The LONG ENDING of Mark and the Woman CAUGHT in Adultery according to the BYZANTINE text!

Рет қаралды 2,875

Күн бұрын

In this second and final part or our discussion about the Byzantine text, Adam Boyd shares with us about the long ending of Mark, the Pericope Adulterae or woman caught in adultery. We also share some reasons why some of these clear variants are denied by some modern text critics. We also talk about Adam's translation work and share how even though the Byzantine text is the best, it's still good of others choose to read other Bible translations.
~~~ RESOURCES ~~~
The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version
www.amazon.com/Text-Critical-...
~~~ CONTENTS ~~~
0:00 The two Biggest variants in the Byzantine text
0:33 The longer ending of Mark statistsics
2:16 Why is modern Textual Criticism rejecting these readings?
3:00 Fascination of new discoveries
4:00 An example of this with Dan Wallace on 666 vs 616
5:23 Great resepct for Dan Wallace
6:13 The story of the woman caught in adultery
7:30 The big pucture of the Pericope Adulterae or the PA
8:04 The lectionary coinciding with pentecost
8:53 Too much speculation in Textual Criticism
9:36 Are there minority readings in the Byzantine text?
11:54 is the Byzantine Textform the closest?
12:47 What about your translation of the Byzantine Text
14:51 A commitee based translation of the Byzantine text would be awesome!
15:55 Which translation does Adam use?
16:45 Any translation is better than no translation!
17:41 None of the major evangelical translations will lead you astray
18:05 Conclusion
#ByzantineText #textualcriticism #newtestament

Пікірлер: 43

@donpotter3752 7 ай бұрын

One day years ago, I popped into Dr. Lewis Foster's office at the Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary (where I graduated in 1970) when he was working on the translation of the NKJV. I had the priviilege of studying under Dr. Foster and his father, R. C. Foster. He showed me the TR that he was required to use as the basis of his translaton work for Acts. He was also on the NIV translation team. When the NJKV & NIV were finally published, he wrote a book on the different Bible Translations. In that book, he noted that the NKJV was the ONLY VERSION that had textual footnotes indicating the differences in TR, Majority, and Critical text. I used the NJKV for about 20 years in my Bible study, teaching, and peaching; but eventually, I went back to the King James because it is easier for me to memorize - and there is nothing better than memorizing Scripture for enhancing one's walk with the Lord.

@user-id7ne4pk2t 4 ай бұрын

To use a quote (used by Daniel Wallace): “Variants once apparently in the minority are today dominant, and vice versa; some once dominant have even disappeared. This fact alone rules out any attempt to settle textual questions by statistical means.”

@cognoscenticycles4351 3 ай бұрын

I very much appreciate that discussion. I am inclined to conclude that both the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery are in fact part of the original autographs of the New Testament. As was stated, too much emphasis has been put on just a few older manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. Both of those manuscripts have serious questions surrounding them.

@jetrpg22 19 күн бұрын

The evidence for the Pericope just doesn't add up. This doesn't mean it wasn't a valid oral tradition later added. But its clear it wasn't in John. The number of manuscripts doesn't matter. What we see in the 1st does matter, and it tells the story that it just wasn't there and later added.

@QuantamEscargot 9 ай бұрын

This was really helpful. As an ESV simp, it's helpful to hear about the ending of the Lord's Prayer. I'll have to do some research into the "this kind can only be cast out by prayer (and fasting)" passage

@Dwayne_Green 9 ай бұрын

As an ESV simp made me laugh! 😂

@liveluke9.236 4 күн бұрын

It would be interesting to see Adam debate Dr James White, or Tony Costa on the Byzantine vs the Critical text. Have you seen the debate between Tony Costa and John Tors, The critical text vs the majority text, on KZfaq? It would be interesting to see you review that debate.

@Dwayne_Green 4 күн бұрын

No I haven't! I should go find it. it sounds interesting!

@fnscooter 10 ай бұрын

I have a copy of Adam's translation but haven't had time to dig into it yet. My current favourite is the Majority Standard Bible.

@Dwayne_Green 10 ай бұрын

Yes, I'm glad that Biblehub is doing the Majority text!

@OkieAllDay 8 ай бұрын

I’m pretty surprised he said at the end there that he likes Esv and niv for Old Testament reading - doesn’t that undermine the whole thought of reading from a Byzantine text?

@Dwayne_Green 8 ай бұрын

no, The Old Testament is Hebrew so the discussion surrounding the Byzantine text / critical text doesn't apply.

@tomasgonzalez4819 2 ай бұрын

The answer to "the controversy" is surprisingly simple, "because dissertations need to written and articles need to be published." It really is not much more than that. The variants found anywhere do not affect doctrine, which is foundational. Therefore, the variations are no more than curiosities and - spiritually speaking - trivialities.

@alexjessalexjess864 10 ай бұрын

About the footnotes about textual variations in standard Bible he is right, they are too vague. What I should do with "absent from best manuscripts"? What are these manuscripts? Why they are the best? Perhaps they should add a one page article with more explanation.

@RevRMBWest 10 ай бұрын

I think Mark's (long) ending is highly likely to be genuine and though the case for the woman in adultery passage is more complex, that is much more likely to be genuine than not. The relaxed approach helps both sides to look at the facts afresh and to come up with a more common sense and up-to-date approach to the precise text of Scripture.

@squirrelandchick9484 10 ай бұрын

Cast doubt on the bit, and you do the whole.

@rodneyjackson6181 10 ай бұрын

Always like your videos Dewayne. I have said before I do not lean toward any family of manuscripts. I like the NLT of the Critical Text. I like the NKJV from the TR and I like the WEB of the Majority Text. I agree that I don't like the way some Critical Text translations word their disputed verses like the most ancient, best or accurate manuscripts do not have such and such a verse. I think it needs to be reworded to say the oldest manuscripts do not contain such and such a verse. Of course the foot note of the NKJV says that certain verse are omitted. I don't like that language either Iike there is malice and that verses were intentionally left out. They should say some or older manuscripts do not contain such and such a verse. Translation and textual criticism is a complicated art or science and we need to handle God's Word rightly. I do think it would be nice to have more than 2 (that I know of) Majority Text translations. I do highly respect Maurice Robinson. Daniel Wallace is a scholar as well but I find myself disagreeing or questioning his choices or opinions sometimes. Blessings!!

@AnHebrewChild 5 ай бұрын

I'm a KJV reader (for its retention of the singular plural thou/ye distinction, I'm not KJVO), but I really appreciate my NLT for many of its very accurate renderings of the original Greek. Curiously, the NLT is actually more literal and more consistent in _same-word-renderings_ in many verses than those English bibles usually praised for their literality. Many examples... one off the top of my head tho is the NLT at Mat23:23 cheers

@rodneyjackson6181 5 ай бұрын

@@AnHebrewChildAmen brother! Blessings!

@AnHebrewChild 5 ай бұрын

@@rodneyjackson6181 cool. right back at ya :]

@robwagnon6578 2 ай бұрын

I also don't like how most English translations (except the Youngs literal) keep the word Hell all one word when there are 3 in Greek:(

@robwagnon6578 2 ай бұрын

I heard used a lot 'the most reliable manuscripts' I always thought that was disingenuous:(

@yahrescues8993 10 ай бұрын

Immediately they are no longer concerned about minority readings, until the next time the TR is a minority.

@TheologyEagle 9 ай бұрын

What is the best information source or book on individual textual variants showing the numbers/percentage of manuscripts on each?

@Dwayne_Green 9 ай бұрын

Right now, it's probably going to be either the Pickerings F35 text or the text critical Greek New Testament by Adam Boyd. However, a small team, including myself are currently working on a printed edition of the Byzantine text with all the variants between the various printed editions.

@TheologyEagle 9 ай бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green Thank you! Look forward to seeing that.

@justfollowjesus7216 27 күн бұрын

Wow! 1620 manuscripts include the longer ending of Mark. And I don’t think it’s coincidence that the final verse in mark is 16:20.

@Dwayne_Green 26 күн бұрын

At least until another Mark manuscript is found :P

@jamessheffield4173 10 ай бұрын

I want to know the Ninja scribes who added those verses without getting caught to the majority of manuscripts.

@troy5659 10 ай бұрын

Is there a way to get or see Adams translation in english? Thanks

@yahrescues8993 10 ай бұрын

It’s the text critical English New Testament. There is also an online version

@troy5659 10 ай бұрын

@@yahrescues8993 Thank you

@haze1123 10 ай бұрын

So, only three manuscripts don't include the longer ending of Mark. Key question: Are those three the earliest Mark manuscripts? If yes, it doesn't matter how many later manuscripts include the longer ending.

@Dwayne_Green 10 ай бұрын

Irenaus quotes Mark 16:19, so even if Vaticanus and Sainaticus are the oldest manuscripts, we have earlier attestation to the long ending than these.

@haze1123 10 ай бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green Maybe.

@nsptech9773 10 ай бұрын

@@haze1123you still ain't convinced? I will suggest you to read James snapp essay on the longer ending of mark. Also the so called early manuscripts that few people refer to are some of the most corrupted ones, heck they are well known for the high disagreements.

@willem1642 10 ай бұрын

The full ending of Mark 16 includes that signs follow those that believe. Perhaps that is too confronting for those people who don't see those signs in their own lives or in their church.

@mrsamurangx3030 10 ай бұрын

Be careful here, it further says "confirming the word". the signs were there to "confirm" the Word. This was needed to establish the divine nature and origin of what they were saying becasue Scripture had not yet been confirmed. The Word is now confirmed. The canon is closed. What need is there now for any further signs? We now have Christ and ALL of God's Word.

@alexjessalexjess864 10 ай бұрын

@@mrsamurangx3030except that in the new testament the "word" does not mean "the Scriptures" but "the message of god".

@mrsamurangx3030 10 ай бұрын

The Scriptures ARE the message of God@@alexjessalexjess864

10 ай бұрын

@@alexjessalexjess864you beat me to it. It refers to the message of God preached by the apostles.

@robwagnon6578 2 ай бұрын

I question the whole honesty of the finding of the Codex Sinaiticus! I think Satan wants to cast as much doubt on the reading that makes the most sense because it causes more confusion.

@fatalheart7382 10 ай бұрын

I know it doesn't matter to anyone else, but I asked God and He gave someone a dream that showed me the reasons for the uncertainty of knowing what Christ was writing in the sand. XD