Featured New Interview with Dr. Robinson

The problem is that so far no proponent of the CT has been able to overcome the primary fault of the eclectic methodology.

 

And who has suggested elevating the Byzantine textform to unquestionable status? I must of missed that claim.

 

Where did you get your Ph.D./Th.D. which qualifies you to make a definitive determination regarding the relative merits of Dr. Carson's or Dr. Robinson's CV or textual position?

 

No, he didn't. I have read "The Identity of the New Testament Text" several times and I can't find where he ever claimed his "New Testament According to the Majority Text" was above question.

In fact, to arrive at the most reliable text certain questions have to be asked:

1. Antiquity - The age of the actual manuscript. This is not a conclusive text for a 14th century mss may be an accurate copy of a 3rd century mss, whereas a 6th century mss may be a poor copy of a 3rd century mss.

2. Consent - The number of other witnesses. Normal practice is to accept the word of the majority of witnessess against the different readings of a few, especially when those few do not agree with each other.

3. Variety - The universality of evidence. Manuscripts supporting a certain reading should come from a variety of geographical locations and be attested to be a variety of other mss, lectionaries, versions, and Patristics.

4. Respectability - The reliability of the witness. Manuscripts which habitually contain errors are poor witnesses.

5. Continuity - The unbroken tradition of a witness. Have the readings/mss in question been widely accepted by churches over a wide spectrum of time?

6. Context - The evidence of the whole passage. The nature of the text surrounding a questioned reading can cast much light on the issue. If the reading is surrounded by obvious errors, it is much less likely to be a true reading.

7. Reasonableness - The internal credibility of the text. If a text contains grammatical absurdities, or obvious geographical, scientific, or biblical errors, the reading is not likely to be reliable.

 

I too have read Burgon, along with Tregelles, Scrivener, Hoskier and the more contemporary such as Hodges, Farstad, Bock, Sturz, and, of course, Robinson.

But nowhere do I see any statement that the Byzantine Texform is beyond question.

 

I must correct my earlier statement. I just got an email from Dr. Robinson wherein he quoted a mailing from Wilbur Pickering in which Dr. Pickering stated:

“The Original Text is the ultimate archetype; any candidate must also be an archetype—a real, honest to goodness, objectively verifiable archetype; there is only one—Family 35. I affirm that God used Family 35 to preserve the precise original wording of the New Testament Text; it is reproduced in my edition of the Greek Text. I affirm that God has preserved the precise original wording of the New Testament, and that we can, and do, know what it is. It is reproduced precisely in my edition of the Greek New Testament.”

So, it seems I was wrong. (Not the first time so I didn't break a perfect record.) There does seem to be at least one person who sees his own Greek New Testament (Family 35) as being above question and an "objectively verifiable archetype" of the original manuscripts.

I am not certain on what basis Dr. Pickering makes that assertion, as Dr. Robinson pointed out in his email to me, some of the variants within the Byzantine text form are so equally divided as to be a statistical toss up. (My wording, not his. He articulates these things much better than I do.) I wonder what infallible method Dr. Pickering used to choose between two equal probabilities?

So, McCree79, you were right and I was wrong. I tender my humble apologies for not doing my homework before posting.

PS: Dr. Pickering's "Family 35" Greek New Testament is available for download at http://www.bgnt.net/

 

Think about it. Which textform is more likely to represent the original"

One that has been in constant use in churches for 1500 years (that we know of) or one that never existed until 1850 and after?