Mark, I would like to thank you and Daniel so much for a wonderful discussion that helps describe some of the tools being used today to help give us God's word. One thing that stood out for me was the concern in some circles of whether or not those working in textual criticism come from an evangelical viewpoint or not. Within the church culture that I grew up in, the fact that people with different beliefs were involved in biblical translation was pushed heavily as a reason for not trusting newer translations. What I have found to be more likely though, is that those seeking to translate from a common belief are more likely to read their belief into any translation they attempt (whether they intend to or not,) whereas those who come from many different belief histories seem more likely to translate the words closest to the original meaning, and then seek spiritual understanding from the translated text. I am appreciative of all those from different standpoints who seek to come together to study the texts in their original languages so that we might have a better understanding of what was written, instead of choosing certain texts due only to preconceived notions. Again, I thank the two of you and the many others like you who seek to delve deep into the understanding of God's word, and I pray for you and your continued endeavors.
This is an area that fascinates me so much. I don't have the language abilities to do any real work in this space but the math guy in me who enjoys puzzles and cryptography sometimes wishes I could participate. I do think AI will eventually play an important role in analyzing the textual evidence that exists.
Mark thank you for such a wonderful interview. Though it is very much over my heart do listen and enjoy. Perhaps if I would have come to the Lord many years ago, I would’ve studied textual criticism. But now I’m in my 60’s and just don’t feel up to the challenge. May God bless and keep you. And Daniel thank you as well.
36:42 Even some printed editions, e.g. Stephanus, use those ligatures. Thank God for Scrivener's edition in a modern Greek font! Thanks for this most enlightening video!🙏📖
Fantastic interview! Such an interesting field to be in, and I applaud Daniel’s enthusiasm & excitement for his profession as well as his continuing degree work. May God bless you both! LOL, I need to research the “only-isms” as I thought TR onlyism and KJV onlyism were the only ones.
Mark, I'm curious about your statement of moving from the SBLGNT to the THGNT. I'd love to hear a short (or long) comment on that from you if you need a video idea. I suspect there are no political motives in it, knowing your work, but merely practical ones. And those are what I'd love to hear about.
It's loyalty. The SBLGNT is a Logos product; the THGNT is a Crossway product. I don't regard the differences between the two to be significant. And if they ever are significant to my work for any reason, I have plenty of tools to let me know. Also, I have access to all the THGNT resources Crossway produces, so there's that! It is practical, too. Does that make sense? The printed editions of the THGNT are much nicer than the one printed edition of the SBLGNT that I wonder if you can still get… Even the ekthesis is growing on me.
@@markwardonwords Makes sense, and just as I thought. Like you, I like the brevity of the SBLGNT App...I found a clean copy and am rebinding it in nice goatskin so I can carry it around less nerdily. But I just ordered a copy of the THGNT Guided Journaling Edition (which I'll also rebind...purple Sokoto goatskin, I think) and I'm looking forward to playing with it as well. BTW, how nerdy is it to carry two GNTs around along with my iPad with Logos and a nice paper bible as well? 😮
@MarkWard QUESTION 🙋♂️: Can you please share the gospel with me? Also, after the gospel can you tell me what to do afterwards? Like should I be scared to go to Hell or can I have confidence and not worry about the thought of Hell or Sheol or the lake of fire or whatever you guys call that place? 🔥 😢
"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you-unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” I have a feeling you have a reason for asking, however. Care to share?
Mr. Ward, why has the ESV translated 1 Cor. 11 with wife instead of women. Every other translation has women. If we’re only talking about wives - how do unmarried women fit into this construct? Does this social order only apply to married women? Does the ESV committee plan to revise this passage?
I don't work on Bibles at Crossway, and I don't speak for them on any issues. Just to be clear. What I'd point you to is standard commentary literature. Bestcommentaries.com can send you to the best 1 Cor commentaries, and if you have a theological library near you (or access to Logos!), you can follow up. Are you *certain* that the ESV is the only translation that uses "wives"? In general, the word for woman in Greek can mean "wife" or "woman" depending on context. This is reflected in BDAG, which gives both senses. This is an instance in which Greek is less precise than English.
@@CalebRichardson Those are bad translations. The ESV is in bad company. I hope they will fix it with their next revision. Until then I will stick to the NASB95.
@@markwardonwords I like the ESV a lot, but they are wrong on this one. Paul is writing that all women should wear headcoverings when praying or prophesying in the church. The ESV (Crossway is a really solid publisher) would be the perfect bible if they fixed this passage and the one in Genesis 3:16. Those two verses are why I'm sticking to the NASB.
@@CalebRichardson You are correct that the 1989 NRSV used "husband" and "wife" in verse 3 (before reverting to "man" and "woman" throughout the rest of the passage, much like the NABRE and unlike the ESV). However, the 2021 NRSVue has dropped "wife" (and "symbol of authority on her head," for that matter). Here's how 1 Cor. 11.2-16 reads now: *I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head shames his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled shames her head-it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.* *For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair, but if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God, but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have authority over her head, because of the angels.* *Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that, if a man wears long hair, it is dishonoring to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious-we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.* N.B.: 1. This text is one big paragraph in the NRSVue, but I divided it into three for ease of reading in a UA-cam comment. 2. Verse 3 is accompanied by footnotes that read "Or husband" and "Or wife."
Mr Ward- any chance you can help me with this random question? Why does the KJV translate the end of 1 John 2:19 "not all of us" instead of "they all are not of us" as every other translation renders it. Is the KJV intended to convey the same meaning here?
I took a look. I really think this is language change, but I cannot prove it. This is syntax, not semantics-word order, not word meaning. And I'm much better at the latter than the former.
I need some help finding a Bible. I'm looking for a modern Bible. 1. It should begin with the Geneva Bible. (Cause I want to upset the KJV onlyists. LOL) 2. It should contain all the original Geneva Bible margin comments in modern English. 3. It should carefully fix the old Testament using the Old Testament Septuagint + Dead Sea Scrolls, not the Masoretic Text. 4. It should carefully fix the new Testament using the Majority Text(Byzantine). Editors should have a similar philosophy as the LSB/WEB Bible. 5. Decent leather. I don't want a paperback or hardcover. 6. Center column reference links 7. Passage headings. 8. No tabs on the side to help find books of the Bible.
24:10 Daniel’s use of conjectural emendation is not correct. If you don’t have *_any_* manuscript or versional witnesses and you “emend” the text based on an informed educated guess (from a person well read in that text) - that would be a conjectural emendation. However, if you have witnesses, in this case the Septuagint (LXX) always had this reading, than it’s not a conjectural emendation. The example given in the video 25:02: Isaiah 53:11 he will see [light] While “light” (אוֹר) is not supported in the Masoretic text. 1QIsa^a and 1QIsa^b (both Dead Sea Scrolls mss.) & the LXX have “light” (φῶς). - Just as Daniel Motley & Mark Ward said. “A “conjecture” - a reading proposed apart from any textual evidence - is indicated by the italic _cj,_ usually accompanied by the name of the person who first proposed the conjecture.” (Greenlee, J. Harold, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 94). Conjectural Emendation see Emendation: Emendation - An attempt to reconstruct an original reading that has not survived among extant witnesses. (McCarter Jr, Kyle P., Textual Criticism, 76) Therefore, the NA 28th ed. 2 Peter 3:10 reading: οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται (will not be found) is _not_ a conjectural emendation. Since it is based on a Sahidic Coptic and one Harclean Syriac version. Thank you Mark for posting this video. It was interesting to hear Daniel's perspective on textual criticism.
If there is no extant Greek reading in the manuscript tradition, any attempt to produce Greek words that correspond to a non-Greek reading is, in a sense, conjectural. But you're right that it's not the same as saying, "This line would make more sense if the theta were actually an omicron," even though there's no corresponding reading in the ancient witnesses. That's what qualifies as a true conjectural emendation.
Hello! A good call out and in my head, as I was talking, I was thinking "this may not be technically the textbook definition of "conjectural emendation" but it certainly is an example of an emendation to the Hebrew text that was conjectured by scholars based only on its presence in the LXX and not in the Hebrew" (if you could imagine that whole thought running through my head in about two seconds 😅 Thank you for watching!
@@danielmotley3875 It was an interesting interview. I watched the interview twice if that says anything. Thank you Mark and Daniel. Not to beat a dead horse. This is more for others, but the example of 2 Peter 3:10 in the: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger shows the reading of: οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται (will not be found) as NOT a conjectural emendation. Even though it's a reading from other languages (Sahidic Coptic & Harclean Syriac), not Greek. Then at the bottom of the Textual Commentary (2 Peter 3:10) they list people's conjectural emendations - some made up best guesses as to what the original text read.
@@mrtdiver This is a helpful example! I didn't have time in the interview, but I also want to mention *the* major database of NT conjectural emendations hosted on the NTVRM and compiled by Dr. Jan Krans: ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/nt-conjectures. It's an incredible resource. Elijah Hixson also has a wonderful post on tracing down conjectures put forth by Calvin: evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2021/08/calvins-conjectures.html#more
Y'all about to recruit me into Scriptural transcription here
That was a great dialog. Thanks for sharing!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I enjoyed this interview. How interesting to hear from somebody currently studying as he is obviously passionate about the field. Thank you both!
Couldn't agree more!
Really great interview, I hope that after you move to Crossways you are able to keep educating us on these, and related, issues.
I’m there already! And I will certainly be able to continue.
Well, that was a lot of fun. Good to see you guys!
You too!
Great interview, Mark and Daniel. Very interesting and informative. Love learning more about this area and digging into it.
Glad you enjoyed it! It is a fascinating field.
Mark, I would like to thank you and Daniel so much for a wonderful discussion that helps describe some of the tools being used today to help give us God's word.
One thing that stood out for me was the concern in some circles of whether or not those working in textual criticism come from an evangelical viewpoint or not. Within the church culture that I grew up in, the fact that people with different beliefs were involved in biblical translation was pushed heavily as a reason for not trusting newer translations. What I have found to be more likely though, is that those seeking to translate from a common belief are more likely to read their belief into any translation they attempt (whether they intend to or not,) whereas those who come from many different belief histories seem more likely to translate the words closest to the original meaning, and then seek spiritual understanding from the translated text.
I am appreciative of all those from different standpoints who seek to come together to study the texts in their original languages so that we might have a better understanding of what was written, instead of choosing certain texts due only to preconceived notions.
Again, I thank the two of you and the many others like you who seek to delve deep into the understanding of God's word, and I pray for you and your continued endeavors.
Excellent discussion! Thank you.
Thank you, Brothers 🌹⭐🌹⭐
Our pleasure!
Love this!
Enjoy!
This is an area that fascinates me so much. I don't have the language abilities to do any real work in this space but the math guy in me who enjoys puzzles and cryptography sometimes wishes I could participate. I do think AI will eventually play an important role in analyzing the textual evidence that exists.
I have to agree. Processing huge amounts of text is its specialty. But humans will always make the final judgments, I feel certain.
Mark thank you for such a wonderful interview. Though it is very much over my heart do listen and enjoy. Perhaps if I would have come to the Lord many years ago, I would’ve studied textual criticism. But now I’m in my 60’s and just don’t feel up to the challenge. May God bless and keep you. And Daniel thank you as well.
Thanks for listening!
36:42 Even some printed editions, e.g. Stephanus, use those ligatures. Thank God for
Scrivener's edition in a modern Greek font! Thanks for this most enlightening video!🙏📖
Right! I remember being so surprised when I saw one of those ligatures in a printed text!
Fantastic interview! Such an interesting field to be in, and I applaud Daniel’s enthusiasm & excitement for his profession as well as his continuing degree work. May God bless you both! LOL, I need to research the “only-isms” as I thought TR onlyism and KJV onlyism were the only ones.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I wonder what role artificial intelligence will play in textual criticism
I wonder that too - it is doing a fantastic job of translating some works
Great content mark
Thank you!
Mark, I'm curious about your statement of moving from the SBLGNT to the THGNT. I'd love to hear a short (or long) comment on that from you if you need a video idea. I suspect there are no political motives in it, knowing your work, but merely practical ones. And those are what I'd love to hear about.
It's loyalty. The SBLGNT is a Logos product; the THGNT is a Crossway product. I don't regard the differences between the two to be significant. And if they ever are significant to my work for any reason, I have plenty of tools to let me know. Also, I have access to all the THGNT resources Crossway produces, so there's that! It is practical, too. Does that make sense? The printed editions of the THGNT are much nicer than the one printed edition of the SBLGNT that I wonder if you can still get… Even the ekthesis is growing on me.
@@markwardonwords Makes sense, and just as I thought. Like you, I like the brevity of the SBLGNT App...I found a clean copy and am rebinding it in nice goatskin so I can carry it around less nerdily. But I just ordered a copy of the THGNT Guided Journaling Edition (which I'll also rebind...purple Sokoto goatskin, I think) and I'm looking forward to playing with it as well. BTW, how nerdy is it to carry two GNTs around along with my iPad with Logos and a nice paper bible as well? 😮
@MarkWard QUESTION 🙋♂️: Can you please share the gospel with me? Also, after the gospel can you tell me what to do afterwards? Like should I be scared to go to Hell or can I have confidence and not worry about the thought of Hell or Sheol or the lake of fire or whatever you guys call that place? 🔥 😢
"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you-unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
I have a feeling you have a reason for asking, however. Care to share?
Mr. Ward, why has the ESV translated 1 Cor. 11 with wife instead of women. Every other translation has women. If we’re only talking about wives - how do unmarried women fit into this construct? Does this social order only apply to married women?
Does the ESV committee plan to revise this passage?
I don't work on Bibles at Crossway, and I don't speak for them on any issues. Just to be clear.
What I'd point you to is standard commentary literature. Bestcommentaries.com can send you to the best 1 Cor commentaries, and if you have a theological library near you (or access to Logos!), you can follow up. Are you *certain* that the ESV is the only translation that uses "wives"? In general, the word for woman in Greek can mean "wife" or "woman" depending on context. This is reflected in BDAG, which gives both senses. This is an instance in which Greek is less precise than English.
NRSV also has "wife" here. So does the MSG plus a few less-used translations, FWIW.
@@CalebRichardson Those are bad translations. The ESV is in bad company. I hope they will fix it with their next revision. Until then I will stick to the NASB95.
@@markwardonwords
I like the ESV a lot, but they are wrong on this one. Paul is writing that all women should wear headcoverings when praying or prophesying in the church. The ESV (Crossway is a really solid publisher) would be the perfect bible if they fixed this passage and the one in Genesis 3:16. Those two verses are why I'm sticking to the NASB.
@@CalebRichardson You are correct that the 1989 NRSV used "husband" and "wife" in verse 3 (before reverting to "man" and "woman" throughout the rest of the passage, much like the NABRE and unlike the ESV). However, the 2021 NRSVue has dropped "wife" (and "symbol of authority on her head," for that matter). Here's how 1 Cor. 11.2-16 reads now:
*I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head shames his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled shames her head-it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.*
*For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair, but if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God, but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have authority over her head, because of the angels.*
*Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that, if a man wears long hair, it is dishonoring to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious-we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.*
N.B.:
1. This text is one big paragraph in the NRSVue, but I divided it into three for ease of reading in a UA-cam comment.
2. Verse 3 is accompanied by footnotes that read "Or husband" and "Or wife."
I happen to be both interested in ms. issues and a coder. But my attitude toward the text is sort-of the reverse of the norm.
Mr Ward- any chance you can help me with this random question? Why does the KJV translate the end of 1 John 2:19 "not all of us" instead of "they all are not of us" as every other translation renders it. Is the KJV intended to convey the same meaning here?
I took a look. I really think this is language change, but I cannot prove it. This is syntax, not semantics-word order, not word meaning. And I'm much better at the latter than the former.
@@markwardonwords thanks!
I need some help finding a Bible.
I'm looking for a modern Bible.
1. It should begin with the Geneva Bible. (Cause I want to upset the KJV onlyists. LOL)
2. It should contain all the original Geneva Bible margin comments in modern English.
3. It should carefully fix the old Testament using the Old Testament Septuagint + Dead Sea Scrolls, not the Masoretic Text.
4. It should carefully fix the new Testament using the Majority Text(Byzantine).
Editors should have a similar philosophy as the LSB/WEB Bible.
5. Decent leather. I don't want a paperback or hardcover.
6. Center column reference links
7. Passage headings.
8. No tabs on the side to help find books of the Bible.
I bet you could train AI on reading minuscule manuscripts and output a unicode font!
That would be AWESOME.
Muchas gracias por esta información. 🎉
Our pleasure!
24:10 Daniel’s use of conjectural emendation is not correct. If you don’t have *_any_* manuscript or versional witnesses and you “emend” the text based on an informed educated guess (from a person well read in that text) - that would be a conjectural emendation. However, if you have witnesses, in this case the Septuagint (LXX) always had this reading, than it’s not a conjectural emendation.
The example given in the video 25:02: Isaiah 53:11 he will see [light]
While “light” (אוֹר) is not supported in the Masoretic text. 1QIsa^a and 1QIsa^b (both Dead Sea Scrolls mss.) & the LXX have “light” (φῶς). - Just as Daniel Motley & Mark Ward said.
“A “conjecture” - a reading proposed apart from any textual evidence - is indicated by the italic _cj,_ usually accompanied by the name of the person who first proposed the conjecture.” (Greenlee, J. Harold, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 94).
Conjectural Emendation see Emendation:
Emendation - An attempt to reconstruct an original reading that has not survived among extant witnesses. (McCarter Jr, Kyle P., Textual Criticism, 76)
Therefore, the NA 28th ed. 2 Peter 3:10 reading: οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται (will not be found) is _not_ a conjectural emendation. Since it is based on a Sahidic Coptic and one Harclean Syriac version.
Thank you Mark for posting this video. It was interesting to hear Daniel's perspective on textual criticism.
If there is no extant Greek reading in the manuscript tradition, any attempt to produce Greek words that correspond to a non-Greek reading is, in a sense, conjectural. But you're right that it's not the same as saying, "This line would make more sense if the theta were actually an omicron," even though there's no corresponding reading in the ancient witnesses. That's what qualifies as a true conjectural emendation.
Hello! A good call out and in my head, as I was talking, I was thinking "this may not be technically the textbook definition of "conjectural emendation" but it certainly is an example of an emendation to the Hebrew text that was conjectured by scholars based only on its presence in the LXX and not in the Hebrew" (if you could imagine that whole thought running through my head in about two seconds 😅 Thank you for watching!
@@danielmotley3875 It was an interesting interview. I watched the interview twice if that says anything. Thank you Mark and Daniel.
Not to beat a dead horse. This is more for others, but the example of 2 Peter 3:10 in the: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
by Bruce M. Metzger shows the reading of: οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται (will not be found) as NOT a conjectural emendation. Even though it's a reading from other languages (Sahidic Coptic & Harclean Syriac), not Greek.
Then at the bottom of the Textual Commentary (2 Peter 3:10) they list people's conjectural emendations - some made up best guesses as to what the original text read.
@@mrtdiver This is a helpful example! I didn't have time in the interview, but I also want to mention *the* major database of NT conjectural emendations hosted on the NTVRM and compiled by Dr. Jan Krans: ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/nt-conjectures. It's an incredible resource. Elijah Hixson also has a wonderful post on tracing down conjectures put forth by Calvin: evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2021/08/calvins-conjectures.html#more