Skip to main content
Bible Q

Tag: textual criticism

If the earliest manuscript we have for a book of the Bible is relatively late, does that mean the book is a forgery/unreliable?

Answered by . April 14, 2011 - 8:48 pm 5

No. A late date for the earliest manuscript of any ancient book could be evidence that the book is a forgery or unreliable;1 but it does not necessarily follow that a late date for an earliest manuscript means the book is a forgery or is unreliable. There is other evidence to take into account. Some […]

Are the New Testament manuscripts reliable?

Answered by . March 20, 2011 - 6:14 pm 1

The recent book ‘Misquoting Jesus’ (2005), by Bart Ehrman (a professional textual critic and ex-Christian), has been cited widely as presenting an overwhelming case for the unreliability of the textual transmission of the New Testament. Ehrman’s work is neither a breakthrough nor a revelation.[1] [2] He raises no new textual difficulties, contributes no new evidence, […]

Why is Mark 7:16 left out of the NIV?

Answered by . November 19, 2010 - 6:08 am 3

To understand why some translations omit Mark 7:16, first we need to understand a little bit about a process known as “textual criticism”. In brief, the original versions of the NT books (known as the “autographs”) are no longer available (they no doubt disintegrated many centuries ago). The Greek text we have today is based […]