Textual Criticism?

His English is quite good, including his grammar, and the accent no problem, so nothing to apologize for there. And he says much to agree with. But still the presentation seems a bit skewed with a holier-than-thou air. So, an apology for that would be welcome. But much better would be just to drop it.

While there are those who hold the text in low esteem, even to the point of disbelief in God, it is disingenuous to say that engaging in textual criticism is inherently presupposing such a position.

The goal of textual criticism should be to identify as closely as possible the text of the autographs, which all must acknowledge no longer exist.

Since without question extant MSS vary, anyone engaged in that selective process is, by his definition, placing himself above those texts whether or not he calls it textual criticism or admits it.

Further, anyone choosing one variant or MS over another is in effect criticizing the other.

So, first order of business is to climb down off that high horse and be as humble as claimed.

 

What I am using is the word of God. You trust Pickering, your choice. I am sure that all those other scholars just threw a bunch of mss into a bucket and pulled out random ones well at least that seems to be how you see they did it.

37 you are just grasping at straws and throwing out accusations willy nilly. Sad really that you have so little respect for the qualifications and integrity of those men and women that have spent their lives working to produce the bible we have.

 

So you think trusting one man, Pickering, is better than trusting a group of men and women that bring us the bibles we use, interesting.
FYI these are some of the bibles I use NIV, NKJV, NRSV, TRi, LEB, NASB, NET, ABP, Brenton, BSB, CJB,ESV HSB etc. I even have the KJV but rarely use it as scholarship has vastly improved since 1769.

 

Read post # 42 and are you not the one that posted #'s 1-8. Do you think W&H method is wrong. Do you not think it is wise to look at various mss. It is because we have textural variants that we have to study them and make a judgement as to which is the best.

 

Where is your evidence that they were perfect?

 

Define collation in this case.

 

That last sentence, which appears to be a critical point, needs to be corrected and probably reworded to be intelligible. Make that "the last two sentences."

 

If we had the autographs to compare them with, that might be an easy proof. But we don't, so it's not. One must compare them to other texts, or assume without proof.

 

In the opinion of Pickering and you it would seem. You may have what you consider the best but you have no way of knowing if you have the exact copy. While the original autographs were perfect you can not claim that what Pickering has put forward is perfect.