37818
Well-Known Member
Trying to make sense of this.
conjectural emendation – Daniel B. Wallace
conjectural emendation – Daniel B. Wallace
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
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.”Westcott and Hort, Warfield and Robertson, Metzger and Ehrman all seem to be consistent in agreeing that though it is a tool that will not often be used, conjectural emendation must be one of the tools of the trade available in their tool box.
In the main, it seems that Dan Wallace gives a poor review to A User’s Guide to the Nestle-Aland 28 Greek New Testament by David Trobisch.Trying to make sense of this.
conjectural emendation – Daniel B. Wallace
The editors of the NA28 decided to refrain from noting conjectures in the apparatus (49*). The references to the previous editions were problematic because they were often kept so brief that it was difficult to identify the source. This was regarded as unsatisfactory, particularly because the selection appeared hardly representative and relected only older literature. Instead, the notation of conjectures was omitted altogether, and the task of putting together a new register has now been handed over to a group of researchers at the University of Amsterdam (49*).
However, this does not imply that the editors are principally against conjectures. Producing an eclectic text always opens the possibility that in some cases no manuscript containing the original reading has survived. No matter how many text witnesses exist, the initial text may have been lost. Noting theoretical reconstructions of the oldest text form is good practice for editors of eclectic editions. [page 43 ]
this might seem strange to you, but one can have weird and at times wrong theology and yet still produce a valid Greek text!Ehrman is a heretic. Metzger was a Liberal. W&H and Robertson were very much anti TR/KJV. That leaves us with only Warfield!
Key would be to be honest to the evidence
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!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"!
So they’re all wrong on the texts they support (Critical text/MV’s).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!
In what sense do you mean we are only left with Warfield? Thanks.Ehrman is a heretic. Metzger was a Liberal. W&H and Robertson were very much anti TR/KJV. That leaves us with only Warfield!
In what sense do you mean we are only left with Warfield? Thanks.
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.”
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!I don't turst any of the above mentioned on textual matters, except Warfield.
Actually there is on W&H. But this isn’t the point of this thread.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!
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!
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!