Tag Info

user959 has a good answer which tells me that I should probably spend more time reading the translation committee's commentary. Having said that, textual criticism is quite interesting. While using text criticism, we look at two primary areas of evidence to support a reading: external evidence and internal evidence. With external evidence we evaluate the ...

Check Tommy Wasserman's new(ish) critical edition of the text with commentary, it is more recent than NA28 and is certainly more complete with regard to manuscript evidence. His comments will be more detailed than those in UBS, though the comments there are often quite good. It should address the issue quite nicely. I don't have it on hand right now or I ...

In response to your question: I am curious if any scholars have argued that either [ὁ] κύριος ([the] Lord) or ὁ θεός (the God) are the preferred reading of this passage, [...] Yes. I have treated Jude 5 (and the whole book) extensively in my monograph on Jude. The book is available here. You might find this blogpost is a helpful summary of my ...

NT authors quoted works they considered authoritative, and works they did not. For example it would be a big leap from Titus 1:2 to claim that Paul regarded Epimenides as fully reliable: One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”ESV Therefore we cannot tell by whether something is regarded ...

It is often believed that the author of the second book references the first book. This is based on both using otherwise rare words (such as "multiply" in Jude 2 being used in 1 Peter 1:2 and 2 Peter 1:2) and themes ("our common salvation" in Jude 3 and "a faith of the same kind as ours" in 2 Peter 1:2). Whether Jude quotes 2 Peter or 2 Peter uses content ...