I began my Greek studies at 54 and it has been a wonderful adventure! Almost 3 years later I am more passionate about this pursuit than I was when I began.
I began at age 70. Yes, it’s very difficult, but lots of fun trying. Anything I learn is that much more than most Christians ever know. The Great Courses has an excellent course available with good graphics.
I was in my 60s when I started studying Greek and I was 76 when I completed my doctorate in theology. I read at New College, University of Edinburgh for the majority of my formal theological education. Unless you're on your deathbed it's never too late. Go for it when the passion hits you.
Wonderful video! It is amazing how much of an education one can receive just by watching scholarly teachers on RUclips. I love to watch lots of videos like this to increase my knowledge.
Sorry to hear this. What’s ironic about Ehrman is that although he’s not a believer and always hammers home all of the textual variants there are, when pressed he agrees that no variants negatively affect essential salvation principles in Scripture
Will a copy of the presentation Dr. Wallace gave on 7th September be uploaded also? It doesn't appear to be crucial to the series but it would be interesting to see how Dr. Wallace opened the series - I think it would give a good picture of how one should present such a topic and make it interesting to a lay-audience.
Rev 22:19 has a marginal note in the KJV; "out of the book...: or, from the tree of life". So, it seems that the KJV translators were aware of this issue.
@Fidem in Christo Yes - they consulted the several editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Complutensian Polyglot. Most KJV only advocates have no idea about the Complutensian Polyglot.
This is what I have from Dr. Leslie McFall Th.D. (deceased a few years ago): The standard introductions (e.g., Metzger, Aland) mention the MSS used by Erasmus, but only one of these has been described and identified, namely, MS 2 in the University Library, Basle (e.g., Metzger, p. 99; Plate XV; Aland, p. 4‑5). Other MSS used by Erasmus later on were: 38 S 3 (eap) Vienna, National bibliothek, Suppl. gr. 52. This MS was consulted for the 2nd ed. 1519. A manuscript from the Agnietenberg monastery, Zwolle (unidentified?). It was consulted for the 2nd edition. MS 61 (eapr) (Brittanicus or Montfortianus) (Dublin, Trinity College, A 4.21). The MS was said to be produced to put pressure on Erasmus to include the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) in his Greek New Testament, which he did from the 3rd ed. 1522 onwards. MS 02 (B) (Codex Vaticanus). Readings (received from Bombasio and Sepulveda) are cited in the Annotations Editions ‑ Aldine edition (1518), and consulted for the 3rd ed. The Complutensian Polyglot. This was used in later editions (for the 4th and 5th eds) esp. for the Book of Revelation 22:16‑21. See also Bill Combs, “Erasmus and the Textus Receptus,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996) available at: www.dbts.edu/journal.html
Seven (7) are cited here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Instrumentum_omne Manuscript Content Date Minuscule 1eap the entire NT except Revelation 12th century Minuscule1rK Book of Revelation 12th century Minuscule 2e Gospels 12th century Minuscule 2ap Acts and Epistles 12th century Minuscule 4ap Pauline epistles 15th century Minuscule 7p Pauline epistles 12th century Minuscule 817 Gospels 15th century
I believe that all true Christians need to be intellectually honest about the translation of the Greek NT into English. Erasmus used later Greek manuscripts rather than older Greek manuscripts which effected the quality of the English translation (KJV). Just as the RCC was wrong about its Latin translation being "inspired," so the KJV could not have been perfectly "inspired" either. Rev. 22:19 says, "the book of this prophecy" and then "God shall take away his part out of the tree of life." I believe that the literal translation should have been used. The most important thing that Daniel Wallace said was that no major doctrine was effected by textual variants/errors.
Global Impact. I think you will find that the RCC did not formally describe the Latin translations as inspired, but rather defined the old Latin vulgate as "authentic", and, having been approved of in the Church over many ages, should not be rejected. As for using older manuscripts, it is a fallacy to think that older manuscripts are necessarily more accurate. They are likely to have survived because of being little used, perhaps because of being known to be faulty.
There is also the possibility that Latin translations may have preserved some verses which had been omitted in some Greek copies. Pentecost is evidence for God using various ancient languages for the transmission of his word.
Erasmus had no Greek manuscript of the book of Revelation and so he translated it from Latin into his greek bible. Since the KJV was done from Eramus' Greek translation its book of Revelation contains any errors that Eramus had taken from the Latin. Since he had no Greek manuscript of Revelation and no time to obtain one, his Greek Bible was based on earlier greek manuscripts except for Revelation which was based only on the Latin Vulgate. Strange, but true 😅.
Minute 15 he says Erasmus thought his manuscripts dated to the time of the apostles. Sources please? Did Erasmus write this opinion anywhere? I find this unlikely since Wallace says in the following minute that Erasmus wrote notes all over these manuscripts...something he certainly would not do if he suspected they went all the way back to the times of the apostles.
It is a misleading statement to say that he based his Greek NT on 8 manuscripts. He had scoured the libraries of Europe and hired two servants to carry all of his manuscripts and notes he had accumulated over 2 decades of research throughout Europe.
I like Dan's work. Seems odd though, makes a big deal about translating from latin. that no one could read latin.. I thought they just flat out couldn't read at all...
Excellent. Recently, I heard a silly preacher announcing that the Church chained the Bible to keep the people from reading them. Perhaps, he did not know the people were equally ignorant.
1John 5:7 was added into some Greek 1John manuscripts over a thousand years after 1John was written. Are you aware of any evidence or arguments to support 1John 5:7 as belonging in printed copies of the NT? 1 John 5:7 (NKJV) For there are three that bear witness [a]in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. Footnotes: 1 John 5:7 NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek. www.gotquestions.org/Comma-Johanneum.html However, it is highly unlikely that the Comma Johanneum was originally a part of 1 John. None of the oldest Greek manuscripts of 1 John contain the comma, and none of the very early church fathers include it when quoting or referencing 1 John 5:7-8. The presence of the Comma Johanneum in Greek manuscripts is actually quite rare until the 15th century A.D. It is primarily found in Latin manuscripts. While some of the Latin manuscripts containing the Comma Johanneum are ancient, the Comma Johanneum did not appear in the original Latin Vulgate written by Jerome. In the 16th century, when Desiderius Erasmus was compiling what became known as the Textus Receptus, he did not include the Comma Johanneum in the 1st or 2nd editions. Due to intense pressure from the Catholic Church and others who wanted it included because of its support for trinitarianism, Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum in later editions of the Textus Receptus. His decision resulted in the Comma Johanneum being included in the King James Version of the Bible and later in the New King James Version. hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2649/what-is-the-argument-against-the-authenticity-of-1-john-57-8-in-the-kjv This is a case where the argument for inauthenticity is quite clear. The Comma Johanneum does not appear in any ancient Greek sources (1 John, like all the other books of the New Testament, was written originally in Greek). The earliest Greek version of 1 John with the Comma Johanneum is from 1516! The extra line was added to some Latin manuscripts sometime between the 3rd and 6th century and was originally written in Latin. It is also not found in any ancient Syriac or Coptic texts, or the traditional texts of the Ethiopian church. The reason it is sometimes included in modern bibles is that it was in the Vulgate and as a result in many early translations like the King James version. Nonetheless, it is not found even in the oldest texts of the Vulgate! Unlike some more controversial textual questions, there seems not to be any major disagreement among scholars (including conservative scholars) about the inauthenticity of the Comma Johanneum. You can find a few defenses of authenticity, but it's a decidedly fringe position mostly held by people who are committed to the KJV-only movement. To refresh on the details, I got most of this information from this article by Daniel Wallace, and a little of it from Wikipedia. But both of these sources agree with what I'd read about this topic elsewhere in the past.
@@davidford15 Cyprian of Carthage (c.250) seems to have quoted it. It is also cited by two 4th century bishops. I refer you to "The King James Version Defended" by Edward F. Hills. God did not restrict the preservation of His word exclusively to Greek manuscripts, so evidence in ancient Latin versions must be taken account of. I am unsure of the source, but I have heard that an ancient Greek manuscript containing it did come to light. It's a while since I have studied the matter, but I am sure in my mind and heart that these are authentic words of God. Another scholar to check out is Theodore Letis.
Because 1. King James Was Having ALL Male Homosexual Affairs During his life time. After Learning About This I Cannot Read or Study from the kjv-so call bible- Anymore . from South Louisiana.
NIV, Rm 5:12, "Therefore, since sin entered the world through one man....." So, the sin, or, rather, our fallacy, came from somewhere else than the first ever man. And, if God exists, and he said 5:12, it proves Eve was innocent. 1 Cor 11:12, "But everything comes from God". If God exists, then it proves he made us fallible and which priests turned it into the so-called sin; ie, that we are the ones who created sin [by rejecting God[ and not God. And the scam lasted for 2 k years and may last for millennia longer, but end one day!!
Really. Erasmus was forbidden to Catholic people on account of his supposed heresy especially in his assertion that the Vulgate had serious errors in it. Modern Protestants have carefully studied the times that Erasmus lived in, his greek texts he used to correct the Latin Bible and his futher revisions of his Greek Bible. In addition his attitudes, beliefs and motives are clear from the copious number of letters he wrote. Why would you make a statement claiming that such educated assessments of Erasmus should not be done by experts not qualified to assess Erasmus? Such a statement does not follow from the evident expertise of these Bible scholars. Who is better qualified, considering the reasonableness and logic which these Bible scholars have so catefully though out.
The problem with modern textual criticism is that it only seeks to destroy a believer's faith in the KJV Bible as the only source of truth in life. Dan Wallace himself has said that he wishes his students would use the ESV and never the KJV. In my more than 20 years of scholarly study in the scriptures and especially in New Testament Greek, I have returned to the KJV as my only source of truth. Not only has it been proven to be the truth, but the source of the modern versions is corrupt at its core. While both Codex's are corrupt, Sinaiaticus is the worst. When I found out that the St. Catherine's Monastery was protected by Islam for over 1,000 years, knowing of the history between Islam and Catholicism, I decided to return to the only version that has never changed. The confusion over which Bible version to read has ended. I have always believed the KJV was the most trustworthy, but now I am convinced. Modern textual criticism will only serve to confuse you. Walk by faith and not by sight. Trust in the true word of God and leave all the confusion behind. In Jesus always, Pastor Brett
Pastor Brett Horrible advice sir. Wallace clearly states the KJV is a fine translation, there are no differences in core Christian doctrine amongst any of the translations, and your response is “textual criticism is simply here to confuse you”? Stating the KJV is the only worthy translation is not “walk by faith not by sight”, it’s ignorance.
@@Actuary1776 , Having been where you are, and now being returned to the one text of scripture that will remain the same, I am confident in what the Lord has shown me, through more than 28 years of research. Ignorance? I think not; but then for anyone to say so, before knowing the person they speak of: this would qualify as an ignorant statement. An interesting aspect of this type of dialogue is the fact that I have been where you are. I once argued with KJV onlyists, attempting to prove how ignorant they were about the scriptures; and in many points, they still are in a state of ignorance. You sir ignorantly assume that I am a KJV onlyist, when I could never return to such an ignorant position. I have studied the Hebrew texts of scripture, and I am fluent in NT Koine and miniscule Greek. I am KJV only in the sense of it being the most trustworthy English text from the Hebrew and Greek, but the Codex Sinaiaticus is not one of those Greek texts that I consider trustworthy. I once believed that the codex Sinaiaticus was a trustworthy document, intended to prove the reliability of the Byzantine textual tradition. I have since found out that the main source of modern textual criticism is an Islamic forgery, intended to cause division in the Church. Let us never forget Satan's influence. Confusion is not of God. I am sure we can agree on that; so where does this confusion come from? Which text of scripture do you trust? Please don't say the originals, since it is obvious we do not have them. Do you use a modern English translation, or maybe several of them? I did. I once boasted of my knowledge of NT Greek, and I supported the use of modern English translations. When I found out the fact that the St. Catherine's Monastery was protected by Islam for over 1,000 years, I began to suspect deception. I had already begun to question the modern translations, but my confusion over which Bible to trust never existed when I was KJVO. I knew my Baptist friends never had such confusion. You could say ignorance is bliss. I am thankful for the many years of research since I first came out of the KJVO camp, but I am even more thankful that God in his divine grace and mercy, allowed this prodigal to come home. I will find the video that shows the disdain Daniel Wallace has for the KJV. When I do, I will pass it on. Ignorance is not in this Pastor's vocabulary. I know why I believe that God's word is trustworthy. Do you? God's best to you young man. May the Lord show you the same truth that he has revealed to me. Psalm 118:8 "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Peace in Jesus, Pastor Brett
Pastor Brett Am I correct that the gist of this argument is “but Islam”? How is it that Islam corrupted Sinaiticus and yet no core Christian principles are compromised? Like we are totally missing the forest through the trees here. God has given us a great number of witnesses to his Word through thousands of manuscripts. As Wallace states, some 90% of the variants are spelling are other inconsequential grammatical errors. I do not see the point in dividing over this. Modern scholars can tell us the problems the KJV has, and every other translation for that matter. I believe God speaks to us today through science and reason, and this does not lead me to KJV only.
@@Actuary1776 Science and Reason? I will trust the scriptures. As for division over this issue, I have no problem with anyone that reads another version. My choice is the KJV. I am well aware of the numbers, variants and everything associated with textual criticism. I choose the KJV because it is the most consistent and reliable translation in the English language. With the ever changing face of the modern translations, I chose to go back to the one that I knew would never change. As for Islamic influence, think of all the confusion in the church over this issue. I have debated Muslims for years. They always lean on the the variants in the New Testament text to prove corruption in the text. Without the modern critical text, there would be no confusion. For me, there is no confusion! Whatever you choose is on you. I know why I believe. Peace in Jesus. Pastor Brett
Pastor Brett What Muslims may or may not do with textual criticism has nothing to do with the value it may or may not add, that is flawed logic. God gave us science and reason, I suggest the Christian community start using that revelation a little more.
Book of life,vs tree of life. Either way if you are blotted out or a branch cut off, seems that you can definitely lose your place in the kingdom of God to me.
The tree of life is referred to in the Old Testament as is the fall of man being related to humans losing access to it. In the New Testament spiritual death is related to the books being opened and sinners having their names blotted out from the book of life.
@@stevenv6463 some said, the Koran was not written before 200 years after Muhs dead. But other sources write that the sure about Breathfeeding got lost at the day of his dead
@@hubertxxx5564 Have you heard of the Birmigham codex that has some pages of the Quran that are written on the skin of an animal that lived in or just after Muhammad's lifetime? The thing about Islamic historical sources is that it records a ton of stories and even stories that aren't true are transmitted so that historians can have the most information available to them.
Trinity 1 john 5:7-8 admittedly invented and added as well as Mark 16:9-20.... Arius and later Erasmus and Luther as well as Sir Issac Newton knew this but 1john trinity forced its way back in anyway. See "comma debate,Trinity,Tertullian". The NIV bible notes the hundreds of additions made to the NT that do not appear in the original pre Nicene koine NT Greek papyrus.... The Orthodox Hebrew Tanakh matches the dead sea scrolls from 350 bce and their is only one Jewish bible all match word for word in history. No Christian "old testament" comes even close... There are hundreds of variant versions of Christian bibles none match each other or the original Greek or Hebrew source scriptures. . Verify all I post. Watch Tenak Talk.שלום
Cyprian quoted the comma verbatim in 250 A.D. The Old Latin witnesses of 157 A.D. also have I John 5:7. Plenty of Old Latin witnesses close to 8,000 Latin manuscript have the comma.
The DSS provide witness to textual plurality around 350 BCE. The Septuagint is also confirmed in the DSS, as well as other versions of the Hebrew Bible we have yet to identify.
"invented and added as well as Mark 16:9-20" The NT was originally in Aramaic, not Greek. Tatian, who died in A.D. 180, composed the Diatesseron (a consolidation of the 4 Gospels) using the Aramaic. That was translated into Arabic, which we have today: sepehr.mohamadi.name/?p=84 The Greek manuscripts have many variants. In many instances, the Aramaic and the Diatesseron agree as to what the original renditions of various Gospel passages were. Mark 16:9-20 Regarding the 'long ending of Mark,' the Diatesseron shows that practically all of it was present as of A.D. 175. It's also in the original Aramaic of the Peshitta. The HCSB notes that concerning Mark 16:9-20, "other mss omit" it. The Peshitta has the text for Mark 16:9-20, with the exception that it lacks the addition of "with their hands" in verse 18. Here's that addition: Mark 16:18 (HCSB) they will pick up snakes;[a: Other mss add _with their hands_] Below is the Peshitta's Mark16:9-20, interleaved with corresponding Diatesseron extracts where applicable. Peshitta Mark 16:9 (based on Younan of Peshitta.org) And at early morning on the first of the week he had risen and appeared first to Maryam of Magdala, she that from whom he had cast out seven shadiyn [devils]. Compare: Diatesseron 53:25 www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.liii.html And on the First-day on which he rose, he appeared first unto Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. Peshitta Mark 16:10 And she went (and) sebarth [brought hope] to those who had been with him, who were mourning and weeping. Compare Diatesseron 53:35 And those women returned, and told all that to the eleven, and to the rest of the disciples; and to those that had been with him, for they were saddened and weeping. Peshitta Mark 16:11 And when they heard what they were saying, that he was alive and had appeared to them, they did not believe them. Compare: Diatesseron 53:37 And they, when they heard them say that he was alive and had appeared unto them, did not believe them: Peshitta Mark 16:12 After these things, he appeared to two of them in another form while they were walking and going to a village. Compare: Diatesseron 53:39 And after that, he appeared to two of them, on that day, and while they were going to the village. . . . Peshitta Mark 16:13 And those went (and) told the rest, (and) they did not even believe them. Peshitta Mark 16:14 And finally he appeared to the eleven while they were reclining, and he reviled the lack of their faith and the hardness of their hearts, since those who had seen him, that he had risen, they did not believe them. Compare: Diatesseron 55:3 www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.lv.html And while they sat there he appeared to them again, and upbraided them for their lack of faith and the hardness of their hearts, those that saw him when he was risen, and believed not. Peshitta Mark 16:15a And he said to them, Compare: Diatesseron 55:4 Then said Jesus unto them,. . . . Peshitta Mark 16:15b "Go into all the ailma [world] and preach my Sebartha [Message/ Hope] to all of creation. Compare: Diatesseron 55:5 Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; Peshitta Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will live, and whoever does not believe will be condemned. Compare Diatesseron 55:8 For whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but whosoever believeth not shall be rejected. Peshitta Mark 16:17-18 And these signs will follow those who believe: in my name they will cast out shada [devils] and they will speak in new tongues, and they will handle serpents, and if they should drink a deadly poison it will not harm them. And they will place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed." Compare: Diatesseron 55:9-10 And the signs which shall attend those that believe in me are these: that they shall cast out devils in my name; and they shall speak with new tongues; and they shall take up serpents, and if they drink deadly poison, it shall not injure them; and they shall lay their hands on the diseased, and they shall be healed. Peshitta Mark 16:19 And Maran [our Lord] Yeshua, after speaking with them, went up to heaven and sat at the right hand of Allaha. Compare: Diatesseron 55:12-13 And our Lord Jesus, after speaking to them. . . ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. Peshitta Mark 16:20 And they went out and preached in all places. And Maran was helping them and establishing their words by the signs that they were doing. Compare: Diatesseron 55:16 And from thence they went forth, and preached in every place; and our Lord helped them, and confirmed their sayings by the signs which they did.
Wallace might be a Greek scholar but he sure misrepresents the entire manuscript issue. It's embarassing. Actually, he will have to give an account to God for why he did not reveal the truth. What truth? That Greek was NOT the original language of the NT manuscripts.
j parks It's not Wallace who will answer to God, it is you! The New Testament was all written in Greek and every early manuscript are all in Greek. Jesus spoke Greek in the NT and shows a knowledge of the Greek Old Testament. Even the name of Jesus is never found in the Aramaic form in the NT. Greek is the language of Second Temple Judaism for Jews living throughout the Roman Empire.
j parks The only one talking trash isn't yourself. There are no manuscripts of any book of the New Testament older than the Greek manuscripts (*none *, *zero*, *zilch*). Name one manuscript of the NT older than P52 that isn't in Greek. Here's a clue... There isn't any!!!
Surfxeo yes, there is. And it's even listed in the catalog of the manuscripts kept in the Vatican. But of course they won't release it to the public. So there. Bam, you've been pwned.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I love his comments about language learning later in life. I'm 49 and I have started learning Greek.
Frauke Schmidt how's is going? I've just turned 48 and considering it. Any regrets or would you encourage me?
I’m 47 and started myself. It is challenging but very exciting!
I began my Greek studies at 54 and it has been a wonderful adventure! Almost 3 years later I am more passionate about this pursuit than I was when I began.
I learned basic German at age 51; but I am sheepishly thinking about leaning Greek -- it's going to be a lot of work.
I began at age 70. Yes, it’s very difficult, but lots of fun trying. Anything I learn is that much more than most Christians ever know. The Great Courses has an excellent course available with good graphics.
I was in my 60s when I started studying Greek and I was 76 when I completed my doctorate in theology. I read at New College, University of Edinburgh for the majority of my formal theological education. Unless you're on your deathbed it's never too late. Go for it when the passion hits you.
Wonderful video! It is amazing how much of an education one can receive just by watching scholarly teachers on RUclips. I love to watch lots of videos like this to increase my knowledge.
I would so much love to be neighbors with Dr. Wallace.
Thanks, very good lecture! B.Erman is why my college kid has determined to not believe anymore- pray for his recovery from this delusion!! 😢
Sending prayer for the restoration of your child. May the Holy Spirit help them find their way back to faith
Sorry to hear this. What’s ironic about Ehrman is that although he’s not a believer and always hammers home all of the textual variants there are, when pressed he agrees that no variants negatively affect essential salvation principles in Scripture
Have your son watch James White. He can easily go toe to toe with Bart. How are things going? Praying for you and your family
@@susiequsie1980 He’s still believe it Bart, but I have hope. He’s watched James, I’m sure- thank you for praying!!!!!
My heart goes out to you...God's grace is more than sufficient to open your son's eyes aears...
Will a copy of the presentation Dr. Wallace gave on 7th September be uploaded also? It doesn't appear to be crucial to the series but it would be interesting to see how Dr. Wallace opened the series - I think it would give a good picture of how one should present such a topic and make it interesting to a lay-audience.
Rev 22:19 has a marginal note in the KJV; "out of the book...: or, from the tree of life". So, it seems that the KJV translators were aware of this issue.
So you have a first edition?
@Fidem in Christo Yes - they consulted the several editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Complutensian Polyglot. Most KJV only advocates have no idea about the Complutensian Polyglot.
Can you please reload with better sound level!?
That would be even better. Right?
Great video! Thanks Dr. Wallace.
excellent stuff - thank you for uploading!
Volume too low to listen. What a shame.
So what were the 8 manuscripts that Erasmus used?
This is what I have from Dr. Leslie McFall Th.D. (deceased a few years ago): The standard introductions (e.g., Metzger, Aland) mention the MSS used by Erasmus, but
only one of these has been described and identified,
namely, MS 2 in the University Library, Basle (e.g., Metzger, p. 99; Plate XV; Aland, p. 4‑5).
Other MSS used by Erasmus later on were:
38 S 3 (eap) Vienna, National bibliothek, Suppl. gr. 52. This MS was consulted for the 2nd ed. 1519.
A manuscript from the Agnietenberg monastery, Zwolle (unidentified?). It was consulted for the
2nd edition.
MS 61 (eapr) (Brittanicus or Montfortianus) (Dublin, Trinity College, A 4.21). The MS was said to be
produced to put pressure on Erasmus to include the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) in his Greek New Testament, which he did from the 3rd ed. 1522 onwards.
MS 02 (B) (Codex Vaticanus). Readings (received from Bombasio and Sepulveda) are cited in the Annotations Editions ‑ Aldine edition (1518), and consulted for the 3rd ed.
The Complutensian Polyglot. This was used in later editions (for the 4th and 5th eds) esp. for the Book of Revelation 22:16‑21.
See also Bill Combs, “Erasmus and the Textus Receptus,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996) available at: www.dbts.edu/journal.html
Seven (7) are cited here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Instrumentum_omne
Manuscript Content Date
Minuscule 1eap the entire NT except Revelation 12th century
Minuscule1rK Book of Revelation 12th century
Minuscule 2e Gospels 12th century
Minuscule 2ap Acts and Epistles 12th century
Minuscule 4ap Pauline epistles 15th century
Minuscule 7p Pauline epistles 12th century
Minuscule 817 Gospels 15th century
I would like to ask him, if he believes in Providence than why does he and so many scholars try to take away from the Received Text
I believe that all true Christians need to be intellectually honest about the translation of the Greek NT into English. Erasmus used later Greek manuscripts rather than older Greek manuscripts which effected the quality of the English translation (KJV). Just as the RCC was wrong about its Latin translation being "inspired," so the KJV could not have been perfectly "inspired" either. Rev. 22:19 says, "the book of this prophecy" and then "God shall take away his part out of the tree of life." I believe that the literal translation should have been used.
The most important thing that Daniel Wallace said was that no major doctrine was effected by textual variants/errors.
Global Impact. I think you will find that the RCC did not formally describe the Latin translations as inspired, but rather defined the old Latin vulgate as "authentic", and, having been approved of in the Church over many ages, should not be rejected. As for using older manuscripts, it is a fallacy to think that older manuscripts are necessarily more accurate. They are likely to have survived because of being little used, perhaps because of being known to be faulty.
There is also the possibility that Latin translations may have preserved some verses which had been omitted in some Greek copies. Pentecost is evidence for God using various ancient languages for the transmission of his word.
Erasmus had no Greek manuscript of the book of Revelation and so he translated it from Latin into his greek bible. Since the KJV was done from Eramus' Greek translation its book of Revelation contains any errors that Eramus had taken from the Latin. Since he had no Greek manuscript of Revelation and no time to obtain one, his Greek Bible was based on earlier greek manuscripts except for Revelation which was based only on the Latin Vulgate. Strange, but true 😅.
I started learning Greek @32!!
Revelation 3:5 also says that a name can be blotted out of the book of life.
I understood that all names are in it, but we choose to have it blotted out by unbelief.
Minute 15 he says Erasmus thought his manuscripts dated to the time of the apostles. Sources please? Did Erasmus write this opinion anywhere? I find this unlikely since Wallace says in the following minute that Erasmus wrote notes all over these manuscripts...something he certainly would not do if he suspected they went all the way back to the times of the apostles.
That does seem fishy, doesn’t it.
Montfortianus reads book of life in Rev 22:19
Source?
It is a misleading statement to say that he based his Greek NT on 8 manuscripts. He had scoured the libraries of Europe and hired two servants to carry all of his manuscripts and notes he had accumulated over 2 decades of research throughout Europe.
I like Dan's work. Seems odd though, makes a big deal about translating from latin. that no one could read latin.. I thought they just flat out couldn't read at all...
Excellent point.
??
Did he say the Latin Vulgate was the "inspired text"?
Surely he didn’t mean that
Excellent. Recently, I heard a silly preacher announcing that the Church chained the Bible to keep the people from reading them. Perhaps, he did not know the people were equally ignorant.
thanx Dan
Johanna Commanuem debate 1John 5:7-8 Trinity addition.
Authentic verses of the inspired Scripture. Preserved in Latin, omitted from some Greek copies.
1John 5:7 was added into some Greek 1John manuscripts over a thousand years after 1John was written. Are you aware of any evidence or arguments to support 1John 5:7 as belonging in printed copies of the NT?
1 John 5:7 (NKJV) For there are three that bear witness [a]in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
Footnotes:
1 John 5:7 NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek.
www.gotquestions.org/Comma-Johanneum.html
However, it is highly unlikely that the Comma Johanneum was originally a part of 1 John. None of the oldest Greek manuscripts of 1 John contain the comma, and none of the very early church fathers include it when quoting or referencing 1 John 5:7-8. The presence of the Comma Johanneum in Greek manuscripts is actually quite rare until the 15th century A.D. It is primarily found in Latin manuscripts. While some of the Latin manuscripts containing the Comma Johanneum are ancient, the Comma Johanneum did not appear in the original Latin Vulgate written by Jerome.
In the 16th century, when Desiderius Erasmus was compiling what became known as the Textus Receptus, he did not include the Comma Johanneum in the 1st or 2nd editions. Due to intense pressure from the Catholic Church and others who wanted it included because of its support for trinitarianism, Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum in later editions of the Textus Receptus. His decision resulted in the Comma Johanneum being included in the King James Version of the Bible and later in the New King James Version.
hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2649/what-is-the-argument-against-the-authenticity-of-1-john-57-8-in-the-kjv
This is a case where the argument for inauthenticity is quite clear. The Comma Johanneum does not appear in any ancient Greek sources (1 John, like all the other books of the New Testament, was written originally in Greek). The earliest Greek version of 1 John with the Comma Johanneum is from 1516! The extra line was added to some Latin manuscripts sometime between the 3rd and 6th century and was originally written in Latin. It is also not found in any ancient Syriac or Coptic texts, or the traditional texts of the Ethiopian church.
The reason it is sometimes included in modern bibles is that it was in the Vulgate and as a result in many early translations like the King James version. Nonetheless, it is not found even in the oldest texts of the Vulgate!
Unlike some more controversial textual questions, there seems not to be any major disagreement among scholars (including conservative scholars) about the inauthenticity of the Comma Johanneum. You can find a few defenses of authenticity, but it's a decidedly fringe position mostly held by people who are committed to the KJV-only movement.
To refresh on the details, I got most of this information from this article by Daniel Wallace, and a little of it from Wikipedia. But both of these sources agree with what I'd read about this topic elsewhere in the past.
@@davidford15 Cyprian of Carthage (c.250) seems to have quoted it. It is also cited by two 4th century bishops. I refer you to "The King James Version Defended" by Edward F. Hills. God did not restrict the preservation of His word exclusively to Greek manuscripts, so evidence in ancient Latin versions must be taken account of. I am unsure of the source, but I have heard that an ancient Greek manuscript containing it did come to light. It's a while since I have studied the matter, but I am sure in my mind and heart that these are authentic words of God. Another scholar to check out is Theodore Letis.
@@anselman3156 so do see 1 John 5:7 as authentic?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Yes. That is what I said.
Revelation 22.19 is it’s “tree” rather than a book the Bible would suit the latest scientific evolutionary theory
great scholar
when you get decked by a fella that looks like that pasta logo after ramblin about millwall:
Dude, did you know 1 John 5:7 is in the Codex Sinaiticus ?
ruclips.net/video/FowVzCJYydQ/видео.html
Erasmus clearly objected to the idea that he laid the egg that Luther hatched …
Why can't you folks just trust the kjv
Because 1. King James Was Having ALL Male Homosexual Affairs During his life time. After Learning About This I Cannot Read or Study from the kjv-so call bible- Anymore . from South Louisiana.
NIV, Rm 5:12, "Therefore, since sin entered the world through one man....." So, the sin, or, rather, our fallacy, came from somewhere else than the first ever man. And, if God exists, and he said 5:12, it proves Eve was innocent.
1 Cor 11:12, "But everything comes from God". If God exists, then it proves he made us fallible and which priests turned it into the so-called sin; ie, that we are the ones who created sin [by rejecting God[ and not God. And the scam lasted for 2 k years and may last for millennia longer, but end one day!!
The monks at St Catherine's are still salty about that manuscript. It's like the longest overdue library book. Yikes
Vikings were here before Columbus.
You rock, man; but leave your assessment of Erasmus to scholars better equipped to deal with it ….
Really. Erasmus was forbidden to Catholic people on account of his supposed heresy especially in his assertion that the Vulgate had serious errors in it. Modern Protestants have carefully studied the times that Erasmus lived in, his greek texts he used to correct the Latin Bible and his futher revisions of his Greek Bible. In addition his attitudes, beliefs and motives are clear from the copious number of letters he wrote. Why would you make a statement claiming that such educated assessments of Erasmus should not be done by experts not qualified to assess Erasmus? Such a statement does not follow from the evident expertise of these Bible scholars. Who is better qualified, considering the reasonableness and logic which these Bible scholars have so catefully though out.
The problem with modern textual criticism is that it only seeks to destroy a believer's faith in the KJV Bible as the only source of truth in life. Dan Wallace himself has said that he wishes his students would use the ESV and never the KJV.
In my more than 20 years of scholarly study in the scriptures and especially in New Testament Greek, I have returned to the KJV as my only source of truth. Not only has it been proven to be the truth, but the source of the modern versions is corrupt at its core. While both Codex's are corrupt, Sinaiaticus is the worst. When I found out that the St. Catherine's Monastery was protected by Islam for over 1,000 years, knowing of the history between Islam and Catholicism, I decided to return to the only version that has never changed. The confusion over which Bible version to read has ended. I have always believed the KJV was the most trustworthy, but now I am convinced.
Modern textual criticism will only serve to confuse you. Walk by faith and not by sight. Trust in the true word of God and leave all the confusion behind.
In Jesus always,
Pastor Brett
Pastor Brett Horrible advice sir. Wallace clearly states the KJV is a fine translation, there are no differences in core Christian doctrine amongst any of the translations, and your response is “textual criticism is simply here to confuse you”? Stating the KJV is the only worthy translation is not “walk by faith not by sight”, it’s ignorance.
@@Actuary1776 ,
Having been where you are, and now being returned to the one text of scripture that will remain the same, I am confident in what the Lord has shown me, through more than 28 years of research. Ignorance? I think not; but then for anyone to say so, before knowing the person they speak of: this would qualify as an ignorant statement.
An interesting aspect of this type of dialogue is the fact that I have been where you are. I once argued with KJV onlyists, attempting to prove how ignorant they were about the scriptures; and in many points, they still are in a state of ignorance. You sir ignorantly assume that I am a KJV onlyist, when I could never return to such an ignorant position. I have studied the Hebrew texts of scripture, and I am fluent in NT Koine and miniscule Greek. I am KJV only in the sense of it being the most trustworthy English text from the Hebrew and Greek, but the Codex Sinaiaticus is not one of those Greek texts that I consider trustworthy. I once believed that the codex Sinaiaticus was a trustworthy document, intended to prove the reliability of the Byzantine textual tradition. I have since found out that the main source of modern textual criticism is an Islamic forgery, intended to cause division in the Church. Let us never forget Satan's influence. Confusion is not of God. I am sure we can agree on that; so where does this confusion come from?
Which text of scripture do you trust? Please don't say the originals, since it is obvious we do not have them. Do you use a modern English translation, or maybe several of them? I did. I once boasted of my knowledge of NT Greek, and I supported the use of modern English translations. When I found out the fact that the St. Catherine's Monastery was protected by Islam for over 1,000 years, I began to suspect deception. I had already begun to question the modern translations, but my confusion over which Bible to trust never existed when I was KJVO. I knew my Baptist friends never had such confusion. You could say ignorance is bliss.
I am thankful for the many years of research since I first came out of the KJVO camp, but I am even more thankful that God in his divine grace and mercy, allowed this prodigal to come home. I will find the video that shows the disdain Daniel Wallace has for the KJV. When I do, I will pass it on.
Ignorance is not in this Pastor's vocabulary. I know why I believe that God's word is trustworthy. Do you? God's best to you young man. May the Lord show you the same truth that he has revealed to me. Psalm 118:8 "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man."
Peace in Jesus,
Pastor Brett
Pastor Brett Am I correct that the gist of this argument is “but Islam”? How is it that Islam corrupted Sinaiticus and yet no core Christian principles are compromised? Like we are totally missing the forest through the trees here. God has given us a great number of witnesses to his Word through thousands of manuscripts. As Wallace states, some 90% of the variants are spelling are other inconsequential grammatical errors. I do not see the point in dividing over this. Modern scholars can tell us the problems the KJV has, and every other translation for that matter. I believe God speaks to us today through science and reason, and this does not lead me to KJV only.
@@Actuary1776
Science and Reason? I will trust the scriptures. As for division over this issue, I have no problem with anyone that reads another version. My choice is the KJV.
I am well aware of the numbers, variants and everything associated with textual criticism. I choose the KJV because it is the most consistent and reliable translation in the English language. With the ever changing face of the modern translations, I chose to go back to the one that I knew would never change.
As for Islamic influence, think of all the confusion in the church over this issue. I have debated Muslims for years. They always lean on the the variants in the New Testament text to prove corruption in the text. Without the modern critical text, there would be no confusion. For me, there is no confusion!
Whatever you choose is on you. I know why I believe. Peace in Jesus.
Pastor Brett
Pastor Brett What Muslims may or may not do with textual criticism has nothing to do with the value it may or may not add, that is flawed logic. God gave us science and reason, I suggest the Christian community start using that revelation a little more.
Book of life,vs tree of life. Either way if you are blotted out or a branch cut off, seems that you can definitely lose your place in the kingdom of God to me.
The tree of life is referred to in the Old Testament as is the fall of man being related to humans losing access to it. In the New Testament spiritual death is related to the books being opened and sinners having their names blotted out from the book of life.
once again, you need to focus, on the topic, you are wasting time on ....stories....
There is no ROMAN Catholic Church. There is the CATHOLIC CHURCH which has several rites including the Roman rite.
Tree of life makes zero sense.
You don't see stephen king writings novels on trees.
"It only grew two percent in 1400 years. That's not that much" Whew, I am glad I am Muslim.
The Koran did not exist for 200 years. And than grew 100%. You are glad?
@@hubertxxx5564 Yes very glad to have a book that had one source and was preserved since then.
@@stevenv6463 some said, the Koran was not written before 200 years after Muhs dead. But other sources write that the sure about Breathfeeding got lost at the day of his dead
@@hubertxxx5564 Have you heard of the Birmigham codex that has some pages of the Quran that are written on the skin of an animal that lived in or just after Muhammad's lifetime? The thing about Islamic historical sources is that it records a ton of stories and even stories that aren't true are transmitted so that historians can have the most information available to them.
I'm not
Trinity 1 john 5:7-8 admittedly invented and added as well as Mark 16:9-20....
Arius and later Erasmus and Luther as well as Sir Issac Newton knew this but 1john trinity forced its way back in anyway. See "comma debate,Trinity,Tertullian".
The NIV bible notes the hundreds of additions made to the NT that do not appear in the original pre Nicene koine NT Greek papyrus....
The Orthodox Hebrew Tanakh matches the dead sea scrolls from 350 bce and their is only one Jewish bible all match word for word in history. No Christian "old testament" comes even close...
There are hundreds of variant versions of Christian bibles none match each other or the original Greek or Hebrew source scriptures. .
Verify all I post. Watch Tenak Talk.שלום
Cyprian quoted the comma verbatim in 250 A.D. The Old Latin witnesses of 157 A.D. also have I John 5:7. Plenty of Old Latin witnesses close to 8,000 Latin manuscript have the comma.
Michael George No I don’t believe he quoted it verbatim.
The DSS provide witness to textual plurality around 350 BCE. The Septuagint is also confirmed in the DSS, as well as other versions of the Hebrew Bible we have yet to identify.
"invented and added as well as Mark 16:9-20"
The NT was originally in Aramaic, not Greek. Tatian, who died in A.D. 180, composed the Diatesseron (a consolidation of the 4 Gospels) using the Aramaic. That was translated into Arabic, which we have today: sepehr.mohamadi.name/?p=84
The Greek manuscripts have many variants. In many instances, the Aramaic and the Diatesseron agree as to what the original renditions of various Gospel passages were.
Mark 16:9-20
Regarding the 'long ending of Mark,' the Diatesseron shows that practically all of it was present as of A.D. 175. It's also in the original Aramaic of the Peshitta.
The HCSB notes that concerning Mark 16:9-20, "other mss omit" it.
The Peshitta has the text for Mark 16:9-20, with the exception that it lacks the addition of "with their hands" in verse 18. Here's that addition:
Mark 16:18 (HCSB) they will pick up snakes;[a: Other mss add _with their hands_]
Below is the Peshitta's Mark16:9-20, interleaved with corresponding Diatesseron extracts where applicable.
Peshitta Mark 16:9 (based on Younan of Peshitta.org)
And at early morning on the first of the week he had risen
and appeared first to Maryam of Magdala,
she that from whom he had cast out seven shadiyn [devils].
Compare:
Diatesseron 53:25
www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.liii.html
And on the First-day on which he rose,
he appeared first unto Mary Magdalene,
from whom he had cast out seven demons.
Peshitta Mark 16:10
And she went (and) sebarth [brought hope]
to those who had been with him,
who were mourning and weeping.
Compare
Diatesseron 53:35
And those women returned, and told all that
to the eleven, and to the rest of the disciples;
and to those that had been with him,
for they were saddened and weeping.
Peshitta Mark 16:11
And when they heard what they were saying,
that he was alive and had appeared to them,
they did not believe them.
Compare:
Diatesseron 53:37
And they, when they heard them say
that he was alive and had appeared unto them,
did not believe them:
Peshitta Mark 16:12
After these things,
he appeared to two of them in another form
while they were walking and going to a village.
Compare:
Diatesseron 53:39
And after that,
he appeared to two of them, on that day,
and while they were going to the village. . . .
Peshitta Mark 16:13
And those went (and) told the rest, (and) they did not even believe them.
Peshitta Mark 16:14
And finally he appeared to the eleven while they were reclining,
and he reviled the lack of their faith
and the hardness of their hearts,
since those who had seen him, that he had risen,
they did not believe them.
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:3
www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.lv.html
And while they sat there he appeared to them again,
and upbraided them for their lack of faith
and the hardness of their hearts,
those that saw him when he was risen,
and believed not.
Peshitta Mark 16:15a
And he said to them,
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:4
Then said Jesus unto them,. . . .
Peshitta Mark 16:15b
"Go into all the ailma [world]
and preach my Sebartha [Message/ Hope] to all of creation.
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:5
Go now into all the world,
and preach my gospel in all the creation;
Peshitta Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will live,
and whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Compare
Diatesseron 55:8
For whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but whosoever believeth not shall be rejected.
Peshitta Mark 16:17-18
And these signs will follow those who believe:
in my name they will cast out shada [devils]
and they will speak in new tongues,
and they will handle serpents,
and if they should drink a deadly poison
it will not harm them.
And they will place their hands on the sick,
and they will be healed."
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:9-10
And the signs which shall attend those that believe in me are these:
that they shall cast out devils in my name;
and they shall speak with new tongues;
and they shall take up serpents,
and if they drink deadly poison,
it shall not injure them;
and they shall lay their hands on the diseased,
and they shall be healed.
Peshitta Mark 16:19
And Maran [our Lord] Yeshua,
after speaking with them,
went up to heaven
and sat at the right hand of Allaha.
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:12-13
And our Lord Jesus,
after speaking to them. . .
ascended into heaven,
and sat down at the right hand of God.
Peshitta Mark 16:20
And they went out
and preached in all places.
And Maran was helping them
and establishing their words by the signs that they were doing.
Compare:
Diatesseron 55:16
And from thence they went forth,
and preached in every place;
and our Lord helped them,
and confirmed their sayings by the signs which they did.
1 John 5:7 is in Sinaiticus.
ruclips.net/video/FowVzCJYydQ/видео.html
Wallace might be a Greek scholar but he sure misrepresents the entire manuscript issue. It's embarassing. Actually, he will have to give an account to God for why he did not reveal the truth. What truth? That Greek was NOT the original language of the NT manuscripts.
What was the original language?
j parks It's not Wallace who will answer to God, it is you! The New Testament was all written in Greek and every early manuscript are all in Greek. Jesus spoke Greek in the NT and shows a knowledge of the Greek Old Testament. Even the name of Jesus is never found in the Aramaic form in the NT. Greek is the language of Second Temple Judaism for Jews living throughout the Roman Empire.
Surfxeo
nope. All your points are not at all true. Do some research before spewing such trash.
j parks The only one talking trash isn't yourself. There are no manuscripts of any book of the New Testament older than the Greek manuscripts (*none *, *zero*, *zilch*). Name one manuscript of the NT older than P52 that isn't in Greek.
Here's a clue... There isn't any!!!
Surfxeo
yes, there is. And it's even listed in the catalog of the manuscripts kept in the Vatican. But of course they won't release it to the public. So there. Bam, you've been pwned.