Textual Criticism?

That is the problem 37 I have been asking you to provide other scholars that support what Pickering has posited. You still have not done so which leads me to conclude that none have. So you are trusting one man, Pickering.

Yes we all know what the bible says. The problem is that you are claiming that Pickering has done so and yet you do not provide any evidence except he says the F35 is the actual text of the autographs. Has his work been peer reviewed? If it has not then it is just his theory.

 

Maybe it is not meant for you or Pickering to know why any mount of evidence against' is utterly irrelevant, any more than the worst manuscripts known to mankind to make many other alterations and omissions.

Maybe it is not meant for you to know why this is so important to Satan, to omit...

 

Peer review would be nice but you have not provided any. Pickering has just added his theory to the others regarding the text of the bible. You have hung your hat on the view that the F35 gives us the actual text of the NT autographs. But you can not use F35 to prove F35 which is what you continue to do.

 

D A Carson disagreeing or not is not the problem 37. I am not questioning that the F35 contains the whole NT text. You are saying that the F35 contains the actual autograph text and yet you have give no support for that view. Where are the peer reviews?

Pickering saying it does does not make it so. That is the point you just do not seem to grasp. If you want others to believe that the F35 has the autograph text then do your due diligence and provide the peer reviews.

 

An article written by Pickering supporting his view is not what I would call an unbiased review. Has he not provided his work for review?

You would think that if he wanted his conclusions to be taken seriously he would submit his work for review by qualified scholars. Until that time it is just his conclusions drawn from the F35 family which it appears others have not concluded as I have not come across any other supporting articles.

 

Pickering is convinced and that is why he has said what he did, and if you want to believe what he has said that is your right. And I am not questioning that the F35 & MT have things in common and even the TR does , but that is not the question is it. You have said that the F35 reproduced the autographs but you have not provided any peer reviews that support that claim. As to your comment that no scholars have falsified his claim.

Minuscule 35 - Wikipedia in your post # 31

Sometimes scribe of 35 presented alternative to the running text. In these four instances the editors preferred to leave the uncorrected text as the base text and note the correction in the critical apparatus:

5:4 εταρασσε το 35* εταρασσετο το 35c
14:3 ετοιμασω 35* ετοιμασαι 35c
19:38 ο ιωσηφ 35* ιωσηφ 35c
21:15 om. 35* ο ιησους 35c
Also, in the edition the text John 7:53-8:11 is marked on the margin by an obelus (÷). This is in conformity with the practice of the manuscript itself

But Pickering included John 7:53-8:11 in his text with no obelus (÷) markings.


[Joh_7:53 to Joh_8:11.] THE HISTORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY.—See var. readd.; and a very complete discussion of the authorities for and against the passage in Lücke (edn. 3), ii. 243–256. The critical examination of the genuineness of this passage is attended with many and complicated difficulties. Setting aside here purely diplomatic evidence (for which see var. readd.), we may observe that at first sight, the reasons given by Aug[117] and Nicon seem enough to warrant the inference that it was expunged on account of the supposed licence given by it to sin. And this has been the hypothesis generally adopted by those who would override critical difficulties by strong autocratic assertion. ... But granting that such an hypothesis might be admissible as regards ch. Joh_8:3-11, I do not see how the whole passage can be involved in it, especially the opening Joh_7:53, which would naturally appear to form a sequel to what has preceded, and would surely never have been expunged with the offensive paragraph. No such hypothesis as this will account for the coexistence of so many distinct and independent texts, apparently none of which owes its origin to any attempt to remove matter of offence. ... Alford

"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Joh_7:53—Joh_8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after Joh_7:36, Joh_7:44 or Joh_21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luk_21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger [1994] p. 189).

Is the story of the woman taken in adultery a part of Scripture? If it is, where does it belong in the Gospel record? John 7:53-8:11 is not found in some of the ancient manuscripts; where it is found, it is not always in this location in John’s Gospel. Most scholars seem to agree that the passage is a part of inspired Scripture (“a fragment of authentic Gospel material,” says Dr. F.F. Bruce) regardless of where it is placed. Wiersbe

THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY, Joh_8:2-11.
A majority of the best biblical scholars agree that this narrative of the adulteress, (including Joh_7:53,) though of apostolic antiquity, could scarce have been written by John. The external proofs are: 1. Its absence from a large share of the best manuscripts. 2. The absence of quotations of the passage in the earliest Christian writers. And, 3. The great variety of readings in the different copies of the passage. The internal proofs are: 1. Its unlikeness to the style of John, both in its general tenor and its particular terms. 2. The possibility of removing it from the text without producing any break. 3. Its discordance with the current of thought, so as to form an actual interruption. To the force of these arguments we are obliged to yield. Whedon

 

37818 I am not questioning that Pickering thinks F35 give us the autographs. Show us some peer reviews that support his view. I have shown you a number of scholars comments that disagree with what Pickering is claiming.

Your are just closing your eyes to the information given you. Provide some support for Pickering's views other than Pickering himself.

 

If scholars could disclaim his views they would. So far none have done so.
Pickerings evidence is very strong. He might not have convinced other scholars, but so far they have not defeated his arguments. Of course that doesnt absoloutly prove him right. But it is evidence not to be triffled with.

God has promised to preserve his word.
Family 35 is a group of manuscripts that agree very closely. They were very carefully copied, unlike many surviving early manuscripts, which are poorer copies not carefully copied. This family 35 comes from all regions around the Mediterranean. In other words, they were not copies made in one place only, but many diverse and regions spread far apart. It's Archetype is known, unlike other manuscripts. A group of very skillfully and carefully copied manuscripts from every corner of the Mediterranean. All these regions all had ancestors like them also extreamly accurate and carefully made. There is no evidence of collusion or conspiracy to copy from one manuscript, because they are copied from all over. Scribes copied what they had in their monasteries. And all these diverse places all had the carefully copied family 35 type manuscripts, independent of one another.

 

You are coming at this from the wrong angle. If other scholars though that his conclusions had merit then they would write articles in it's favour. In other words you would have positive peer reviews. The idea that we had a text family, F35, that gave us the text of the autographs would elicit comment.

I understand that you would like F35 to be the autographs text but nothing that has been presented holds up to that claim. If Pickering is so confident of his claim then why has he not put his research out for peer review.?

On one hand you say "Of course that doesnt absoloutly prove him right" but then you warn "But it is evidence not to be triffled with." So since the evidence is not absolute then it should indeed be trifled with as some are taking it as absolute truth.

Here are some things you should consider:

Though Pickering defends many traditional texts affirmed by the Majority, he rejects others with valid claims to authenticity based on their antiquity, catholicity, and ubiquity. His method is hindered by the fact that he does not make use of lectionary, patristic, and versional evidence.

It is interesting that he stresses his ability to trace f35 to the third century but does not argue that it goes back to the original authors.

Majority/Byzantine advocates must explain why this textual tradition did not emerge as the “received text” of the Protestant Reformation era and why it has never been widely used as a translation in the life of ministry of any church since the age of the printing press. Even the Orthodox churches, the primary custodians of the Byzantine mss., have adopted a text in line with the TR. Rather than labour to reconstruct the Majority/Byzantine text, why not simply affirm the received text of the Reformers and those who came immediately after them?

From stylos: WM 86: Review: Pickering's Greek NT and English Translation

 

Are there any translations in any language based upon Pickerings Greek text?

Rob

 

https://www.amazon.com/SOVEREIGN-CR...9c-be99-741e1298985c&pd_rd_i=173682371X&psc=1

 

His work is out for peer review. Anyone can review his work. And your last paragraph is ridiculous written by a Textus Receptus only person? He is unable to have a good review because he is a TROnly person.

 

He has been peer reviewed. Look at the scholarly journals. I remember seeing at least one. I didn't read it back then because I wasn't interested at the time. Or was reading to much other stuff.

Why do you understand that I would like Family 35 to be the autographs? I think that Pierpont/Robinson, Hodges/Farstad and Family 35 Greek Texts (3 different editions) are closest to the Originals. In other words that they are the most accurate Greek Texts yet of the Greek New Testament. Then comes Textus Receptuses, then Critical Text's, Westcott/Hort dead last in accuracy.

Fine. Triffle with it then. Have a blast. Let us see you destroy Pickering's position. But you should understand his position before you can take it apart. Have at his position.

Really? From a Textus Receptus ONLY person LOL. This is not even someone who believes in Textual Criticism. He may give lip service to TR variants, but press him on a mistake in the KJV and you will get nowhere. That's ok though. It would be hard to find real reviews by competent people. If I come across one or some I will share them with you.