bless

 

[StanJ]

Hi StanJ,

All Critical text or that pass under the Lower Criticism has rules to follow and basically what they offer are the same that all text bears scars.

I've listen to the video of the OP for a while and my understanding is that he is trying to put the importance of the early quotations of the church fathers of value as they are an early witnesses to the copies of original autographs.

I said this argument is not new, and long before the three new scholars mention in this OP, it was already been used for a quite centuries back.

God bless

Yes I understand about the OP, I just don't understand what you say in your first sentence above.

 

[StanJ]

This comes from the first website, do you know what parts of the TR are not supported by Greek manuscripts?

No, you'll have to read what Wallace says about this in his other links or send them a question directly on his website below.

https://danielbwallace.com

 

[fredoheaven]

Yes I understand about the OP, I just don't understand what you say in your first sentence above.

Alright, the Vaticanus,Sinaiticus etc. were produced in an earlier date than the 'received text' as supposed which were highly upheld by the Critical Scholars are just the same in the sense other scholars says it undergoes corruption or mutilation. Here's is more of the documentation and what can you say about these?

Thanks

[TABLE="width: 590"]
[TR]
[TD]KJV John. 3:l3
Hippolytus (170-236)
[/TD]
[TD]"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus I:1:4).
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KJV John 5:3, 4
Tertullian (160- 221)
[/TD]
[TD]"...waiting for the moving of the water, For an angel went down at a certain season unto the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." "if it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in Waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was want to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing ceased to complain."(on Baptism I:1:5)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KJV Jn. 6:69
Irenaeus (130-.202)
[/TD]
[TD]"And we believe and are sure that thou are that Christ the Son of the living God." "By whom also Peter, having been taught, recognized Christ as the Son of the living God..." (Against Heresies III:11:6).
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]