tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post5158512408378401818..comments2024-03-28T14:13:51.996+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: NT Textual Criticism SignsP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-35034602619747557762018-11-13T08:41:32.426+00:002018-11-13T08:41:32.426+00:00Thank you man. God bless.Thank you man. God bless.Ebenezer Olotuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00105369905259481002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-31752751808943135082014-12-23T10:08:47.271+00:002014-12-23T10:08:47.271+00:00Thanks for this! Apparatus SIL is also a useful fo...Thanks for this! Apparatus SIL is also a useful font for this: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=ApparatusSILAndrew Edmondsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17365783322544995030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26262863902900206762014-12-23T10:07:53.735+00:002014-12-23T10:07:53.735+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Edmondsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17365783322544995030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8487096972959401932014-12-17T00:34:32.072+00:002014-12-17T00:34:32.072+00:00The issue is a red herring. The Latin Vulgate has ...The issue is a red herring. The Latin Vulgate has variants. Trent put out the "Old Latin Vulgate" as the inerrant text. And then two popes later you've got Clement putting forward a new Vugate, the Clementine Vulgate, to correct it. And in the 70s the Vatican put out a Nova Vulgata, New Vulgate. But isn't Trent still on the books? So the Vatican can't solve this problem any better than anyone else. Quit dreaming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-16136831165457452722014-12-16T20:46:33.884+00:002014-12-16T20:46:33.884+00:00Thanks very much for this! It is very helpful inde...Thanks very much for this! It is very helpful indeed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14274943865648173274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89420219970752533712014-12-16T04:08:42.175+00:002014-12-16T04:08:42.175+00:00I think what OP questions why Protestants invest s...I think what OP questions why Protestants invest so much time on scriptural analysis, textual criticism, verifying authorships, etc.<br /><br />If Peter really had been in Rome, then why should people abandon the Church's authority given by Peter. However, I think it's clear Peter was never in Rome so it's important to figure out what the New Testament said so we can know what Jesus said (assuming Jesus spoke Koine Greek and scribes did not purport words into his mouth). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68753553714096264152014-12-16T00:43:45.032+00:002014-12-16T00:43:45.032+00:00What are you talking about? Peter living in Rome, ...What are you talking about? Peter living in Rome, apostolic succession, etc. has nothing to do with manucripts. Is Peter a manuscript? No. Are people who supposedly succeed the apostles manuscripts? No. As for Jesus Barabas, some manuscripts give Barabas the first name Jesus but it doesn't make him the same Jesus. Jesus is just Greek for Joshua, and it was a common name in Israel back then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-36890096426175325952014-12-15T13:19:58.117+00:002014-12-15T13:19:58.117+00:00If they are not identical, why didn't the prin...If they are not identical, why didn't the printing press print all the manuscripts seperately instead of trying to construct what an initial text (apparently the phrase "original text" is being phased out due to the late attestation of the manuscripts) looked like? <br /><br />What motivated scholars to find the initial text? Did they not trust accounts that Peter had lived in Rome and the apostolic succession? Why not trust Rome as the authority over scripture?<br /><br />One textual variant I have come across is Matthew 27:16. I thought Barabass was a separate human being who was released. However, upon investigation it appears there was evidence for variant where the prisoner released name is Jesus the Barabass. Can you comment on this variant? And how does the lack of any historical documentation for any prisoner being released during this festivity impact variant you select as more authentic?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49554635326329508292014-12-15T08:08:37.910+00:002014-12-15T08:08:37.910+00:00Dear anonymous, there are thousands of manuscripts...Dear anonymous, there are thousands of manuscripts of the Greek NT and not one MS is identical to another (if we discount fragment). It has nothing to do with Protestantism/Catholicism. In fact, the committee that edited the widely used United Bible Societies Greek New Testament was ecumenical including the late Cardinal C. M. Martini. As for inspiration, we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses (extant witnesses to the inspired text), and it is our task to pay attention to all those witnesses and neither take for granted the text of any textual witness(es) nor any printed edition.Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24400877657895247832014-12-15T04:34:57.092+00:002014-12-15T04:34:57.092+00:00Hello,
I am somewhat curious as to why we need te...Hello,<br /><br />I am somewhat curious as to why we need textual criticism? Also, what text is inspired in the manuscript tradition? Is it the original autographs or even the variants that were later added like John8?<br /><br />Is textual criticism used by Protestants to undermine the apostolic authority Catholics were given?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-45460570617065882242014-12-12T17:04:54.450+00:002014-12-12T17:04:54.450+00:00See, maybe, NA28 p. 85* n. 17…See, maybe, NA28 p. 85* n. 17…Richard Budelbergerhttp://twitpic.com/photos/Budelbergernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38114277155873877902014-12-12T04:26:39.164+00:002014-12-12T04:26:39.164+00:00"Stephanus in Eusebius' letter to Carpian..."Stephanus in Eusebius' letter to Carpian."<br /><br />What?James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-43300771653784670922014-12-11T15:47:58.573+00:002014-12-11T15:47:58.573+00:00Ah that's what it was. I knew it was something...Ah that's what it was. I knew it was something to do with switching from HTML and back but couldn't figure out what. I tried using a webfont at one point too, but the problem is that most webfonts are stripped down to bare essentials to save on file size. So very few special glyphs are preserved in most webfonts. I thought the loss of characters in Gentium was odd too but there are so many versions of Gentium floating around that it's hard to keep track.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85504703728099832082014-12-11T13:06:38.127+00:002014-12-11T13:06:38.127+00:00Thanks, Pete. Blogger does not handle 32 bit Unic...Thanks, Pete. Blogger does not handle 32 bit Unicode well, and I had the last characters duct-taped into place with html entities for the 32 bit Unicode. You must have shifted out of the html editor to the compose view. When you do this, it corrupted the 32 bit characters and turned them into trash (the last four characters). I will fix them later today, but I would suggest that we not cater to those who can not read the characters. Too much lies with (1) the browser and its settings and (2) the version of the font, here. I tried using a webfont which is the only real answer to this problem, but could not make it happen. Incidentally, I do not have Gentium Plus, only Gentium, and all the characters displayed fine on my computer both online and in a MS Word DOC. My understanding was that Gentium had all of these Unicode characters.Christian Askelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381441700351009913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-59511542607398686572014-12-11T10:52:52.576+00:002014-12-11T10:52:52.576+00:00Christian, I think it has to be Gentium Plus to ge...Christian, I think it has to be Gentium <i>Plus</i> to get 2E00–2E0C to display properly. Other fonts that should work are SBL BibLit and Brill which I've added to this post's HTML. <br /><br />For some reason I still can't get the last four sigla in your second table to display for me. But it's also possible to get these by searching for their unicode number at <a href="http://unicode-table.com/en" rel="nofollow">unicode-table.com</a>.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77512825685429351502014-12-11T00:51:21.835+00:002014-12-11T00:51:21.835+00:00You probably do not have a font with the Unicode c...You probably do not have a font with the Unicode characters.Christian Askelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381441700351009913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86075540751617709612014-12-10T23:42:44.786+00:002014-12-10T23:42:44.786+00:002E00 through 2E0C in your chart, I'm getting a... 2E00 through 2E0C in your chart, I'm getting a garbage character in Firefox. ⸌Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com