31

Professor Bart D. Ehrman's Curriculum Vitae reveals an academic with impeccable credentials. Perhaps the most important line is: Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985 His doctoral adviser was none other than Bruce Metzger, who wrote the book on textual criticism of the New Testament. Ehrman doesn't simply ride on the coattails of ...


27

Your question doesn't break it down this way, but there are really three separate issues at stake here. What does the Gospel of Barnabas claim about Christ? The most significant claim relevant to Christianity is that Christ wasn't crucified. Instead, according to the Gospel of Barnabas, Judas took his place. Obviously if this were to be verified as a true ...


25

To answer your first question, we should not simply accept Sinaiticus as "the source of the truth for the New Testament". It has great weight in debates from its age, but age is not the final arbiter in textual considerations. Codex Sinaiticus was made in the 4th century on parchment using capital letters (a manuscript in all capitals is called an "uncial")....


22

The position in the question, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not original to Matthew 28:19 is held today by very few scholars. Those that do point to a quotation from the early church historian Eusebius. In Demonstratio 3.6, he replaces "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" with "my name." This is then taken as a direct quote from the copy of ...


20

My understanding is that a strong majority of scholars (including conservative scholars) take the position that the long ending of Mark was not in the original and was not written by the same author as the rest of the text, but nonetheless was added very early on (probably in the early 2nd century). However, the evidence is not as overwhelming as for the ...


18

Neither "And a god was the Word" nor: "And God was the Word" are correct translations for θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. To understand the implications of the last clause, you need to understand something of Greek syntax. First, Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. In general, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative ...


17

This is a textual issue. That is, some manuscripts have the words and fasting while others don’t. The NA28 includes the text similar to the GNT you quote: . . . τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ (NA28) . . . this kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer (ESV) The apparatus notes the variant you ask about (the addition ...


16

Hosea Translation Difficulties There are a lot of textual issues that must be dealt with when translating the book of Hosea.1 The textual problems in Hosea are virtually unparalleled in the OT. The Masoretic Text (MT), represented by the Leningrad Codex (c. A.D. 1008), which served as the basis for both BHK and BHS, and the Aleppo Codex (c. A.D. ...


15

There are no important textual variations here: all our manuscripts include this parenthetical. There's no manuscript evidence whatsoever that this is a later insertion. (See this list of textual variants as well as the lack of any variants listed at the NET bible.) Thus we can be completely certain that the head of the manuscript tradition (that is the ...


14

A Plausible Majority Text Argument Susan's answer has correctly given the direct answer to your question when she states: This is a textual issue. That is, some manuscripts have the words and fasting while others don’t. That is the simple fact. Which manuscript tradition the particular translation in question is following determines the omission or ...


14

As a commenter notes, there is a text-critical issue here. The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible plainly reads "Michal" at this point. However, as the textual notes to the Biblia Hebraica Stuttargtensia indicate, there are two Hebrew manuscripts that read "Merob", and there is some support for this among Septuagint manuscripts, too: P. Kyle McCarter ...


13

The NET Bible textual criticism note is helpful here: The MT has simply “and Cain said to Abel his brother,” omitting Cain’s words to Abel. It is possible that the elliptical text is original. Perhaps the author uses the technique of aposiopesis, “a sudden silence” to create tension. In the midst of the story the narrator suddenly rushes ahead to what ...


13

There are plenty of web sites that will give you comparatives, however, my broad take on the subject is that the LXX is not generally speaking considered more authoritative than any Hebrew text. The translators were not especially careful (though certainly not sloppy.) The amount of textual variants in the Hebrew text are MUCH smaller than in the Greek, for ...


13

The Gospel of Thomas Logion 114 is fairly controversial and (like many questions on BH.SE, it seems) has generated a healthy specialist bibliography.1 The translation alone is disputed (or at least discussed!); the one provided by OP is that of Thomas Lambdin (a very fine scholar). OP: What reasons are there to think that it is or is not an addition? ...


12

Short Answer: After weighing all of the evidence (both internal and external), it would seem that Mark 16:9-20 was indeed originally part of Mark's Gospel. The ending of Mark's Gospel is one of the major textual problems in the New Testament.1 As noted by the OP, the "problem" is whether the end of Mark (16:9-20) was originally part of Mark's Gospel. ...


12

The LXX and MT texts of Jeremiah are substantially different. The LXX is substantially shorter (around an eighth shorter) and the order of some of the text is different. This is much more substantial than most divergences between the LXX and MT. In general, there are two main ways in which the MT and LXX can differ: the Hebrew text that the LXX ...


12

It is omitted in versions where the committee of experts behind the translation determined that those words were most likely not in the original text of Luke. In this particular case, the evidence that these words were not original is very strong, though not completely overwhelming. The shorter version is found in: Both extant Papyrus texts (P45 and P75, ...


12

This is not a question of textual criticism, nor is there any reason to reject the authenticity of Mark 7:19. It is entirely a question of interpreting the text. Let us look at the oldest versions: The Greek original has: οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα The ...


12

The Idea in Brief Before the appearance of the Masoretic Text in the Tenth Century, at least three early witnesses attest to the forty day period in Jonah: the Dead Sea Scrolls at both Wadi Murabba'at and at the so-called "Cave of Horrors" in Nahal Hever, which both date to the First Century; and, thirdly, the Targum Jonathan, which dates to the Second to ...


11

According to Dan Wallace: Turning now to the Church Fathers, Ehrman emphasizes the early date of υἱός by listing three specific Church Fathers “who were writing before our earliest surviving manuscripts were produced” (Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian). Regrettably, he does this without acknowledging any Church Father supporting θεός around the ...


11

The name Barabbas is clearly a patronymic (bar-Abbas or "son of the father") rather than a given name. As it turns out, a handful of manuscripts provide another name for that individual: Jesus. As the NET Bible points out: Although the external evidence for the inclusion of “Jesus” before “Barabbas” (in vv. 16 and 17) is rather sparse, being restricted ...


11

We cannot read NT passages into the Old Testament to explain difficulties - each passage must be understood in its own context. Otherwise I would read the second half of 2 Pet 3:8 into Genesis and say that Methuselah was almost a day old when he died. Instead, I'll give an OT example with similar wording to try to understand the meaning behind the Hebrew ...


11

Another addendum to Susan's fine answer and ScottS's alternative account. All manuscripts are not the same, which is why the text critic's job is not simply that of counting noses. We have two possible scenarios an original shorter reading, which was subsequently expanded in transmission by the addition of "+ and fasting" after "prayer"; an original ...


10

He is not respected by most conservatives when he slips into theology. Textual criticism, he is very good and knows what he is doing. However, I find him sloppy in his work if it pushes his agenda. What's worse is that he knows how to do the work, but since his faith lapsed, he misapplies and misquotes the rules of determining historicity. For example, ...


10

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 ...


10

Although Frank has a great answer above, I thought I'd add a couple of things. The question of the proximity of a text to the original depends on a number of factors, age being an important one, but certainly not the only one. To think about this, it is necessary to think about the process of manuscript manufacture in the early years of the church. ...


10

The existing answer already gives the essentials. This variation in reading Revelation 22:14 persists across quite a number of modern English translations. I thought it might help to have a bit of explanation, too, especially if readers have some sense of the textual landscape for the NT. Not for nothing does the introduction to the Nestle-Aland edition ...


10

Manuscript support Both readings have early manuscript support The reading μυστήριον (mystery) finds early support in P46vid? א* A C 88 436 itr, 61 syrp copbo Hippolytus Ambrosiaster Ephraem Ambrose Pelagius Augustine Antiochus.1 UBS3 cites P46vid? in support of μυστήριον however the question mark follows "vid" because the editors were not sure of the ...


10

Textual Witness Analysis Here is what the Apparatus to NA28 (which omits the verse) indicates:1 ουαι δε (− 700. 892c) υμιν γραμματεις και Φαρισαιοι υποκριται οτι κατεσθιετε τας (− Δ) οικιας των χηρων και (− 1424) προφασει μακρα προσευχομενοι δια τουτο ληψεσθε περισσοτερον κριμα ƒ13 it vgcl syc bomss (p. vs 12 K W Γ Δ 0102. 0107. 565. 579. 700. 892c....


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible