I asked them to watch my video lecture regarding some textual variants that do not affect the texts. I asked their honest comments and what the course lacks to find out what is being said. So far, I am satisfied with the comments. It is better if experts watch and listen to you since they know if you tell the truth.
Your video is well done, accurate, and easy to understand. In the final frame at the conclusion of yours, it seems a shame that the other videos on textual criticism are attacking “errors” in the Bible—that variant readings mean it’s “corrupt.” Yours is a good response.
Eugene Ulrich, M.Div., Ph.D.
Professor of Hebrew Scriptures emeritus, University of Notre Dame
Duane, I looked at the video. Overall, it is very good and accurate. But it’s missing several details. The most important is that there are variants that do affect the meaning and have a decent possibility of reflecting the original wording. These, too, need to be addressed.
Daniel B. Wallace
Senior Research Professor of NT
Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary
Duane, Just watched it. Very good job, thank you!
Director of the Center for Biblical Studies
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
A basic introduction to variants nicely covering many key issues tied to Textual Criticism.
Darrell L. Bock
Senior Research Professor of NT Studies
Dallas Theological Seminary
Dear Bro Cartujano,
Thank you for the link to your Youtube video on textual variants. The three examples you give are generally correct. Although I would point out that variant spellings of names may be due to geographical variation rather than scribal fatigue. And there are, of course, many other types of variant readings than the three you discuss. But I agree with the overall point of your video that the NT is not corrupt simply because of the many textual variants.
Karen H. Jobes, Ph.D.
Gerald F. Hawthorne Professor Emerita
of New Testament Greek & Exegesis
Wheaton College and Graduate School