Textual Criticism?

[37818]

We only need to prove one exception.

Where is a case example against Family 35 any one finding? We only need one.

 

[37818]

A side video 1 hour 33 minutes.

 

[Silverhair]

That if is pure conjecture. Who did Soden source?

What did it say in my post? Do you not understand what that means or do you just not want to accept it?

The group was discovered by Hermann von Soden in the late 19th century and designated by him with symbol Kr.[1]

According to Soden, the group is the result of an early 12th-century attempt to create a unified New Testament text;

 

[Conan]

You two are really funny. I give you another view that actually is more logical and has better manuscript support than what you have put forward and you just pass it off as nothing.

Pardon, but you have not presented any manuscript evidence. So far it has been conjecture.

Give your proof that your F35 /TR is inerrant or the best text available. You seem to be so wedded to your view that you can't see the forest for the trees.

Once again, just as you didn't recognize a difference between the Majority Text and the TR, now you are not recognizing the difference between Family 35 and the TR. Thats ok. That's where your at.

When I followed the Critical Text, then I could not see the forest because of the trees. It turned out the trees I was studying had many branches and roots going every which way . It wasn't until I looked at the great amount of the other trees which make up the forest was I able to see the forest, and not just a few trees blocking my sight.

 

[37818]

What did it say in my post? Do you not understand what that means or do you just not want to accept it?

The group was discovered by Hermann von Soden in the late 19th century and designated by him with symbol Kr.[1]

According to Soden, the group is the result of an early 12th-century attempt to create a unified New Testament text;

Post #22 video touchs on on this.

 

[Conan]

What did it say in my post? Do you not understand what that means or do you just not want to accept it?

The group was discovered by Hermann von Soden in the late 19th century and designated by him with symbol Kr.[1]

According to Soden, the group is the result of an early 12th-century attempt to create a unified New Testament text;

While Von Soden discovered the group, he only conjectured it was an attempt to create a unified New Testament. William Pickering has introduced evidence that they are independent.

 

[37818]

Re: FAMILY 35 Original Text of the New Testament Exposition of Evidence.

https://www.amazon.com/Family-35-Original-Testament-Exposition/dp/1736823701/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1A0S3XW9SMWO&dchild=1&keywords=wilbur+pickering&qid=1622756238&sprefix=wilbur+pick,aps,291&sr=8-4

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJECT

CHAPTER TWO - THE THEORETICAL BASIS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM

CHAPTER THREE - METHODOLOGIES

CHAPTER FOUR - FAMILY 35

CHAPTER FIVE - RELATED ISSUES

CHAPTER SIX - MANUSCRIPT CLASSIFICATIONS

 

[Silverhair]

While Von Soden discovered the group, he only conjectured it was an attempt to create a unified New Testament. William Pickering has introduced evidence that they are independent.

So you want us to trust what Pickering says but you do not trust what anyone else says. You have been presented evidence from many scholars but you just deny that they actually know what they are saying.

 

[Silverhair]

Pardon, but you have not presented any manuscript evidence. So far it has been conjecture.


Once again, just as you didn't recognize a difference between the Majority Text and the TR, now you are not recognizing the difference between Family 35 and the TR. Thats ok. That's where your at.

When I followed the Critical Text, then I could not see the forest because of the trees. It turned out the trees I was studying had many branches and roots going every which way . It wasn't until I looked at the great amount of the other trees which make up the forest was I able to see the forest, and not just a few trees blocking my sight.

The fact you refuse to accept the fact that the TR and Majority text came from the same line of transmission is your problem, you are wearing blinders. Have we seen any manuscript evidence from you that supports your view. NO You are hanging your hat on what Pickering says and dismiss what anyone else says as conjecture.

 

[Conan]

So you want us to trust what Pickering says but you do not trust what anyone else says.

No, not at all. I'm saying read Pickering for yourself. Make your own judgments after reading the evidence.

You have been presented evidence from many scholars but you just deny that they actually know what they are saying.

Hermon Von Soden is many? Notice how no one said "Von Soden proved, or demonstrated". He discovered the group. That much is history. But he did not prove anything about an attempt to standardize the New Testament.

 

[37818]

Interesting, Minuscule GA 35 is a K^r category V

Dated a whole century before Soden's 12th century for K^r

Minuscule 35 - Wikipedia

 

[Conan]

The fact you refuse to accept the fact that the TR and Majority text came from the same line of transmission is your problem, you are wearing blinders.

No you are technically correct, they mostly came from the same line. BUT they are not the same. They are 2 different Text's is what I was saying. They are not the same Text. Sometimes, rarely, the Textus Receptus abandons the Greek altogether for the Latin Vulgate. Sometimes it uses minority Greek manuscript readings. Sometimes it uses reading's from manuscript 1 which is not the Byzantine Text. Sometimes there is no Majority Text they are evenly divided and other methods must be used.

Have we seen any manuscript evidence from you that supports your view. NO You are hanging your hat on what Pickering says and dismiss what anyone else says as conjecture.

No that is your flawed perception only. For instance I think either of the 2 Greek Majority Text's, or Family 35 are the most accurate Greek Texts around. That is 3 closely related Greek Texts. I am grateful Hermon Von Soden and all his students did all those collations of Greek Manuscripts. Without them we would not have the Greek Byzantine/Majority Texts. I appreciate Von Soden.
But he did not introduce evidence that Kr was a Revision, he only assumed that. If he did prove it why did not your sources say that?
Hermon Von Soden was from around the 1900's.

 

[37818]

W-H and Von Soden revisionisms are discussed on pages 71-73 in FAMILY 35 Original Text of the New Testament Exposition of Evidence.

 

[37818]

Family 35 is not the same as a Majority Text.

This collation lists all differences between the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform 2005 Greek NT and Wilbur Pickering's f35 Greek NT

 

[Silverhair]

No, not at all. I'm saying read Pickering for yourself. Make your own judgments after reading the evidence.

Hermon Von Soden is many? Notice how no one said "Von Soden proved, or demonstrated". He discovered the group. That much is history. But he did not prove anything about an attempt to standardize the New Testament.

And you r point is? As I said you think Pickering has the right answers, I do not place my trust in any one man to do what you think he has done. He just proved what he wanted to prove.

Must admit I did find it funny when in the first video the speaker said other text critics placed themselves over the text but Pickering placed himself under the text. Just shows how foolish he was with that comment. No scholar places themselves over the text.

 

[37818]

I do not place my trust in any one man to do what you think he has done. He just proved what he wanted to prove.

We all trust people we do not know.

Most of what we think we know comes from others.

 

[Silverhair]

Family 35 is not the same as a Majority Text.

This collation lists all differences between the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform 2005 Greek NT and Wilbur Pickering's f35 Greek NT

@37818 you have claimed tat the bible is inerrant and since you seem to like F35 from Pickering then I would have to conclude that you think he has produced an inerrant text. I am correct in that conclusion?

 

[Silverhair]

No you are technically correct, they mostly came from the same line. BUT they are not the same. They are 2 different Text's is what I was saying. They are not the same Text. Sometimes, rarely, the Textus Receptus abandons the Greek altogether for the Latin Vulgate. Sometimes it uses minority Greek manuscript readings. Sometimes it uses reading's from manuscript 1 which is not the Byzantine Text. Sometimes there is no Majority Text they are evenly divided and other methods must be used.


No that is your flawed perception only. For instance I think either of the 2 Greek Majority Text's, or Family 35 are the most accurate Greek Texts around. That is 3 closely related Greek Texts. I am grateful Hermon Von Soden and all his students did all those collations of Greek Manuscripts. Without them we would not have the Greek Byzantine/Majority Texts. I appreciate Von Soden.
But he did not introduce evidence that Kr was a Revision, he only assumed that. If he did prove it why did not your sources say that?
Hermon Von Soden was from around the 1900's.

You like the Majority text and F35 that's fine I think the CT is fine. I use bibles from both lines of transmission. I think we have an accurate bible that has preserved everything that God wants us to know.just as the bible tells us.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Silverhair]

We all trust people we do not know.

Most of what we think we know comes from others.

Of course it does but I do not place my trust in a single source as you seem to have done.

 

[37818]

I would have to conclude that you think he has produced an inerrant text.

At best he collated it from existing Greek mss. The inerrancy is in God's word as it already exists in Greek text being collated. You are already accepting readings from non collated readings that were based on a nonbelievers methods used by, I presume believers, translating the texts.