"It looks like we are finally getting that First-Century Mark (henceforth, FCM) fragment everyone has been talking about for years. (By the designation 'FCM' I am not implying that it actually dates to the first century. I don’t know the date yet. I only mean that 'FCM' is probably the actual papyrus that has been reported to be the first-century Mark fragment.)" ETC
Can textual criticism actually help us figure out what the original reading was? How does this work, on a practical level? In this short video, Dan Wallace explains why he believes it does work: 1
Now, Dan Wallace concludes his discussion about the reasoned eclectic approach to New Testament textual criticism:[2]
External Evidence
There are three pieces of external evidence that textual critics use to determine which variant is more likely to reflect the original wording: date and character, genealogical solidarity, and geographical distribution.
Daniel Wallace is a scholar who advocates a reasoned eclectic approach to New Testament textual criticism. Here, in this short video, he briefly explains this approach:1
In this short excerpt from his discussion of New Testament textual criticism from the Lexham Bible Dictionary, Dan Wallace explains the nuts and bolts of the reasoned eclectic approach to textual criticism:2
