One day years ago, I popped into Dr. Lewis Foster's office at the Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary (where I graduated in 1970) when he was working on the translation of the NKJV. I had the priviilege of studying under Dr. Foster and his father, R. C. Foster. He showed me the TR that he was required to use as the basis of his translaton work for Acts. He was also on the NIV translation team. When the NJKV & NIV were finally published, he wrote a book on the different Bible Translations. In that book, he noted that the NKJV was the ONLY VERSION that had textual footnotes indicating the differences in TR, Majority, and Critical text. I used the NJKV for about 20 years in my Bible study, teaching, and peaching; but eventually, I went back to the King James because it is easier for me to memorize - and there is nothing better than memorizing Scripture for enhancing one's walk with the Lord.
I very much appreciate that discussion. I am inclined to conclude that both the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery are in fact part of the original autographs of the New Testament. As was stated, too much emphasis has been put on just a few older manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. Both of those manuscripts have serious questions surrounding them.
The evidence for the Pericope just doesn't add up. This doesn't mean it wasn't a valid oral tradition later added. But its clear it wasn't in John. The number of manuscripts doesn't matter. What we see in the 1st does matter, and it tells the story that it just wasn't there and later added.
This was really helpful. As an ESV simp, it's helpful to hear about the ending of the Lord's Prayer. I'll have to do some research into the "this kind can only be cast out by prayer (and fasting)" passage
The answer to "the controversy" is surprisingly simple, "because dissertations need to written and articles need to be published." It really is not much more than that. The variants found anywhere do not affect doctrine, which is foundational. Therefore, the variations are no more than curiosities and - spiritually speaking - trivialities.
I’m pretty surprised he said at the end there that he likes Esv and niv for Old Testament reading - doesn’t that undermine the whole thought of reading from a Byzantine text?
To use a quote (used by Daniel Wallace): “Variants once apparently in the minority are today dominant, and vice versa; some once dominant have even disappeared. This fact alone rules out any attempt to settle textual questions by statistical means.”
It would be interesting to see Adam debate Dr James White, or Tony Costa on the Byzantine vs the Critical text. Have you seen the debate between Tony Costa and John Tors, The critical text vs the majority text, on RUclips? It would be interesting to see you review that debate.
About the footnotes about textual variations in standard Bible he is right, they are too vague. What I should do with "absent from best manuscripts"? What are these manuscripts? Why they are the best? Perhaps they should add a one page article with more explanation.
I think Mark's (long) ending is highly likely to be genuine and though the case for the woman in adultery passage is more complex, that is much more likely to be genuine than not. The relaxed approach helps both sides to look at the facts afresh and to come up with a more common sense and up-to-date approach to the precise text of Scripture.
Always like your videos Dewayne. I have said before I do not lean toward any family of manuscripts. I like the NLT of the Critical Text. I like the NKJV from the TR and I like the WEB of the Majority Text. I agree that I don't like the way some Critical Text translations word their disputed verses like the most ancient, best or accurate manuscripts do not have such and such a verse. I think it needs to be reworded to say the oldest manuscripts do not contain such and such a verse. Of course the foot note of the NKJV says that certain verse are omitted. I don't like that language either Iike there is malice and that verses were intentionally left out. They should say some or older manuscripts do not contain such and such a verse. Translation and textual criticism is a complicated art or science and we need to handle God's Word rightly. I do think it would be nice to have more than 2 (that I know of) Majority Text translations. I do highly respect Maurice Robinson. Daniel Wallace is a scholar as well but I find myself disagreeing or questioning his choices or opinions sometimes. Blessings!!
I'm a KJV reader (for its retention of the singular plural thou/ye distinction, I'm not KJVO), but I really appreciate my NLT for many of its very accurate renderings of the original Greek. Curiously, the NLT is actually more literal and more consistent in _same-word-renderings_ in many verses than those English bibles usually praised for their literality. Many examples... one off the top of my head tho is the NLT at Mat23:23 cheers
Right now, it's probably going to be either the Pickerings F35 text or the text critical Greek New Testament by Adam Boyd. However, a small team, including myself are currently working on a printed edition of the Byzantine text with all the variants between the various printed editions.
🎉This is in response to Dwayne's statement at 14:50 minutes that he would like to see a "committee based english translation of the majority text" using a group of modern scholars. Producing another translation using the methods that have produced several hundred translations already (more or different manuscripts, a different group of scholars, probability theory, and guessing) would only add one more "bible" that adds greater confusion about confidence in God's word. It begs the question … where is the Holy Spirit in this picture? What are we preaching if we don't already have the Word of God? I do appreciate your love for the truth and effort to help others have confidence that we have truth. The following is my anology of the irrefutability that we have God's word: Just as I was saved by grace, I am preserved in my salvation by grace. The same is true for His word for all generations. God has and is preserving His Word by His grace just as He inspired it by grace. He isn't a diest god. He is intimately involved in HIS creation. Thank you Dwayne for your ministry.
@@Dwayne_Green Thank you for your ministry which is and has helped many of us come to a much better understanding of the subject of textual criticism and the origins of the Bible(s): Reformation Bible or Enlightment bibles. If we have a love for truth the Holy Spirit will lead us in truth to the Truth. Please keep producing this type of content. We desperately need it.
So, only three manuscripts don't include the longer ending of Mark. Key question: Are those three the earliest Mark manuscripts? If yes, it doesn't matter how many later manuscripts include the longer ending.
@@haze1123you still ain't convinced? I will suggest you to read James snapp essay on the longer ending of mark. Also the so called early manuscripts that few people refer to are some of the most corrupted ones, heck they are well known for the high disagreements.
I question the whole honesty of the finding of the Codex Sinaiticus! I think Satan wants to cast as much doubt on the reading that makes the most sense because it causes more confusion.
The full ending of Mark 16 includes that signs follow those that believe. Perhaps that is too confronting for those people who don't see those signs in their own lives or in their church.
Be careful here, it further says "confirming the word". the signs were there to "confirm" the Word. This was needed to establish the divine nature and origin of what they were saying becasue Scripture had not yet been confirmed. The Word is now confirmed. The canon is closed. What need is there now for any further signs? We now have Christ and ALL of God's Word.
I know it doesn't matter to anyone else, but I asked God and He gave someone a dream that showed me the reasons for the uncertainty of knowing what Christ was writing in the sand. XD
One day years ago, I popped into Dr. Lewis Foster's office at the Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary (where I graduated in 1970) when he was working on the translation of the NKJV. I had the priviilege of studying under Dr. Foster and his father, R. C. Foster. He showed me the TR that he was required to use as the basis of his translaton work for Acts. He was also on the NIV translation team. When the NJKV & NIV were finally published, he wrote a book on the different Bible Translations. In that book, he noted that the NKJV was the ONLY VERSION that had textual footnotes indicating the differences in TR, Majority, and Critical text. I used the NJKV for about 20 years in my Bible study, teaching, and peaching; but eventually, I went back to the King James because it is easier for me to memorize - and there is nothing better than memorizing Scripture for enhancing one's walk with the Lord.
I very much appreciate that discussion. I am inclined to conclude that both the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery are in fact part of the original autographs of the New Testament. As was stated, too much emphasis has been put on just a few older manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. Both of those manuscripts have serious questions surrounding them.
The evidence for the Pericope just doesn't add up. This doesn't mean it wasn't a valid oral tradition later added. But its clear it wasn't in John.
The number of manuscripts doesn't matter. What we see in the 1st does matter, and it tells the story that it just wasn't there and later added.
This was really helpful. As an ESV simp, it's helpful to hear about the ending of the Lord's Prayer. I'll have to do some research into the "this kind can only be cast out by prayer (and fasting)" passage
As an ESV simp made me laugh! 😂
The answer to "the controversy" is surprisingly simple, "because dissertations need to written and articles need to be published." It really is not much more than that. The variants found anywhere do not affect doctrine, which is foundational. Therefore, the variations are no more than curiosities and - spiritually speaking - trivialities.
Amazing
I’m pretty surprised he said at the end there that he likes Esv and niv for Old Testament reading - doesn’t that undermine the whole thought of reading from a Byzantine text?
no, The Old Testament is Hebrew so the discussion surrounding the Byzantine text / critical text doesn't apply.
To use a quote (used by Daniel Wallace): “Variants once apparently in the minority are today dominant, and vice versa; some once dominant have even disappeared. This fact alone rules out any attempt to settle textual questions by statistical means.”
It would be interesting to see Adam debate Dr James White, or Tony Costa on the Byzantine vs the Critical text. Have you seen the debate between Tony Costa and John Tors, The critical text vs the majority text, on RUclips? It would be interesting to see you review that debate.
No I haven't! I should go find it. it sounds interesting!
I have a copy of Adam's translation but haven't had time to dig into it yet. My current favourite is the Majority Standard Bible.
Yes, I'm glad that Biblehub is doing the Majority text!
About the footnotes about textual variations in standard Bible he is right, they are too vague. What I should do with "absent from best manuscripts"? What are these manuscripts? Why they are the best? Perhaps they should add a one page article with more explanation.
I think Mark's (long) ending is highly likely to be genuine and though the case for the woman in adultery passage is more complex, that is much more likely to be genuine than not. The relaxed approach helps both sides to look at the facts afresh and to come up with a more common sense and up-to-date approach to the precise text of Scripture.
Wow! 1620 manuscripts include the longer ending of Mark. And I don’t think it’s coincidence that the final verse in mark is 16:20.
At least until another Mark manuscript is found :P
Immediately they are no longer concerned about minority readings, until the next time the TR is a minority.
Always like your videos Dewayne. I have said before I do not lean toward any family of manuscripts. I like the NLT of the Critical Text. I like the NKJV from the TR and I like the WEB of the Majority Text. I agree that I don't like the way some Critical Text translations word their disputed verses like the most ancient, best or accurate manuscripts do not have such and such a verse. I think it needs to be reworded to say the oldest manuscripts do not contain such and such a verse. Of course the foot note of the NKJV says that certain verse are omitted. I don't like that language either Iike there is malice and that verses were intentionally left out. They should say some or older manuscripts do not contain such and such a verse. Translation and textual criticism is a complicated art or science and we need to handle God's Word rightly. I do think it would be nice to have more than 2 (that I know of) Majority Text translations. I do highly respect Maurice Robinson. Daniel Wallace is a scholar as well but I find myself disagreeing or questioning his choices or opinions sometimes. Blessings!!
I'm a KJV reader (for its retention of the singular plural thou/ye distinction, I'm not KJVO), but I really appreciate my NLT for many of its very accurate renderings of the original Greek. Curiously, the NLT is actually more literal and more consistent in _same-word-renderings_ in many verses than those English bibles usually praised for their literality.
Many examples... one off the top of my head tho is the NLT at Mat23:23
cheers
@@AnHebrewChildAmen brother! Blessings!
@@rodneyjackson6181 cool. right back at ya :]
Cast doubt on the bit, and you do the whole.
I also don't like how most English translations (except the Youngs literal) keep the word Hell all one word when there are 3 in Greek:(
I heard used a lot 'the most reliable manuscripts' I always thought that was disingenuous:(
I want to know the Ninja scribes who added those verses without getting caught to the majority of manuscripts.
Is there a way to get or see Adams translation in english?
Thanks
It’s the text critical English New Testament. There is also an online version
@@yahrescues8993 Thank you
What is the best information source or book on individual textual variants showing the numbers/percentage of manuscripts on each?
Right now, it's probably going to be either the Pickerings F35 text or the text critical Greek New Testament by Adam Boyd.
However, a small team, including myself are currently working on a printed edition of the Byzantine text with all the variants between the various printed editions.
@@Dwayne_Green Thank you! Look forward to seeing that.
🎉This is in response to Dwayne's statement at 14:50 minutes that he would like to see a "committee based english translation of the majority text" using a group of modern scholars. Producing another translation using the methods that have produced several hundred translations already (more or different manuscripts, a different group of scholars, probability theory, and guessing) would only add one more "bible" that adds greater confusion about confidence in God's word. It begs the question … where is the Holy Spirit in this picture? What are we preaching if we don't already have the Word of God? I do appreciate your love for the truth and effort to help others have confidence that we have truth.
The following is my anology of the irrefutability that we have God's word: Just as I was saved by grace, I am preserved in my salvation by grace. The same is true for His word for all generations. God has and is preserving His Word by His grace just as He inspired it by grace. He isn't a diest god. He is intimately involved in HIS creation. Thank you Dwayne for your ministry.
Ive since changed my mind on the matter. I'm no longer advocating for any more bible translations in english
@@Dwayne_Green Thank you for your ministry which is and has helped many of us come to a much better understanding of the subject of textual criticism and the origins of the Bible(s): Reformation Bible or Enlightment bibles. If we have a love for truth the Holy Spirit will lead us in truth to the Truth. Please keep producing this type of content. We desperately need it.
So, only three manuscripts don't include the longer ending of Mark.
Key question: Are those three the earliest Mark manuscripts?
If yes, it doesn't matter how many later manuscripts include the longer ending.
Irenaus quotes Mark 16:19, so even if Vaticanus and Sainaticus are the oldest manuscripts, we have earlier attestation to the long ending than these.
@@Dwayne_Green Maybe.
@@haze1123you still ain't convinced? I will suggest you to read James snapp essay on the longer ending of mark. Also the so called early manuscripts that few people refer to are some of the most corrupted ones, heck they are well known for the high disagreements.
I question the whole honesty of the finding of the Codex Sinaiticus! I think Satan wants to cast as much doubt on the reading that makes the most sense because it causes more confusion.
The full ending of Mark 16 includes that signs follow those that believe. Perhaps that is too confronting for those people who don't see those signs in their own lives or in their church.
Be careful here, it further says "confirming the word". the signs were there to "confirm" the Word. This was needed to establish the divine nature and origin of what they were saying becasue Scripture had not yet been confirmed. The Word is now confirmed. The canon is closed. What need is there now for any further signs? We now have Christ and ALL of God's Word.
@@mrsamurangx3030except that in the new testament the "word" does not mean "the Scriptures" but "the message of god".
The Scriptures ARE the message of God@@alexjessalexjess864
@@alexjessalexjess864you beat me to it. It refers to the message of God preached by the apostles.
I know it doesn't matter to anyone else, but I asked God and He gave someone a dream that showed me the reasons for the uncertainty of knowing what Christ was writing in the sand. XD
Why not "throw shade" on something thats not true??? Throw it; why are you so meek?
Matthew 5:5