Featured Should the Nestle-Aland 28 have conjectural emendations?

Trying to make sense of this.
conjectural emendation – Daniel B. Wallace

 

Although Ehrman acknowledges that his research caused him to question his beliefs about biblical inerrancy, he says that it was the problem of suffering that ultimately drove him to abandon the Christian faith. “I came to a point when I could no longer believe. . . . I could no longer explain how there could be a good and all-powerful God actively involved in the world given the state of things.”

Just a quick piece of Ehrman’s beliefs.

Bart Ehrman has raised a question as to whether some portions of the original NT have been lost while through the years the text has been copied. The process of trying to restore words that may have been lost is called conjectural emendation. Among scholars, three views about the need for conjectural emendation have arisen: the optimistic view which contends that no words have been lost, the mixed perspective which says that perhaps a few but not many words have been lost,and the pessimistic view that many words have been lost.

Metzger and Erhman:
“... they believe that emendation does have a role to play: “One must admit the theoretical legitimacy of applying to the New Testament a process that has so often been found essential in the restoration of the right text in classical authors. However, they also note that ‘because of the nature of the external evidence the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions.’”

Seven or Eight Beatitudes: Wellhausen on Mt 5:5

This is the first of a series of short posts on conjectural emendations found in the Nestle editions (mostly in the apparatus only).

Did God’s Wrath Come? - Ritschl on 1 Thes 2:16

“At 1 Thes 2:16 NA27 mentions two conjectures. The second one, by ‘Rodrigues’, will be discussed at another occasion. The first one concerns the omission of ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος in verse 16b, and was proposed, according to Nestle-Aland, by ‘Ritschl’. But which Ritschl is it?”

Appears the N/A does use conjectural emendations.

 

Should the Nestle-Aland 28 have conjectural emendations?

strictly NO, as this would be adding or removing from The Word of God, which alone is Inspired by the Holy Spirit. Westcott and Hort, Warfield and Robertson, Metzger and Ehrman, and any others, are WRONG!

It is also WRONG when Bible's do not use italics, to show that the words are not part of the Original, but have been added for stylistic reasons. Versions like the KJV/NJKV use this, to distinguish the Word of God, and the word of man, which is lost when italics are removed.

 

Ehrman is a heretic. Metzger was a Liberal. W&H and Robertson were very much anti TR/KJV. That leaves us with only Warfield!

 

this might seem strange to you, but one can have weird and at times wrong theology and yet still produce a valid Greek text!
Key would be to be honest to the evidence, even if disagree with it at times!

 

Indeed! I have seen many instances, where in the textual evidence, where especially the Church fathers are wrongly used to support readings! I have seen readings that ought to be included, being rejected because of the so-called "majority vote"!

 

being a Majority reading may or may nor mean was what was originally recorded, as could be, or could be errors was carried throughout the many witnesses!

 

So they’re all wrong on the texts they support (Critical text/MV’s).
Ehrman studied textual criticism over 30+ years (yes a heretic) and Metzger gave Ehrman his masters at Princeton. Despite Ehrman’s heresy in his beliefs and textual knowledge, he appears to know well that the N/A has them.
“...they believe that emendation does have a role to play: “One must admit the theoretical legitimacy of applying to the New Testament a process that has so often been found essential in the restoration of the right text in classical authors.”
W&H (also heretics) are known to support CE’s in their modern versions.
“Westcott and Hort were of the opinion that conjectural emendation may be necessary, but only rarely.”

 

the only person that I can really trust, is Warfield.

 

I don't turst any of the above mentioned on textual matters, except Warfield.

 

And yet no real proof is offered by KJVO to show just why Westcott and Hort were so satanic, while Eramus, monk of Rome, was so great!

 

Actually there is on W&H. But this isn’t the point of this thread.

 

My three main textual scholars are Scrivener, Burgon and Kenyon. The rest are boys

 

As much as people dislike W&H they were brilliant scholars as was the Chairman of the 1881 committee, Ellicott