You are doing a great job raising these issues. It is certainly legit to have concerns when you notice that, behind this tendency to "secularize" the biblical text, there are people who are not just atheists, but related to organizations that are openly making efforts "to erode and marginalize the influence of Christianity". Great video.
Thank you for this video. I really appreciate the comments about how this is the word of God we are dealing with. That should be a prime concern in translations of the Bible.
It is for this reason that I use the Tyndale House GNT. It doesn’t have this issue as it doesn’t use Westcott-Hort nor does it use a Westcott-Hort based text for its base. It’s also a great reader. A fairly new translation, LSB, actually consulted this text for their translation which is awesome.
You raise a good point. I not a scholar either. But I am a Christian of 50 years confession (13 years old when I made my adult decision to accept Christ as Lord in my life. And I believe God raised him from the dead.) And I've read Biblical Greek for almost twenty years as a layman (and an MBA and 30 year career with a Fortune 50 company). The NA28 dismissed the Textus Receptus (TR) from which the KJV was translated. However, I just bought a copy of the United Bible Societies' (UBS5) 5th Ed. (same exact text at the NA28), and it does occasionally note the Greek word(s) in the TR. In this way, advocates of the TR and the majority of existing ancient manuscripts get a bit of a hearing. Being very bold, it appears to me that many of the greatest minds of 19th and 20th century Biblical scholarship who composed the "critical Greek texts" were either trust fund babies or secular academics (poor but smart) who had run out of PhD material in the area of classical Greek and Roman manuscripts. I know this is "hitting below the belt," but you research who these scholars were. Following these men, tens of thousands of so-called "doctoral students" in theology and the "classics" have written and influenced the study the Greek New Testament. Many of the "leading edge" Greek New Testament scholars were not and are not are not practicing Christians. They were / are Marxists who happened / happen to find a comfortable little hide-away-home in Theological Seminaries and Ivy League Universities. Calm down, buddy! Okay, I trust my King James Version and my English Standard Version both. The only differences are nuances about the divinity of Christ, the subtleties of "Virgin Mary" doctrine of the Catholic Church, and a few dozen clauses that expanded upon or contract from a few Gospel verses. That is it! In this way, after nearly 20 years of Greek New Testament study, your faith and practice are upon 99.99% solid ground! I mean it! (The rest of this study of the Critical Greek Text of the New Testament is Sudoku, chess, and checkers. No, this is not to diminish the sacred text and every single word. But it is to calm the nerves of those of you who do not have time to read and study all this stuff. Disclaimer: Like our presenter in this video, I too am a layman. But we are not stupid! We can read! And we think. And we can evaluate things for ourselves. Presenter, Sir: Thank you for your boldness in making this valuable video. Well done! Godspeed to you...!
Excellent video. Lots to consider, mull over - and research. Have you ever considered commenting on the late Bruce Metzger and his book 'The Text of the New Testament"? He was on the committee for the NA27 and UBS4 editions. If you have, I'd be interested viewing the video. Thank you.
this video is really very good... to honest for some reason I was asking myself this kind of question in my head but I neither know how combine it... thanks once again... very helpfull.
Great review! I recently returned to using the TR text due to my own research regarding the Alexandrian text type. The modern translations are frequently updated, and with most cases I'm aware of each revision becomes more liberal. One example is the 2020 NASB which is reportedly gender neutral. Why do modern scholars tamper with the Word of God? It's an uneasy thought to know that some of the translators may be atheists or agnostics. I think of Westcott and Hort both having connections with the occult. I just can't bring myself to accept these manuscripts Because I don't fully trust them. I love your reviews and appreciate the great work you are doing!
Great video. I'm one who leans towards the NA/USB text, though I'm not hardline at all, I like to have a good variety of texts to compare while I'm reading. My current favourite GNT is my Tyndale House. One resource I would highly recommend you getting if you want to see the variants that includes those of the Byzantine family is the NT apparatus database from CNTTS. It's a bit steep, about $99 USD on both Logos and Accordance, but it's an amazing resource that let's you see almost every known variant and what manuscripts contain it, what don't and those with lacunae. I was using it in Accordance while looking up the verses you used as examples. Combine that with an interlinear set up with the TR GNT combined with a bunch of GNTs and it allowed me to see straight away what you were talking about. I don't have the NA28 Apparatus and that CNTTS apparatus seems to more than make up for that. One issue that I see with the Byzantine family is it's fairly late age. Most examples are from the 9th century onwards with a smattering of copies dating earlier. The oldest anyone has found are no earlier than the 5th century and one of those early examples is Codex Alexandrinus whose Gospels are Byzantine (for example in Mark 9:3 it has the reading ως χειων which is probably just a regional spelling variant of the normal Byz reading). Without earlier manuscripts it slips down in weightings because the vast majority of its examples are around a half a millennium or later than the writing of the GNT. Readings from the early translations such as the Sahidic Coptic are given slightly greater weight precisely because they date from around the second to third century, placing them far closer to the original copies. Things like that make the whole process of textual criticism messy and difficult and some of the rancorous arguments and name calling that has occurred over time really doesn't help one bit. We need discussion and even healthy disagreement but not fighting and what is tantamount to textual sectarianism. It's good to find people such as yourself who are willing to ask the questions that need to be asked while not turning it into crusade over your favourite text type and calling everyone who disagrees names. Good work.
Thank you for your kind words! I was unaware of the CNTTS. My digital library is relatively limited. I think you are right about the greatest weakness of the Byzantine text. Most of its witnesses are 9th century and later. Although I think most people in the field recognize that the Byzantine text had a relatively stable transmission from the 4th century onward. This is what compelled Westcott and Hort to propose their Lucian recension. So there is an irony here actually. The greatest criticism of the Byzantine text is it has no exemplars before the 4th century. But the Critical Text, sometimes even in very short segments (such as Luke 6:26) has no exemplar in ANY century. It may seem that I’m very certain that a majority text position is the way to go. But I’m actually wrestling with these issues. These videos are a way for me to come to terms with the best approach. I often read from the Westcott Hort text that was reformatted by Hendrickson which gives the Byzantine variants. And I read from the Robinson-Pierpont and Textus Receptus. Currently when there is a textual variant, I default to the Byzantine text as my starting point, but from there I’m willing to listen to the arguments. Is there weighty early evidence to the contrary? What do the papyri and uncials say? Is their versional and patristic evidence? Is the Byzantine text itself significantly split? Anyway, all that to say, I really appreciate your encouragement and watching. I always feel...(humbled? flattered?) when people watch, who I suspect, are more knowledgeable than I am. Blessings!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I'm firmly on the fence leaning towards the Alexandrians but not nearly 100% more like 75%. If one or the other were more like the Western type where the scribes who copied the manuscripts felt that it was perfectly okay to blatantly paraphrase, the whole thing would be so easy. But as it goes the differences between the Byzantine and Alexandrian are so small that they are hard to quantify - a word here, a phrase there, spelling differences that change the grammar slightly and bring a slightly different meaning to a verse. It's really hard for me to come down on a side. Just finding how and why it split between the Byzantine and Alexandrian would be a huge discovery. I really don't understand some changes to texts the various critical texts sometimes make though, including those who favour the Byzantine. The verse in Luke 6:26 was much the same in the UBS4 and in the WH, Tyndale and Open GNT and the CNTTS seems to support that. Though interestingly, the Alexandrinus, a Byzantine family codex in the Gospels, largely supports the change while most Alexandrian manuscripts seem to support the older reading. But they decided to change it for the NA28/UBS5. The evidence seems to lean most strongly to that earlier reading. It would be interesting to see their reasoning on that. Anyway, I type too much (it's a hazard of my job). I highly recommend that database if you want to be able to look into the text and evidences for various readings. It's a very handy tool that gives you information sometimes not found in the regular apparatus of the GNTs we buy. One thing that would be cool would be access to more transcriptions of the manuscripts referenced so we could compare. Keep up the search and asking those questions, hopefully you'll find the answers.
@@sgreum70 thanks! There are so many interrelated issues. Fortunately as you said, whether the Byzantine text is a purer line of transmission or the Alexandrian line, we will have the same gospel message. (Not to brush aside some of the important passages. It does matter, I think) There are strong arguments on both sides of the debate, as far as I can see. I find myself favoring minority views quite often however. Maybe it’s how I’m wired up haha!
Just found and purchased a readers edition Byzantine text from on Amazon I didn't know existed. Definitions and parsing for words frequency 50 or less. By Maurice A. Robinson, William G. Pierpont and John Jeffrey Dodson. I heard it actually has parsing for every single verb in back of book also
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I went looking for a Byzantine text because I felt I should have one after the points you have made in your videos. I am also frustrated by the removal of verses based on new findings. The one I find most upsetting is the removal of the adulterous woman passage from John chapter 8, one of my favorite passages and it feels as though I have an incomplete new testament with it either removed or placed in small print the bottom of the page. I also strongly prefer the doxology at the end of The Lords prayer in Mathew to be intact.
@@russell77962 I totally understand. I think there is a growing awareness of some of these things. I’m hoping to encourage people to think carefully through some of these issues.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I just received that book in the mail. Everything is as advertised but glued binding is really loose and ugly. Looks like the cover could just fall off if not handed with care. Book is still a great resource but in no way outwardly attractive.
Just curious, about the TR witnesses that you said are not referenced in the NA critical apparatus, are they catalogued and numbered, and if so do you know where I can find that list? I have been in discussions with the pastors at my church about the TR, BT/MT vs CT and they are all CT trained from seminary and they have been taught that the apparatus has all of the manuscripts referenced.
Sadly I don’t have a full list. Here is a good article you can share with your pastors however: www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/02/bible-footnotes-and-byzantine-text.html?m=1
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thank you! There is alot to unpack on that page and more than enough to be able to make the argument about NA missing what seems like alot of manuscript witnesses...
Interesting video Stephen, thanks. The Tyndale House GNT has the variant in Mark 9:3 listed and is also my go to for reading for several reasons. My USB3 text, which has a different apparatus than the NA but the same text as NA25, doesn’t. UBS tends to show the more important variants they say as it is designed for translators rather than academics. It is dated 1983 though so they have left this variant out for some time, likely well before the guy on the editorial team you mentioned joined them. Regarding including the TR in its variants, why would they do this when the TR is itself an eccentric text, though from a limited set of manuscripts? I can see the value in making sure they include manuscripts in the apparatus that the TR was based on though, if that’s what you mean. I like your point about including verses not found in any manuscripts. That does seem odd. Are these verses particularly problematic for textual criticism in any way? Maybe they have decided there are too many variants in these verses that occurred early on and so there aren’t any existing supporting manuscripts any more. Regarding James Snapp and them not including his evidence, I have read some of his material and he seems very knowledgeable. Unfortunately he will not publish it seems. This makes it impossible for his written evidence to be referenced by scholars. I don’t know why he won’t, but I wish he would. Thanks again.
Thanks Neil! I should have been clearer about the TR. I did mean: I wish they would cite the manuscripts and the variants. Although I would love for them to place the handy “ (TR) “, so that people could know that this reading dominated 400 years of church history. I understand that would be a strange anomaly if they are only citing MSS. There are places where the TR variant has significant MSS support and the variant is ignored by the Nestle Aland text. The verses that have no manuscript support when put together are alarming. But when you start going two or three verses...or 8 to 10...examples become very, very numerous. I think Rev. Snapp has a couple books. And he has put some articles up on Academia.com. I think some textual critics try to ignore him. Mostly because he is an autodidact and a maverick. But they ALL know about his work. But I take him very seriously. Thanks for your comment! You always encourage me.
Is there a Greek-English interlinear you would recommend with KJV/NIV/ESV translation that has English directly beneath the Greek? I found this helpful - and made it certain that I’m not getting the NA28 version. I will look for your response..please & thank you!
I'm not sure of one that would meet all those criteria may favorite interlinear however is this one: amzn.to/369bD0f. You might be to find one used on eBay. Other than that I like the Jay Green interlinear.
Great review! At the Least, They should at least mark Such sentences in the NA, that are a total *reconstruction* ...and that don't exist in any manuscript
I recently bought it and I find studying it extremely irritating. It seems that omits many words, even phrases. I presume that it omits the byzantine ones (im not a scholar) but I know that western european scholars from time immemorial seem to avoid or denigrate the byzantine empire, which is the eastern branch of the roman empire that lasted more than 1000 years.
yes, exactly, very good points.... and helpful information indeed... we would like to know about *all* important readings, and if a reading is included in over 50% of the MSS, it *is* important... and even if supported by "only" 30%, it is important... and there are too many TR readings that are not included in the N/A apparatus.... M A Robinson has pointed out that many Byz. readings are left out of the N/A apparatus... and that's a disappointment to discover, since this apparatus is usually talked about as being so complete... but it is in fact somewhat selective, even though it is an excellent source for comparing readings of the Gk text and for studying the GNT, and the editors have done a great service in making so much information available in such an accessible format, and in only one volume... back in the mid 19th cent. the TR readings were still usually included in Greek editions, and collations were done based on the TR, and even the commentaries usually noted the TR readings... but because the TR has lost its relevance among scholars today, it is so often ignored... so the N/A apparatus should be revised to include *all* TR readings, even if it does not include every Byz. reading....
I checked all my Greek New Testaments for the TR variant "as snow" in Mark 9:3 and I only found it in one apparatus and only in my Latin NT. I possess a 28th Nestle-Aland Greek and Nova Vulgata Latin New Testament and the variant is listed in the apparatus under the Latin text as an addition "velut nix" found in the earlier Vulgate editions including Erasmus' 4th edition, 1527. My point is that it is mentioned but not in any of the Greek NT apparati. I see your point and it would of been nice at least to have seen it mentioned in the Greek NT apparatus even though it's not included in the actual text. Good topic discussion though. Tradition is a rabbit hole in my opinion and many run to it to feel safe. Conclusion: no major doctrines are affected by any Greek New Testament we possess. Glory to God. P.S. I found @davidmustol5651's observation and comment quite interesting below. Very sharp!
I agree ☝️ that no major doctrine is at stake. Though I’m inclined to a Byzantine priority approach, a critical text is still, in my judgment, a good text.
Is it possible, since the variant of χιων is listed as a variant for φως in Mt. 17:2 and the NA cites Mk. 9:2-13 as a parallel passage, that to save space the NA did not cite the variant in the apparatus for Mk. 9:3?
Great observation! I hadn’t picked up on that. I’m not sure I know the answer. I’m inclined to think they would want to take the gospels on their own terms. But some of their omissions really baffle me. My sense is that a reading that doesn’t enjoy support outside of the later Byzantine MSS isn’t all that important to them. But still, thankfully, they do catch most of them.
Do you think they might be thinking of that passage as originating from the lost Q source which some (I think they would be called source critics) scholars argued underlay parts of the Synoptic gospels? If that is their assumption they would only cite textual variants once in such passages and then only in Matthew. Might that explain some of the weird omissions of variant readings?
@@davidmustol5651 if that’s what they did, it would explain some of the omissions in the Synoptics, but the ones in other places like the general epistles would still be a mystery, at least to me.
How the h*** can an atheist or a humanist be a biblical scholar? Who’s letting these people in the door? Jesus was right, the birds come and nest in the branches
Really interesting video. There is definitely a lot in here to think about. Could you provide any links that talk about Luke 6:26 and are there any other verses like this? Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
Yes there are definitely other verses like Luke 6:26. Here is link byzantinetext.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/editions-rp-11-appendix.pdf. Check out particularly footnote #16.
Very helpful, thank you so much. I have been digging in to see which version to call home base. It’s always been KJV but I’ve heard so much negative now that I’m in question.
I did a video on my love for the KJV. When I’m not reading from the Greek text, I’m generally relying on the KJV. It is the crowning jewel of English Bible translations, in my humble opinion. Reliable, faithful, and beautiful.
Good video. My take on it is that I consider the "weight" of the manuscript text in terms of its antiquity the most important feature. If I had thirty-thousand Byzantine manuscripts that all read one way and one manuscript from a pre-third century source disagree in that reading, I would go with the latter just trusting the "weight" of it and it is that simple for me. I do firmly believe that if the Reformers would have had access to the documentary treasures in our possession, they would have sided with the "critical text" arguments. I'm not sure I follow the "If the T.R. was good enough for Calvin, it is good enough for me!" argument. Minority positions for the sake of having minority positions is not scholarship. Consensus is not evidence.
Thanks Michael Martin! I can totally understand what you are saying. Although for me, I wouldn’t want to throw out a well established reading based on only one manuscript. Philippians 1:14, for me, provides a reason why. In the 19th century, Westcott and Hort added the words του θεού to the text based on the earliest evidence available to them at that time. But lo and behold, subsequently P46 was discovered which is even earlier evidence, and the Byzantine reading was vindicated. Often times a singular manuscript will have nonsense readings, P66 which is extremely early, but is widely understood to be poorly copied, has many of these. To me, it wouldn’t be prudent to make such serious decisions on just one manuscript, when it might be the case that the scribe just happened to have the hiccups that day and skipped a line. But I totally understand what you are saying and I’m grateful you took the time to watch. I’m hoping to prove that these sorts of conversations can happen in a friendly and respectful way. Your comment proves that it can be done! Blessings!
I have 22 different Bible translations. Some critical text, some tr. I trust tr way more than critical. The truth is that tr is not mistake free. But, I don’t feel like I’m holding a suspect Bible if I read one. I have kjv-nkjv-mev and the Scriptures( Messianic Version). All those are tr. if I’m listening to a sermon that uses a different translation, i follow along in that version. For me, daily Bible is Nkjv. Also, while I respect the viewpoint of kjv onlyists, I think it’s a flawed argument. Even the translators admitted such. Waiting for the majority text Version from Amazon I just ordered
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews -I totally agree with you. I probably agree with 70-80% of what Dr Pickering has. I do think that he could have researched Matthew 28:19. He has nothing on it, from a research point. Also, I don´t think he nailed the introduction to the Epistles of Paul. English has added words that are not in the Greek, and distorts the Word of God. God bless!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews One of my daughters is agnostic & believes everything Bart Ehrman says. I pray for his soul because he’s leading so many people away from God.
it would not expand an apparatus very much to include all the TR readings... this would be relevant because so many translations are based on the TR: all the Reformation Bibles, almost all the translations up to 1881, the Young's Lit., and maybe as much as up to 10 translations made just within the last 50 years, which are based on some variety from the TR to the Byz./Majority text....
That’s exactly my thought! And the problem for me is the inclusion of so many varIants that have never once made it into any major translation. These (minor variants) ought ye to have done but not left the others undone. To me it’s scholarly it almost seems like snobbery.
John 7 v8 is a prime example not yet the NA doesn't have this but is found in p66 and p75 even Vaticanus as well as the majority of manuscripts but In metzger commentary has little reason to omit it
The reason why a Byzantine variant can be ignored is that the witness of the Byzantine texts is reduced to 1 vote while the best manuscripts like Sinaiticus are multiplied to 3 votes by giving a vote to the original scribe, the first corrector, and the second corrector. If a variant is only supported by the Byzantine text then it isn't worth considering as it is clearly in the wrong as it is but one vote against dozens of better votes. That is the flaw in your logic, you counted the manuscripts instead of weighing them. Don't even get me started on "bibles" that are the fruit of those outside the household of faith.
I’m late in life & new to the all difference’s in manuscripts. I’ve been searching trying to figure out exactly which Bible version I want to have as my main reader. Always been KJV but have acquired many other versions over the years. Learning about all the difference between the I’m unsure as to which one to sink my teeth into. Had just settled on ESV but now now certain. Would love to know what version you read if you don’t mind. It would be of great help to me. Thank you! By the way, throughly enjoyed your video. So glad I came across you. Will be watching & learning more from you. ❤️🙏
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews would also like to know what version you read most for this old lay granny. Hope you don’t mind my asking. Wish I knew the different languages but a bit late for that.
@@susyhebner2543 sure! My favorite translation and the one I use the most is the KJV. Here is a link to a video I made on the subject ruclips.net/video/eCH3Gemt8Zg/видео.html
@@susyhebner2543 I can't tell for sure if you meant to ask the question of me or just Stephen. Personally I read my KJV every day and only refer to the other versions to verify what I am researching about the version issues.
I feel great sympathy for the Byzantine / Majority tradition, from a historical point of view. But from a scientific point of view, the only relevant question is and remains: Are the makers of the NA / UBS Greek NT right or not? Did they make the best possible Greek NT (i.e. the closest possible text to the lost original) or not? I think they did. And some of the specialists behind this edition may not be traditional believers, but scientifically speaking that's a frankly irrelevant issue. It's perfectly possible to be an agnostic and still have the greatest respect and admiration for the Bible, and to be a true Bible specialist. And nobody will doubt that the makers of the Tyndale NT are true believers; yet the text of their edition is not essentially different from the NA / UBS; and certainly very different from the Byzantine / Majority text. So perhaps it's better not to advocate lost causes. The Bible is not exactly what they told us when we were young. We'd better accept this simple and incontrovertible truth.
I think you are correct when you refer to their work as “science”. The word science means a number of things. But in this case, it wouldn’t mean something that you can test and run experiments in the same way as say, Physics. We probably wouldn’t call textual critics “scientists.” You are correct when you say that the Tyndale Greek NT is essentially the same text. But there are literally hundreds of differences. Some of them are rather significant like John 1:18. The Tyndale Greek NT reads “only begotten son” and the NA28 reads “only begotten God”. These textual critics of these two editions are both trained in this science, but there is no experiment we can run to discover which one is correct.
A critical textual process that ends in publication of verses with zero manuscript support is clearly fallacious. Thanks for all your interesting reviews.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews As I ponder issues on textual criticism, you have brought out something that was troubling me also. Somehow I sensed that something is not right with those people who are involved with Critical Text editorial team. Academic studies should be based on existing evidence not made up evidence. I fear there might be bias or misleading information on their side. I might be wrong but after looking at James Snapp, Jonathan Sheffield ( I hope I got the name correctly) and some others, i ask this question to myself, why does this editorial team or those associate with CT text don't provide all the information on this subject as compare to those from Byzantine/ TR/ MT text group. Why withheld important information if this is purely academic? Any thoughts...
@@devindiranganesan2224 it’s a great question. And I really don’t have the answer. The most charitable interpretation of their motivations that I can think of is that they just don’t think that that evidence is serious enough to bring to the table. To them there are about 45-50 manuscripts that actually matter and the vast bulk of our manuscripts are just irrelevant for textual criticism. That’s an exaggeration and oversimplification, but you get the idea.
Oh, boy. Serious scholars just don’t care anymore about the TR, and haven’t for quite some time. Nor does textual criticism consist of counting how many manuscripts reflect a certain reading. That is to fundamentally (no pun intended, but welcome) misconstrue what textual criticism does. What the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft is trying to do is apply the standard scholarly rules of textual criticism, followed by textual critics from any discipline anywhere within academia, to the reconstruction of the text of the NT. This involves divorcing oneself as much as possible from any other ideologies. The society very likely believes it has a devotional, pro-Christian bias, and is very likely actively working to eliminate that bias. Gathering together a diverse body of scholars is all but certainly seen as a very necessary component of achieving that end. You’ll just have to wrap you head around all that.
well it starts from worrying about error of the scribes and finally got you renderings that no manuscript hold.. we christians have many things to worry dont we
I listened to the New King James version of Acts. I noticed that were just wrong information in it. I can't remeber the details. I noticed that good modern translations were much more accurate. These are things that can easily be checked by looking them up. So all this textual criticsm to get back to as close as possible to the original is very good. They are probably not perfect but they are much better readings than the Textus Receptus readings. If you take the overal picture we have definately progressed a lot. In some places we have moved forward by two steps and have gone back one step. Why on earth would you stick with readings that definately do not go back to the oldest manuscripts. The Textus Receptus readings do not go back to the oldest manuscipts. The Critical Text does at least go back to the oldest manuscripts that we have so it is definately huge progress in getting back to the original. We need to take the overal view and not get lost in the minute detail.
You are doing a great job raising these issues. It is certainly legit to have concerns when you notice that, behind this tendency to "secularize" the biblical text, there are people who are not just atheists, but related to organizations that are openly making efforts "to erode and marginalize the influence of Christianity". Great video.
It’s deeply concerning to many of us!
Thank you for this video. I really appreciate the comments about how this is the word of God we are dealing with. That should be a prime concern in translations of the Bible.
Thank you for watching! I’m really encouraged that people are finding this video profitable. Scripture is in its own class.
Thank you for your thoughts and research. You have given me much to think about.
Wow excellent video so important that information that you gave us God bless you
Glad it was helpful!
Very helpful video, thank you!
Glad you found it useful
Keep the reviews coming and thanks for what you're doing!
Thanks for watching and your encouragement!
The issue of nonbelievers touching Believers Bible is a huge issue for me. This does seem to be the norm for the critical text group.
It is for this reason that I use the Tyndale House GNT. It doesn’t have this issue as it doesn’t use Westcott-Hort nor does it use a Westcott-Hort based text for its base. It’s also a great reader. A fairly new translation, LSB, actually consulted this text for their translation which is awesome.
I agree with you. I don’t want to read scripture sewn together that by someone who thinks it’s phony.
You raise a good point. I not a scholar either. But I am a Christian of 50 years confession (13 years old when I made my adult decision to accept Christ as Lord in my life. And I believe God raised him from the dead.) And I've read Biblical Greek for almost twenty years as a layman (and an MBA and 30 year career with a Fortune 50 company).
The NA28 dismissed the Textus Receptus (TR) from which the KJV was translated. However, I just bought a copy of the United Bible Societies' (UBS5) 5th Ed. (same exact text at the NA28), and it does occasionally note the Greek word(s) in the TR. In this way, advocates of the TR and the majority of existing ancient manuscripts get a bit of a hearing.
Being very bold, it appears to me that many of the greatest minds of 19th and 20th century Biblical scholarship who composed the "critical Greek texts" were either trust fund babies or secular academics (poor but smart) who had run out of PhD material in the area of classical Greek and Roman manuscripts.
I know this is "hitting below the belt," but you research who these scholars were. Following these men, tens of thousands of so-called "doctoral students" in theology and the "classics" have written and influenced the study the Greek New Testament. Many of the "leading edge" Greek New Testament scholars were not and are not are not practicing Christians. They were / are Marxists who happened / happen to find a comfortable little hide-away-home in Theological Seminaries and Ivy League Universities.
Calm down, buddy! Okay, I trust my King James Version and my English Standard Version both. The only differences are nuances about the divinity of Christ, the subtleties of "Virgin Mary" doctrine of the Catholic Church, and a few dozen clauses that expanded upon or contract from a few Gospel verses. That is it!
In this way, after nearly 20 years of Greek New Testament study, your faith and practice are upon 99.99% solid ground! I mean it! (The rest of this study of the Critical Greek Text of the New Testament is Sudoku, chess, and checkers. No, this is not to diminish the sacred text and every single word. But it is to calm the nerves of those of you who do not have time to read and study all this stuff.
Disclaimer: Like our presenter in this video, I too am a layman. But we are not stupid! We can read! And we think. And we can evaluate things for ourselves.
Presenter, Sir: Thank you for your boldness in making this valuable video. Well done! Godspeed to you...!
Thank you for thought-provoking comment and your kind words!
Excellent video. Lots to consider, mull over - and research.
Have you ever considered commenting on the late Bruce Metzger and his book 'The Text of the New Testament"? He was on the committee for the NA27 and UBS4 editions. If you have, I'd be interested viewing the video.
Thank you.
I haven’t. But I might in the future!
Thanks very much for watching.
this video is really very good... to honest for some reason I was asking myself this kind of question in my head but I neither know how combine it... thanks once again... very helpfull.
Great review! I recently returned to using the TR text due to my own research regarding the Alexandrian text type. The modern translations are frequently updated, and with most cases I'm aware of each revision becomes more liberal. One example is the 2020 NASB which is reportedly gender neutral. Why do modern scholars tamper with the Word of God? It's an uneasy thought to know that some of the translators may be atheists or agnostics. I think of Westcott and Hort both having connections with the occult. I just can't bring myself to accept these manuscripts Because I don't fully trust them. I love your reviews and appreciate the great work you are doing!
Thanks brother!
Great video. I'm one who leans towards the NA/USB text, though I'm not hardline at all, I like to have a good variety of texts to compare while I'm reading. My current favourite GNT is my Tyndale House.
One resource I would highly recommend you getting if you want to see the variants that includes those of the Byzantine family is the NT apparatus database from CNTTS. It's a bit steep, about $99 USD on both Logos and Accordance, but it's an amazing resource that let's you see almost every known variant and what manuscripts contain it, what don't and those with lacunae. I was using it in Accordance while looking up the verses you used as examples. Combine that with an interlinear set up with the TR GNT combined with a bunch of GNTs and it allowed me to see straight away what you were talking about. I don't have the NA28 Apparatus and that CNTTS apparatus seems to more than make up for that.
One issue that I see with the Byzantine family is it's fairly late age. Most examples are from the 9th century onwards with a smattering of copies dating earlier. The oldest anyone has found are no earlier than the 5th century and one of those early examples is Codex Alexandrinus whose Gospels are Byzantine (for example in Mark 9:3 it has the reading ως χειων which is probably just a regional spelling variant of the normal Byz reading). Without earlier manuscripts it slips down in weightings because the vast majority of its examples are around a half a millennium or later than the writing of the GNT. Readings from the early translations such as the Sahidic Coptic are given slightly greater weight precisely because they date from around the second to third century, placing them far closer to the original copies.
Things like that make the whole process of textual criticism messy and difficult and some of the rancorous arguments and name calling that has occurred over time really doesn't help one bit. We need discussion and even healthy disagreement but not fighting and what is tantamount to textual sectarianism. It's good to find people such as yourself who are willing to ask the questions that need to be asked while not turning it into crusade over your favourite text type and calling everyone who disagrees names. Good work.
Thank you for your kind words! I was unaware of the CNTTS. My digital library is relatively limited.
I think you are right about the greatest weakness of the Byzantine text. Most of its witnesses are 9th century and later. Although I think most people in the field recognize that the Byzantine text had a relatively stable transmission from the 4th century onward. This is what compelled Westcott and Hort to propose their Lucian recension.
So there is an irony here actually. The greatest criticism of the Byzantine text is it has no exemplars before the 4th century. But the Critical Text, sometimes even in very short segments (such as Luke 6:26) has no exemplar in ANY century.
It may seem that I’m very certain that a majority text position is the way to go. But I’m actually wrestling with these issues. These videos are a way for me to come to terms with the best approach. I often read from the Westcott Hort text that was reformatted by Hendrickson which gives the Byzantine variants. And I read from the Robinson-Pierpont and Textus Receptus.
Currently when there is a textual variant, I default to the Byzantine text as my starting point, but from there I’m willing to listen to the arguments. Is there weighty early evidence to the contrary? What do the papyri and uncials say? Is their versional and patristic evidence? Is the Byzantine text itself significantly split?
Anyway, all that to say, I really appreciate your encouragement and watching. I always feel...(humbled? flattered?) when people watch, who I suspect, are more knowledgeable than I am. Blessings!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I'm firmly on the fence leaning towards the Alexandrians but not nearly 100% more like 75%. If one or the other were more like the Western type where the scribes who copied the manuscripts felt that it was perfectly okay to blatantly paraphrase, the whole thing would be so easy. But as it goes the differences between the Byzantine and Alexandrian are so small that they are hard to quantify - a word here, a phrase there, spelling differences that change the grammar slightly and bring a slightly different meaning to a verse. It's really hard for me to come down on a side. Just finding how and why it split between the Byzantine and Alexandrian would be a huge discovery.
I really don't understand some changes to texts the various critical texts sometimes make though, including those who favour the Byzantine. The verse in Luke 6:26 was much the same in the UBS4 and in the WH, Tyndale and Open GNT and the CNTTS seems to support that. Though interestingly, the Alexandrinus, a Byzantine family codex in the Gospels, largely supports the change while most Alexandrian manuscripts seem to support the older reading. But they decided to change it for the NA28/UBS5. The evidence seems to lean most strongly to that earlier reading. It would be interesting to see their reasoning on that.
Anyway, I type too much (it's a hazard of my job). I highly recommend that database if you want to be able to look into the text and evidences for various readings. It's a very handy tool that gives you information sometimes not found in the regular apparatus of the GNTs we buy. One thing that would be cool would be access to more transcriptions of the manuscripts referenced so we could compare.
Keep up the search and asking those questions, hopefully you'll find the answers.
@@sgreum70 thanks! There are so many interrelated issues. Fortunately as you said, whether the Byzantine text is a purer line of transmission or the Alexandrian line, we will have the same gospel message. (Not to brush aside some of the important passages. It does matter, I think) There are strong arguments on both sides of the debate, as far as I can see. I find myself favoring minority views quite often however. Maybe it’s how I’m wired up haha!
Thank you brother! Objective observations and legitimate concerns!
Thanks for your observations. What do you use for your daily reader?
Right now I’m reading an edition of the Robinson Pierpont text that we are proofing to bring to print hopefully soon.
Thanks...
Good work, thank you!
Just found and purchased a readers edition Byzantine text from on Amazon I didn't know existed. Definitions and parsing for words frequency 50 or less. By Maurice A. Robinson, William G. Pierpont and John Jeffrey Dodson. I heard it actually has parsing for every single verb in back of book also
That’s awesome! I’ve been wanting to buy and review that one!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I went looking for a Byzantine text because I felt I should have one after the points you have made in your videos. I am also frustrated by the removal of verses based on new findings. The one I find most upsetting is the removal of the adulterous woman passage from John chapter 8, one of my favorite passages and it feels as though I have an incomplete new testament with it either removed or placed in small print the bottom of the page. I also strongly prefer the doxology at the end of The Lords prayer in Mathew to be intact.
@@russell77962 I totally understand. I think there is a growing awareness of some of these things. I’m hoping to encourage people to think carefully through some of these issues.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I just received that book in the mail. Everything is as advertised but glued binding is really loose and ugly. Looks like the cover could just fall off if not handed with care. Book is still a great resource but in no way outwardly attractive.
UBS6 is going to have more regarding the TR.
Yes I have heard that too! A welcome addition!
Just curious, about the TR witnesses that you said are not referenced in the NA critical apparatus, are they catalogued and numbered, and if so do you know where I can find that list? I have been in discussions with the pastors at my church about the TR, BT/MT vs CT and they are all CT trained from seminary and they have been taught that the apparatus has all of the manuscripts referenced.
Sadly I don’t have a full list. Here is a good article you can share with your pastors however: www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/02/bible-footnotes-and-byzantine-text.html?m=1
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thank you! There is alot to unpack on that page and more than enough to be able to make the argument about NA missing what seems like alot of manuscript witnesses...
Interesting video Stephen, thanks. The Tyndale House GNT has the variant in Mark 9:3 listed and is also my go to for reading for several reasons.
My USB3 text, which has a different apparatus than the NA but the same text as NA25, doesn’t. UBS tends to show the more important variants they say as it is designed for translators rather than academics. It is dated 1983 though so they have left this variant out for some time, likely well before the guy on the editorial team you mentioned joined them.
Regarding including the TR in its variants, why would they do this when the TR is itself an eccentric text, though from a limited set of manuscripts? I can see the value in making sure they include manuscripts in the apparatus that the TR was based on though, if that’s what you mean.
I like your point about including verses not found in any manuscripts. That does seem odd. Are these verses particularly problematic for textual criticism in any way? Maybe they have decided there are too many variants in these verses that occurred early on and so there aren’t any existing supporting manuscripts any more.
Regarding James Snapp and them not including his evidence, I have read some of his material and he seems very knowledgeable. Unfortunately he will not publish it seems. This makes it impossible for his written evidence to be referenced by scholars. I don’t know why he won’t, but I wish he would.
Thanks again.
Thanks Neil! I should have been clearer about the TR. I did mean: I wish they would cite the manuscripts and the variants. Although I would love for them to place the handy “ (TR) “, so that people could know that this reading dominated 400 years of church history. I understand that would be a strange anomaly if they are only citing MSS. There are places where the TR variant has significant MSS support and the variant is ignored by the Nestle Aland text.
The verses that have no manuscript support when put together are alarming. But when you start going two or three verses...or 8 to 10...examples become very, very numerous.
I think Rev. Snapp has a couple books. And he has put some articles up on Academia.com. I think some textual critics try to ignore him. Mostly because he is an autodidact and a maverick. But they ALL know about his work. But I take him very seriously.
Thanks for your comment! You always encourage me.
Is there a Greek-English interlinear you would recommend with KJV/NIV/ESV translation that has English directly beneath the Greek? I found this helpful - and made it certain that I’m not getting the NA28 version. I will look for your response..please & thank you!
I'm not sure of one that would meet all those criteria may favorite interlinear however is this one: amzn.to/369bD0f. You might be to find one used on eBay. Other than that I like the Jay Green interlinear.
Great review!
At the Least, They should at least mark Such sentences in the NA, that are a total *reconstruction* ...and that don't exist in any manuscript
Great video... where did you get you statistic that 55% of people are still reading the kjv
Here is an article on it. lifewayresearch.com/2014/03/17/majority-of-americans-still-prefer-king-james/. Thanks for watching!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Awesome Thanks
I recently bought it and I find studying it extremely irritating. It seems that omits many words, even phrases. I presume that it omits the byzantine ones (im not a scholar) but I know that western european scholars from time immemorial seem to avoid or denigrate the byzantine empire, which is the eastern branch of the roman empire that lasted more than 1000 years.
You are right to think that it omits many Byzantine readings.
yes, exactly, very good points.... and helpful information indeed... we would like to know about *all* important readings, and if a reading is included in over 50% of the MSS, it *is* important... and even if supported by "only" 30%, it is important... and there are too many TR readings that are not included in the N/A apparatus.... M A Robinson has pointed out that many Byz. readings are left out of the N/A apparatus... and that's a disappointment to discover, since this apparatus is usually talked about as being so complete... but it is in fact somewhat selective, even though it is an excellent source for comparing readings of the Gk text and for studying the GNT, and the editors have done a great service in making so much information available in such an accessible format, and in only one volume... back in the mid 19th cent. the TR readings were still usually included in Greek editions, and collations were done based on the TR, and even the commentaries usually noted the TR readings... but because the TR has lost its relevance among scholars today, it is so often ignored... so the N/A apparatus should be revised to include *all* TR readings, even if it does not include every Byz. reading....
Yes! It seems like they are unconnected to what many Christians regard as scripture.
I checked all my Greek New Testaments for the TR variant "as snow" in Mark 9:3 and I only found it in one apparatus and only in my Latin NT. I possess a 28th Nestle-Aland Greek and Nova Vulgata Latin New Testament and the variant is listed in the apparatus under the Latin text as an addition "velut nix" found in the earlier Vulgate editions including Erasmus' 4th edition, 1527. My point is that it is mentioned but not in any of the Greek NT apparati. I see your point and it would of been nice at least to have seen it mentioned in the Greek NT apparatus even though it's not included in the actual text. Good topic discussion though. Tradition is a rabbit hole in my opinion and many run to it to feel safe. Conclusion: no major doctrines are affected by any Greek New Testament we possess. Glory to God.
P.S. I found @davidmustol5651's observation and comment quite interesting below. Very sharp!
I agree ☝️ that no major doctrine is at stake. Though I’m inclined to a Byzantine priority approach, a critical text is still, in my judgment, a good text.
your concerns are understandable, but i'm glad that you stated that's it's all your opinion
Yep. I’m expert on my opinion. lol
Is it possible, since the variant of χιων is listed as a variant for φως in Mt. 17:2 and the NA cites Mk. 9:2-13 as a parallel passage, that to save space the NA did not cite the variant in the apparatus for Mk. 9:3?
Great observation! I hadn’t picked up on that. I’m not sure I know the answer. I’m inclined to think they would want to take the gospels on their own terms. But some of their omissions really baffle me. My sense is that a reading that doesn’t enjoy support outside of the later Byzantine MSS isn’t all that important to them. But still, thankfully, they do catch most of them.
Do you think they might be thinking of that passage as originating from the lost Q source which some (I think they would be called source critics) scholars argued underlay parts of the Synoptic gospels? If that is their assumption they would only cite textual variants once in such passages and then only in Matthew. Might that explain some of the weird omissions of variant readings?
@@davidmustol5651 if that’s what they did, it would explain some of the omissions in the Synoptics, but the ones in other places like the general epistles would still be a mystery, at least to me.
How the h*** can an atheist or a humanist be a biblical scholar? Who’s letting these people in the door? Jesus was right, the birds come and nest in the branches
They are blind guides.
Really interesting video. There is definitely a lot in here to think about. Could you provide any links that talk about Luke 6:26 and are there any other verses like this?
Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
Yes there are definitely other verses like Luke 6:26. Here is link byzantinetext.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/editions-rp-11-appendix.pdf. Check out particularly footnote #16.
Thanks so much for watching!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews That's great! Thanks for taking the time to reply to me.
Very helpful, thank you so much. I have been digging in to see which version to call home base. It’s always been KJV but I’ve heard so much negative now that I’m in question.
I did a video on my love for the KJV. When I’m not reading from the Greek text, I’m generally relying on the KJV. It is the crowning jewel of English Bible translations, in my humble opinion. Reliable, faithful, and beautiful.
Good video. My take on it is that I consider the "weight" of the manuscript text in terms of its antiquity the most important feature. If I had thirty-thousand Byzantine manuscripts that all read one way and one manuscript from a pre-third century source disagree in that reading, I would go with the latter just trusting the "weight" of it and it is that simple for me. I do firmly believe that if the Reformers would have had access to the documentary treasures in our possession, they would have sided with the "critical text" arguments. I'm not sure I follow the "If the T.R. was good enough for Calvin, it is good enough for me!" argument. Minority positions for the sake of having minority positions is not scholarship. Consensus is not evidence.
Thanks Michael Martin! I can totally understand what you are saying. Although for me, I wouldn’t want to throw out a well established reading based on only one manuscript. Philippians 1:14, for me, provides a reason why. In the 19th century, Westcott and Hort added the words του θεού to the text based on the earliest evidence available to them at that time. But lo and behold, subsequently P46 was discovered which is even earlier evidence, and the Byzantine reading was vindicated.
Often times a singular manuscript will have nonsense readings, P66 which is extremely early, but is widely understood to be poorly copied, has many of these. To me, it wouldn’t be prudent to make such serious decisions on just one manuscript, when it might be the case that the scribe just happened to have the hiccups that day and skipped a line.
But I totally understand what you are saying and I’m grateful you took the time to watch. I’m hoping to prove that these sorts of conversations can happen in a friendly and respectful way. Your comment proves that it can be done! Blessings!
Ja, da wär's halt gut, wenn man Altgriechisch könnt'!
I have 22 different Bible translations. Some critical text, some tr. I trust tr way more than critical. The truth is that tr is not mistake free. But, I don’t feel like I’m holding a suspect Bible if I read one. I have kjv-nkjv-mev and the Scriptures( Messianic Version). All those are tr. if I’m listening to a sermon that uses a different translation, i follow along in that version. For me, daily Bible is Nkjv. Also, while I respect the viewpoint of kjv onlyists, I think it’s a flawed argument. Even the translators admitted such. Waiting for the majority text Version from Amazon I just ordered
I am a big fan of Dr Wilbur Pickering and his work. Bart Ehrman should get some schooling from him.
Dr. Ehrman has done great harm. I hope he repents before he appears before the judgment seat of Christ.
Blessings to you brother!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews -I totally agree with you. I probably agree with 70-80% of what Dr Pickering has. I do think that he could have researched Matthew 28:19. He has nothing on it, from a research point. Also, I don´t think he nailed the introduction to the Epistles of Paul. English has added words that are not in the Greek, and distorts the Word of God. God bless!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews
One of my daughters is agnostic & believes everything Bart Ehrman says. I pray for his soul because he’s leading so many people away from God.
I am waiting for NA50.
Haha!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Of course, there is always, NA51.
it would not expand an apparatus very much to include all the TR readings... this would be relevant because so many translations are based on the TR: all the Reformation Bibles, almost all the translations up to 1881, the Young's Lit., and maybe as much as up to 10 translations made just within the last 50 years, which are based on some variety from the TR to the Byz./Majority text....
That’s exactly my thought! And the problem for me is the inclusion of so many varIants that have never once made it into any major translation. These (minor variants) ought ye to have done but not left the others undone. To me it’s scholarly it almost seems like snobbery.
Some of these reasons are the same for me as well. We need the Family 35 and apparatus in Logos.
I agree!
John 7 v8 is a prime example not yet the NA doesn't have this but is found in p66 and p75 even Vaticanus as well as the majority of manuscripts but In metzger commentary has little reason to omit it
The reason why a Byzantine variant can be ignored is that the witness of the Byzantine texts is reduced to 1 vote while the best manuscripts like Sinaiticus are multiplied to 3 votes by giving a vote to the original scribe, the first corrector, and the second corrector. If a variant is only supported by the Byzantine text then it isn't worth considering as it is clearly in the wrong as it is but one vote against dozens of better votes. That is the flaw in your logic, you counted the manuscripts instead of weighing them.
Don't even get me started on "bibles" that are the fruit of those outside the household of faith.
Great observations!
I’m late in life & new to the all difference’s in manuscripts. I’ve been searching trying to figure out exactly which Bible version I want to have as my main reader. Always been KJV but have acquired many other versions over the years. Learning about all the difference between the I’m unsure as to which one to sink my teeth into. Had just settled on ESV but now now certain. Would love to know what version you read if you don’t mind. It would be of great help to me. Thank you!
By the way, throughly enjoyed your video. So glad I came across you. Will be watching & learning more from you. ❤️🙏
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews would also like to know what version you read most for this old lay granny. Hope you don’t mind my asking. Wish I knew the different languages but a bit late for that.
@@susyhebner2543 sure! My favorite translation and the one I use the most is the KJV. Here is a link to a video I made on the subject ruclips.net/video/eCH3Gemt8Zg/видео.html
@@susyhebner2543 I can't tell for sure if you meant to ask the question of me or just Stephen. Personally I read my KJV every day and only refer to the other versions to verify what I am researching about the version issues.
I feel great sympathy for the Byzantine / Majority tradition, from a historical point of view. But from a scientific point of view, the only relevant question is and remains: Are the makers of the NA / UBS Greek NT right or not? Did they make the best possible Greek NT (i.e. the closest possible text to the lost original) or not? I think they did. And some of the specialists behind this edition may not be traditional believers, but scientifically speaking that's a frankly irrelevant issue. It's perfectly possible to be an agnostic and still have the greatest respect and admiration for the Bible, and to be a true Bible specialist. And nobody will doubt that the makers of the Tyndale NT are true believers; yet the text of their edition is not essentially different from the NA / UBS; and certainly very different from the Byzantine / Majority text. So perhaps it's better not to advocate lost causes. The Bible is not exactly what they told us when we were young. We'd better accept this simple and incontrovertible truth.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Paul. I do understand what you are saying.
I think you are correct when you refer to their work as “science”. The word science means a number of things. But in this case, it wouldn’t mean something that you can test and run experiments in the same way as say, Physics. We probably wouldn’t call textual critics “scientists.” You are correct when you say that the Tyndale Greek NT is essentially the same text. But there are literally hundreds of differences. Some of them are rather significant like John 1:18. The Tyndale Greek NT reads “only begotten son” and the NA28 reads “only begotten God”. These textual critics of these two editions are both trained in this science, but there is no experiment we can run to discover which one is correct.
A critical textual process that ends in publication of verses with zero manuscript support is clearly fallacious.
Thanks for all your interesting reviews.
Very well said
@Fidem in Christo ahh that’s a great question
500 000 000 flies can not be wrong?
I’m not sure I’m understanding :)
👍
I always appreciate your encouragement
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews As I ponder issues on textual criticism, you have brought out something that was troubling me also. Somehow I sensed that something is not right with those people who are involved with Critical Text editorial team. Academic studies should be based on existing evidence not made up evidence. I fear there might be bias or misleading information on their side. I might be wrong but after looking at James Snapp, Jonathan Sheffield ( I hope I got the name correctly) and some others, i ask this question to myself, why does this editorial team or those associate with CT text don't provide all the information on this subject as compare to those from Byzantine/ TR/ MT text group. Why withheld important information if this is purely academic? Any thoughts...
@@devindiranganesan2224 it’s a great question. And I really don’t have the answer. The most charitable interpretation of their motivations that I can think of is that they just don’t think that that evidence is serious enough to bring to the table. To them there are about 45-50 manuscripts that actually matter and the vast bulk of our manuscripts are just irrelevant for textual criticism. That’s an exaggeration and oversimplification, but you get the idea.
Oh, boy. Serious scholars just don’t care anymore about the TR, and haven’t for quite some time. Nor does textual criticism consist of counting how many manuscripts reflect a certain reading. That is to fundamentally (no pun intended, but welcome) misconstrue what textual criticism does.
What the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft is trying to do is apply the standard scholarly rules of textual criticism, followed by textual critics from any discipline anywhere within academia, to the reconstruction of the text of the NT. This involves divorcing oneself as much as possible from any other ideologies. The society very likely believes it has a devotional, pro-Christian bias, and is very likely actively working to eliminate that bias. Gathering together a diverse body of scholars is all but certainly seen as a very necessary component of achieving that end.
You’ll just have to wrap you head around all that.
Hey Steve, yes I know you are right that critical scholarship has little interest in the TR.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews
Mark Ward’s book and videos don’t help, either.
well it starts from worrying about error of the scribes and finally got you renderings that no manuscript hold.. we christians have many things to worry dont we
We do have plenty we could worry about
I listened to the New King James version of Acts. I noticed that were just wrong information in it. I can't remeber the details. I noticed that good modern translations were much more accurate. These are things that can easily be checked by looking them up. So all this textual criticsm to get back to as close as possible to the original is very good. They are probably not perfect but they are much better readings than the Textus Receptus readings. If you take the overal picture we have definately progressed a lot. In some places we have moved forward by two steps and have gone back one step. Why on earth would you stick with readings that definately do not go back to the oldest manuscripts. The Textus Receptus readings do not go back to the oldest manuscipts. The Critical Text does at least go back to the oldest manuscripts that we have so it is definately huge progress in getting back to the original. We need to take the overal view and not get lost in the minute detail.