Play audio above. 

Special Guest D.M. Johnson

[Karen]  Welcome, listeners, to I Believe: Expressions of Faith Podcast.  We’d like to extend a welcome back to our special  guest, D.M. Johnson: Welcome, Dave!

[D.M.] Good to be here.

[Karen] We’re talking today about the evidence we have in regard to the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Many people have heard things about the Bible and its transmission in popular movies and books and it can be hard to know what the true story is. Our goal today is for people to understand the manuscript evidence that lets us know we can have confidence in what the New Testament says.

Including Material in the Bible

We’ve had some good questions come in after the overview cast. One of our listeners asked if you could talk about the decision-making process in terms of what texts actually made it into the Bible as we now have it. I know we are going to cover the Gnostic Gospels when we cover the New Testament Gospels being rooted in eyewitness testimony, but I think it would be helpful and people would find it interesting to understand what the approach was for determining inclusion or exclusion of material from the Biblical canon. Can you speak to that?

[D.M.] There were was really three essential things that were taken into consideration in the early years of Christianity:

1. First was Apostolicity: The concept that the book had to be written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle. This meant that anything that was written after 100 AD or in the 2nd century was pretty much automatically rejected.

2. Then there’s the concept of Orthodoxy: This meant that the book in consideration needed to be consistent with already known teaching of Jesus and His apostles. The early church knew this from Hymns, Kerygma, oral tradition, apostolic tradition, etc.

3.The third concept is Catholicity: This term does not mean anything to do with Roman Catholicism, it means that it had to be generally accepted by the church [1].

A couple of examples that we have of these: the letter to the Laoticians, which was basically a pastiche of four books. It was not put in. We had a 3rd Corinthians that was found to be a forgery and it wasn’t put in. We had the epistle of Barnabas. And if you look at the Muratorian canon early on, it believed this [epistle of Barnabas] was good, and it should be read, but it’s not scripture because it was written in “our time.” In other words, the 2nd century. Those are some examples.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever. Isaiah 40:8

It should also be understood that we have indications in the Bible that we don’t everything the apostles wrote.  One example of this 1 Corinthians 5:9. Paul mentions he has written them previously, but this letter does not survive in our current canon.

[Karen] Thank you. And please, continue to send questions to us; we love the engagement. Dave, what I would like to do to start off this cast is to lay out the manuscript evidence we have with the New Testament.  I know that the New Testament is the most attested book of antiquity in terms of manuscript copies, but I think our listeners might find it Interesting to talk through some of the numbers in more detail than we did in the overview, and then perhaps contrast it with some of the other classical works of authors from antiquity to give us a better perspective. And then as we go through this material, it would be good also if we could talk about  some common misperceptions and dispel a few myths along the way regarding its transmission. Dave, let’s start off with the manuscript evidence.

Number of Manuscripts

[D.M.]  Well, as of September 2013, we had 5,838 Greek manuscripts officially counted by the Institute of New Testament Textual Research in Münster, Germany [2]. We have some of those manuscripts that are very early; some that are fragmentary; and some that are very lengthy. If we think about that, though—the 5838 copies—the average [ancient] author has 20 copies, and it’s 500 years, on average, until we see those copies. If we take all of the records that we have from before the printing press for the average author,  vs. the New Testament, the average author’s [copies] would stack up 4 feet high. With the New Testament the stack would be a mile high [3].

Some people have a hard time fathoming that. It’s easier for them to think of it in a financial example: if your average author made $20,000 per year, the New Testament would make $20 million per year [4].

People have asked me about the early witnesses, the early copies. We have 12 manuscripts from the 100s, 64 from the 200s, and 48 from the 300s. So we have a total of 124 manuscripts that date from within the first 300 years of the composition of the New Testament canon. A lot of these are fragmentary papyri, but the whole New Testament can be found within those manuscripts, multiple times.

If we look overall at our manuscripts, the average Greek New Testament manuscript is over 450 pages [5].

[Karen] Thanks, Dave. And we refer people to Dan Wallace if they’d like to see the sources; we’ll post those on the website.

I know there are roughly 10,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament as well in just Latin. What does the manuscript count look like if we add in all of the other manuscripts from other languages into the count?

[D.M.] We have a lot of other languages: Coptic, Syriac, Old Church Slavonic—all kinds of different languages. If we add all of that in there, we have an estimated 25,000-30,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament [6]. So we actually have 2.6 million handwritten pages of New Testament texts, and that gives us hundreds of witnesses for each New Testament book [7].

In addition to that, we also have over 1 million quotations of the New Testament by church fathers, which allows us to reconstruct a large portion of the New Testament [8].

[Karen]  That’s excellent. When I think about this, it makes me reflect on our last cast, where we talked about that passage where people were fairly sure of the essentials of what Josephus said, but there was some speculation on the exact wording.  It’s interesting that with Josephus we are waiting 800 years before we get any manuscripts, and when we get them we have just over 20 copies. For the most part people feel pretty confident about what he said. It seems logical that we could be much more certain about what the New Testament said because we have such a wealth of manuscripts, as you just pointed out.

[D.M.] That is exactly right. If you are out there and you have been thinking about the Bible, I just ask that you be consistent with how you would treat any other piece of ancient literature. Let’s think about this for a minute:

If someone is skeptical based on the evidence we have for the Bible—25,000-30,000 copies—you should be literally a thousand times more skeptical of other literature from other classical authors. Because we have literally a thousand times more manuscript evidence for the New Testament.

The “originals,” or autographs as they are sometimes called, do not survive from the Bible. But we don’t have any of those autographs from antiquity of these other documents, either.

If someone doesn’t think they can trust something because the originals don’t exist, you’d have to throw out all canons of history. That’s just not a rational way to be [think]. If we look at the dates on some of these things [manuscripts], again—Plutarch and Josephus: we’re waiting 800 years; Polybius: 1200 years; Pausanias: huge gaps in the works of Pausanias, and we’re waiting 1400 years; Herodotus: 1500 years; Xenophon’s Hellenica: 1800 years we’re waiting [9].

[Karen] That is excellent evidence in terms of the overall volume of what we’ve discussed and the early dates from when they were written, to the point at which we start seeing copies in a shorter span of time. I think it’s overwhelming.

Variants

But because the copyists weren’t like a printing press, there were sometimes changes in the text. When we have a place where there is more than one reading of a word we call that a variant. We’ve addressed that briefly in our overview cast. This is a point where lots of people start to diverge, and get different things [conclusions] from the numbers. So it’s really important that we examine this.

Dave, let’s walk through variants and put those into perspective. It seems logical that due to the large volume of records we have, we would also have a fair amount of variants. Let’s look at the kinds of variants we have.

[D.M.] Yeah, it’s estimated by most scholars that we have anywhere from 200,000 to 400,000 variants. So there are more variants than words in the New Testament. That can kind of scare people to hear that.

Types of Variants

But there are different kinds of variants—and just at the outset, if you’re thinking about that and worried about that, you need to realize that 99% of these variants have no effect on the meaning whatsoever [10]. For example, 70-80% of these are spelling variants.

[Karen] That’s very significant.

[D.M.] Very significant. So if you took the high estimate, 400,000,  just the spellings would take out 280,000-320,000 of the variants.

We also have something called “Movable Nu” in Greek, which is the concept of “a  book” vs. “an apple”; it [the article] doesn’t affect the meaning whatsoever.

There are also places where you have a definite article with a proper name: “the Mary,” and “the Joseph.” You would never say it that way in English. So there are things like that as well [11].

[Karen] Those are so primary because they eliminate so many of the variants right off the bat.

Lectionaries

I think some of our listeners might find it interesting how some of the early Christians read scripture and had it read to them. We’ve read about lectionaries; that has a bearing on what we see and perceive about these variants. would you mind discussing the implications of lectionaries?

Papyrus manuscript of ephesians

A papyrus manuscript of Ephesians, from www.csntm.org.

[D.M.] Lectionaries were basically like a little vignette of scripture that they would do for maybe a daily scripture reading. They’d maybe read several verses or a parable or a portion of scripture. So sometimes you’d have places, for instance in the Gospel of Mark, in the Greek, there are 89 verses in a row where it’s already said “Jesus” and so refers to Him as only “He” [12]. If you’re taking out a portion of that, you can’t just start off by saying, “He was going somewhere” because nobody will know who you’re talking about. We do have a lot of lectionaries, actually about 2,200 of our manuscripts are lectionaries.

Greek Language Variants

Also, Greek is a really highly inflected language. For instance, “Jesus loves Paul”—in Greek there are 16 ways to say that, but yet we translate way in English. This counts as a variant [13].

We have times where there are missing letters, or a scribe skipped over a word, or a line, and those are things [variants] which are very easy to detect [14].

Wallace estimates that somewhere between .025% and 1% [of variants] are meaningful and viable, meaning it could go back to the original [15].

[Karen] Such good information. We do know that there were sometimes scribes who did make changes along the way, sometimes they may have been trying to correct something, sometimes it was driven by ideological reasons. Let’s walk through some of those interesting variants.

I’d also like to assure people as we go that the core doctrines about the Word being made flesh, Jesus dying for the sins of the world by crucifixion, and his Resurrection are not affected by any of these variants that we’re talking about right now.

The Woman Taken in Adultery

I’d like to walk through some of the more famous passages that people may be hearing about. maybe we can start with John 7, Dave?

[D.M.]  Let’s start with the most famous one. This is the famous story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53 – 8:11).

P66, one of the oldest New Testament manuscripts

P66, one of the oldest New Testament manuscripts, dating between 150 AD-200 AD.

As we look back at our old manuscripts, it [this story] wasn’t in there. We didn’t have it. There’s an old manuscript—P66—which dates from between 150 AD-200 AD; it’s not in there. We don’t have it in Codex Sinaitcus, or Codex Vaticanus. And a lot of the newer translations which use all of the evidence that we have will base that [their translation of this story] off of that [the story not being in old manuscripts] and they’ll put brackets around the verses.

It also should be noted that in some of our early manuscripts, this passage is actually found in the Gospel of Luke. Of course, now in our present-day scriptures we see it just in John. So scholars believe that this story is most likely not original, and it certainly wasn’t original to the Gospel of John.

[Karen] It’s interesting to me that every Jesus movie has this scene in it. It is really a powerful story that is cherished by so many followers of Jesus. It’s interesting to point out that this story is consistent with the teachings of what we see in the New Testament with Jesus, so even if it doesn’t go back to the original it doesn’t change core doctrine or our view of him.

Let’s talk about the ending of the Gospel of Mark.

Ending of the Gospel of Mark

[D.M.] The woman taken in adultery and this ending in Mark are by far the longest two passages that are thought not to go back to the original and instead had been added by scribes. The verses we’re going to talk about are Mark 16:9-20; basically the last 12 verses of Mark. Those, in all likelihood, do not go back to the original text. We know this because again, they are not in our earliest and best manuscripts like Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, or early Latin, Syriac, or Armenian manuscripts. It’s also not mentioned by early church fathers (i.e. Origen) [16].

We hear in this passage about the signs that would follow the followers of Jesus: that they’d be able to pick up snakes and drink poison. There are also some Resurrection appearances, but it’s important to realize that the verses have been added after the Resurrection has already taken place [17].

What scholars have come to realize is this probably means that the original of Mark did not have this in it; it would have ended at verse 8. It’s important to note that virtually all new translations which use this evidence mark this passage, like the one we just spoke about, in a way you can tell it doesn’t go back. You can see either a footnote, or sometimes it’ll have double brackets with a footnote that’ll state that these verses are not in our earliest and best manuscripts. With the exception of the King James, most of them will have a footnote or something like that with an indication.

If you’re interested in these kinds of notes around these  variants, the NET Bible is a really good resource. You can look at it online and see the textual criticisms, see the notes, and see what scholars have said about these various passages and where they are found [18].

[Karen]  Perfect. And that link will be on our site as well. I understand there is some pretty interesting news around the Gospel of Mark that was actually brought up in a debate that Daniel Wallace had with Dr. Ehrman. There was a lot of buzz about this on some of the Biblical sites out there a while back. Can you touch on this discovery that was brought up?

[D.M.]  Ehrman and Wallace had a debate held a debate a while back. Wallace revealed that there has been a discovery of an early manuscript from the Gospel of Mark. It looks like one paleographer is thinking it may date to the 1st century. There is going to be a work coming out on this new discovery.  If it really does date to the 1st century, then this will date earlier than P52, which we’ve talked about, which is right now our oldest catalogued manuscript for the New Testament. This has the Biblical world abuzz. And the manuscript comes from Mark, so this passage that we just talked about—a lot of people are wondering if there’s a different ending on this manuscript, if it might shed some light on this controversy we just talked about [19].

[Karen] Interesting. I have seen several news stories over the years of people in the churches that handle these snakes being killed because of a snake bites from handling them [20].

I know this has prompted some states where they’ve even gone so far as to  create laws preventing people cannot handle these snakes in religious services [21].

You know, this is a tragedy. It makes me think—first of all, I wish these folks would know that Christ would never ask us to test our power over nature in order to prove our access to real spiritual power and gifts. And secondly, that these verses weren’t even in the original New Testament. So I think it’s important to state that even with this passage being added, it doesn’t change our view of Jesus, or any doctrine.

So even though these don’t affect doctrine, they’re interesting to talk about. Let’s talk about an example of where scribes added or changes something for a theological reason, as in 1 John 5:7-8.

Papyrus fragment from the book of John.

A papyrus fragment from the book of John. www.csntm.org.

The Trinity

[D.M.]  This passage is sometimes called Johannine comma. Let’s read what it says in the King James text, Karen.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit and the water, and the blood: and these three are one” [22].

[D.M.] Most scholars agree that this is the only place in the Bible where it seems the Trinity is being explicitly taught. We know that this verse was not in the original New Testament, and scholars have known this for almost 5 centuries. It actually came from an 8th century homily, and it was added into the Latin text. This was not even in the Greek text until 1520 [23]. Again, we’ll leave a note there where you can go to the NET Bible and see some of these textual notes [24].

As I was watching one of the debates that Dr. Ehrman had with Dr. Wallace, Dr. Ehrman said that in 1952 the RSV actually corrected this. He said his grandfather went through the roof, and said, “They took out the Trinity!” He was really upset about this [25].

But virtually all the modern translations that use these newly-discovered manuscripts have corrected this: the NIV, the NASB, the NET Bible, the ESV. Even the new King James has a footnote which basically states that only 4 or 5 very late manuscripts have this in Greek [26]. The King James is the only version which has left this intact, with no footnote as to its authenticity.

So it’s important to state, as we look back at this passage we just talked about [1 John 5:7-8], it really was since the council of Nicea—that ideology which drove the insertion of the verse. It wasn’t  that this passage made people start thinking that way [about the Trinity]. This shows that the belief existed for a period before that and this is why the council was called, that is, to discuss this issue.

[Karen]   Thanks. Let’s talk about a time or instance you can think of where there’s a variant that wasn’t thought to go back to the original but then some evidence came forward which put the reading back into question as to what the earlier version said.

The Mark of the Beast

[D.M.] This is a fascinating example: Revelation 13:18 is the famous verse in the Bible that names the number of the beast; most people probably know the number of the beast from horror movies and different things—it’s all over in pop culture—as 666. There was a variant which showed the number of the beast as 616. Some people might look at this and think, “Well, it’s just one instance, and the number really is 666.” In fact, we now know that the earliest copy of that passage has 616. So here’s a case where it’s possible that 616 was in the originals, or maybe it’s 666. We don’t know. But it’s interesting [27].

[Karen] That’s great. Isn’t it Dan Wallace who makes the joke, in his lectures online,  that this is the neighbor of the beast, 616, who lives down the street? Sometimes we get caught up in those things.

It is pretty clear that nobody bases their faith in Jesus Christ on the fact that the number of the beast is 666. So again, here we see a situation that doesn’t affect the core beliefs or doctrines. That’s something to consider for all of you.

The Garden of Gethsemane

Let’s move on to another passage that’s widely discussed. Specifically i’m referring to the one in the Garden of Gethsemane.

[D.M.]  Yeah, and I’ve gotten a lot of questions about this from our listeners, which was great. It’s in Luke 22:43-44. This is the one where Jesus is in the Garden of Gethsemane and He’s sweating blood.    This was one of Ehrman’s top verses that he referenced in Misquoting Jesus. Ehrman was basically saying that he didn’t think it went back to the original.

[Karen] I know some of these passages that are disputed have complex issues behind them. I know in Bart Ehrman’s work Misquoting Jesus he talks about the concept of Docetism and anti-Docetism with relation to this passage. I think that might be a new term to some of our listeners. Could you paraphrase the points each side makes both for and against this passage and its authenticity?

[D.M.]   Yeah. When somebody talks about the Gospel of Luke being docetic, that term means that Jesus only appeared to be human; He didn’t really suffer, and His feet maybe didn’t touch the ground: He only appeared to be human. A lot of people, when they read Luke, they come away thinking that Jesus isn’t in agony, or portrayed quite the same way as He is, for example, in the Gospel of Mark. So that’s one of the things that people thought: that Jesus wasn’t having as much trouble in Luke, and that these verses were put in there to show that He really did suffer.

Bart Ehrman points out that the chiasmus is destroyed by this insertion [28]. It is important to acknowledge that it [these verses] aren’t in some of the early and important manuscripts. They are in some, but it’s also missing from some.

Some manuscripts also have these verses over in Matthew. These passages will sometimes have little obelisks —scribes would put these little marks—to indicate that they [the scribes] weren’t sure if they [the verses] were authentic.

I like to look at both sides of issues, and for those of you listening, I’ve been contacted about this passage. I actually reached out to Tyndale House Cambridge. For those of you not aware, it basically is a residential center for Biblical research. At any given time, they have 40 or 50 scholars there.

I asked Dr. Peter J. Williams, who’s basically the warden there now, what he thought about this passage, and he told me on the balance of probability, he was about 60-80% sure that it was original.

Payprus manuscript of Philemon.

A papyrus manuscript of Philemon. www.csntm.org.

So there are reasons for people to think that this is authentic and historical. We’re going to go through  that as well.

Some of those reasons are:

1. That we do find the passage in some early manuscripts.

2. The other thing that’s very telling is that we find it not only in multiple manuscripts, but from multiple geographic locations, and that’s very telling.

3. It’s also important that this passage is also alluded to by three of the early church fathers. Even Justin Martyr, who was writing in the middle of the 2nd century, so even earlier than some of these manuscripts where it’s missing. We have early church fathers talking about it.

I’m going to read this quickly: a note from the NET Bible on the textual criticism:

“These verses generally fit Luke’s style. Arguments can be given on both sides about whether scribes would tend to include or omit such comments about Jesus’ humanity and an angel’s help. But even if the verses are not literarily authentic, they are probably historically authentic. This is due to the fact that this text was well-known in several different locales from a very early period. Since there are no synoptic parallels to this account and since there is no obvious reason for adding these verses here, it is very likely that such verses recount a part of the actual suffering of our Lord. Nevertheless, because of the serious doubts as to these verses’ authenticity, they have been put in brackets.” [29].

So there are good reasons for both sides of this view, and if you’re someone who has faith in this, there is good reason and evidence to support that faith.

[Karen]  Thank you for sharing that. It’s important—the Bible is such a key to so many people’s faith. It’s important that we emphasize that the overwhelming number of variants, again, have no effect on meaning. we covered those that did earlier.

Get the Thinker to Believe; Get the Believer to Think

We truly do have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. When I read The Case for the Real Jesus with Lee Strobel interviewing Dan Wallace, I thought it was pretty telling when Dr. Wallace said that Ehrman had made his very best case in Misquoting Jesus.

I like the quote Ravi Zacharias uses where he talks about getting the believer to think and the thinker to believe.  I hope we’re doing that with this podcast. And we look forward to hearing more from you.

[D.M.] Bruce Metzger—before I read this quote about Metzger, I just want say that I think it’s important, as believers, we should never fear seeking the truth; we should never fear evidence. To me, putting faith somewhere is putting it in the direction of that evidence. There’s a really great quote here about Bruce Metzger, who is one of the great textual critics—probably the greatest of the 20th century. And he was actually Bart Ehrman’s mentor. This is a quote by Bart Ehrman:

“Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” [30].

So I just want people to think about this example: If you were sitting in a classroom and you had somebody up on a chalkboard write out a paragraph, and you had a couple hundred people in there—and beforehand we took a fourth of them and told them to spell things wrong, to mess up this and that—and you had some things happen maybe on purpose. Even the people who were trying would do some things wrong on accident. Do you think you could be able to get back to what the original [paragraph] said?

It’s interesting: Dr. Wallace has talked about this. He’s conducted experiments like this over the last 30 years, and the furthest they’ve been off is four words. Sometimes they’ll even get it exactly right.

When people say that they don’t know what the original is, there’s an underlying greek text—what they call critical text—and in that text, in a couple of texts that almost all of the Bible translations go  off of, when it comes to a word that has a variant, there are usually three or four different readings. And we know it’s one of those. It’s not as if we have no idea about what the text says. Most of the time they know it’s one of these three or four choices. I think people need to get this information in context so they don’t get the wrong idea about the Bible.

[Karen]  Exactly.

Conclusion

I am glad we can openly talk about these issues so that people who are trying to believe in the message of Christ can understand what the realities are as they examine what many out in the world are saying, as we’ve talked about over this series and will continue to.

Each of us can reflect on the fact that, again, as has been said, the changes that we’ve talked about don’t change the fact that Jesus of Nazareth came to the world, taught wonderful things, healed the sick, raised the dead, and was crucified for the sins of the world and was resurrected. The fact that these instances we covered were like the greatest hits of the 1% of the variants that are viable is very telling to us.  We have a very stable and trustworthy New Testament which gives us a true portrait of Jesus Christ.

I’d like to leave our listeners with a quote from probably the world’s leading textual critic who dave referred to, Bruce Metzger. He spent his entire life looking at this evidence and was a firmly committed Christian. When an interviewer started to ask if his scholarship has diluted his faith,  Metzger jumped in and said, “On the contrary, it has built it.” When Metzger closed that interview he said “I’ve asked questions all my life, I’ve dug into the text, I’ve studied this thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well-placed. Very well-placed” [31].

Remember that Jesus told us to love him with our mind as well as our heart.  Knowing this information can serve to help secure our faith in Jesus Christ. Thank you for listening.

Additional Episodes:

{Overview} 8 Points to Consider: The Authenticity of the Bible

{Extra-Biblical Evidence} 8 Points to Consider: The Authenticity of the Bible

Find us on:                                                                             Or call: 185KNOWGOD1

Twitter    Facebook    Google+    YouTube    Subscribe on Itunes    ibelievepodcast.com

Sources

1. Komoszewski, Ed, James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006), 121-168.

2. Wallace, Daniel B. Presentation to Religion Soup. New Testament Discoverieshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqLSSZ-nRPU

3. Strobel, Lee, The Case for the Real Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 86.

4. “How Badly Did the Scribes Change the New Testament?” Presentation by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-RMdX0zi-Q

5. “Can we Trust the Text of the New Testament?” A Debate Between Daniel B. Wallace and Bart D. Ehrman. 1 Oct. 2011. DVD Available at www.csntm.org. Note: www.CSNTM.org also has high-resolutions photos of these ancient manuscripts.

6. Wallace, Daniel B., Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2011), 27-29.

7. Strobel, Case for the Real Jesus, 82-86.

8. Wallace, Corruption of the New Testament, 28.

9. Metzger, Bruce M. and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 126.

10. “How Badly Did the Scribes Change the New Testament?” Presentation by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-RMdX0zi-Q

11. “Can we trust the text of the New Testament?” Debate between Daniel B. Wallace and Bart D. Ehrman. 1 Oct. 2011. DVD available at www.csntm.org.

12. Strobel, Case for the Real Jesus, 86.

13. Strobel, Case for the Real Jesus, 88.

14. “Can we Trust the Text of the New Testament?” Debate between Daniel B. Wallace and Bart D. Ehrman. 1 Oct. 2011. DVD available at www.csntm.org.

15. “How Badly Did the Scribes Change the New Testament?” Presentation by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-RMdX0zi-Q

16. ESV Study Bible. Crossway Publishers, 1993. See footnote for “Longer Ending of Mark.”

17. Mark 16:9-20 (NIV).

18. https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Mark+16:9 (click on footnote 9 to see the textual criticism  note on the right).

19. “Is the New Testament Lost?” Debate between Daniel B. Wallace and Bart D. Ehrman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA

20. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/30/11956841-snake-handling-preacher-dies-from-rattlesnake-bite-in-west-virginia?lite

21. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19053

22. 1 John 5:7-8 (KJV)

23. Strobel, Case for the Real Jesus, 95.

24. If you are like me and love this kind of stuff and would like a good discussion of this passage and the evidence around this being inserted–I would recommend the NET bible the online version is free and is an amazing tool that can be used to supplement your Bible study regardless of your main translation you use. https://net.bible.org/#!bible/1+John+5:6 (click on note 20 to see the textual criticism note on the right on this)

25. “Can we trust the text of the New Testament?” A debate between Daniel B. Wallace & Bart D. Ehrman 1 Oct. 2011.  DVD available at www.csntm.org

26. 1 John 5:7-8 NKJV (Biblica), 1084. See manuscript footnote (although the verses were not put in brackets like most versions).

27. Strobel, Case for the Real Jesus, 69-100.

28. Ehrman, Bart D., Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005), 162-165.

29. NET Bible Textual Criticism note https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Luke+22:38 (click on note 113 to see the note on the right)

30. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 252.

31. Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998. 71.

 

About karenrose
Living out a great season of my life, thanks to Jesus Christ, and two wonderful daughters, a great life's work. Loving this opportunity to share faith online... I'm a single Mom, convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, second-gen Italian, from the East coast originally. Love the fine arts, dance, frozen yogurt, temples, scriptures, writing, jazz, helping others reach their potential, king salmon, ....and not in that order. God is good. I feel it deeply when people have a misconception of Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ, His Son, that lessens or cheapens Them and blinds one's ability to feel His presence or to trust in an ultimately good eternal end to life's circumstances.

Leave a Reply