Islamic Archives

Home » Textual Criticism

Category Archives: Textual Criticism

Till the 19th Century, all New Testament translations were based off of “Corrupt” Byzantine Text-Type

Title: Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
Author(s): Bruce M. Metzger

Capture

 

5 Gospels not 4 !?!?!?!

Title: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration Author(s): Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman

Pg. 327
3

 

 

Critique of ‘3 Ways to Graciously Engage KJV-Only Believers’ By Mark Ward

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/3-ways-graciously-engage-kjv-believers/

A christian article that I found funny, and I thought I should share it:

(MY COMMENTS ARE IN RED)

JULY 26, 2018 | Mark Ward

Don Carson pled with them for realism 40 years ago, and James White urged them to trust modern translations 20 years ago. But I sense that conservative evangelicalism has now given up on critiquing King James Version-onlyism. (Physician heal thyself)

But there are tens or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of KJV-only Christians around the world, and a new generation is taking leadership in the movement. ( That is scary, ignorance breeds ignorance )

It’s time to make another gentle appeal.

(more…)

Only 1% of Greek Manuscripts contain the whole New Testament

60 Manuscripts out of the 5,800 total Greek, contain the whole NT.

Title: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration Author(s): Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman

Capture.PNG

Daniel B. Wallace issues Apology over First-Century Mark

First-Century Mark Fragment Update

Apology
In my debate with Bart, I mentioned that I had it on good authority that this was definitely a first-century fragment of Mark. A representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral. However, the information I received and was assured to have been vetted was incorrect. It was my fault for being naïve enough to trust that the data I got was unquestionable, as it was presented to me. So, I must first apologize to Bart Ehrman, and to everyone else, for giving misleading information about this discovery. While I am sorry for publicly announcing inaccurate facts, at no time in the public statements (either in the debate or on my blogsite) did I knowingly do this. But I should have been more careful about trusting any sources without my personal verification, a lesson I have since learned.

 

——————————————–

This really puts his so-called scholarship into question.

 

Notes from “The Challenge of Bible Translation”

Title: The Challenge of Bible Translation Volume:
Author(s): Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, Steven M. Voth, Kenneth L. Barker, D. A. Carson, Charles H. Cosgrove, Kent Eaton, R. T. France, Andreas J. Kostenberger, Douglas J. Moo, Moises Silva, James D. Smith III, John H. Stek, Ronald Veenker, Larry L. Walker, Bruce K. Waltke, Walter W. Wessel, Herbert M. Wolf


-“. In all, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT, though the majority of these are later and of lesser value”

 
-” a large quantity of manuscripts means a large range of variants, since no two manuscripts are exactly alike.”
 
-“In medieval England, Latin was the language of literate people. Direct access to the Bible was restricted in practice to the clergy and monastic orders, and their Bible was the Latin Vulgate.”

 

Original Text of New Testament is LOST according to Sir Frederic G. Kenyon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_G._Kenyon

Taken from : Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1896

Screenshot from 2018-04-18 18-56-27

 

No two Manuscripts agree….

Of the approximately five thousand Greek manuscripts of all or parts of the New Testament that are known today, no two agree exactly in all particulars."

(Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1975, p.xxiv

 

 

Daniel B. Wallace on 7Q5 (The Earliest NT Papyrus?)

P52 is still the earliest fragment/manuscript  that the Christians have (from the second century), despite contenders like this ,7Q5, and so-called “First-Century Mark”.


https://bible.org/article/7q5-earliest-nt-papyrus

…. what is the hard evidence on which O’Callaghan’s identification is based? A scrap of papyrus smaller than a man’s thumb with only one unambiguous word—και. Only six other letters are undisputed: τω (line 2), τ (line 3, immediately after the και), νη (line 4), η(line 5). To build a case on such slender evidence would seem almost impossible even if all other conditions were favorable to it. But to identify this as Mark 6:52-53 requires (1) two significant textual emendations (tau for delta in a manner which is unparalleled; and the dropping of ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν even though no other MSS omit this phrase); and (2) unlikely reconstructions of several other letters. Add to this that the MS is from a Qumran cave and that it is to be dated no later than 50 CE and the case against the Marcan proposal seems overwhelming. If it were not for the fact that José O’Callaghan is a reputable papyrologist and that C. P. Thiede is a German scholar, one has to wonder whether this hypothesis would ever have gotten more than an amused glance from the scholarly community.

Shhhh…..First Century Mark is not Authentic

Taken from here: https://ehrmanblog.org/would-a-first-century-fragment-of-mark-matter/

Capture2

Capture3

%d bloggers like this: