Textual Criticism?

That's why we have a free will, so we can evaluate information and make rational decisions and then we life with them.

I agree "and fire" is in the original text. You like F35, I do not dislike it but I also do not think it is the original autograph text as Pickering thinks. Does it contain the the text sure just as the rest of the manuscripts do but having said that I do not think we have the complete autographs.

That is why we have to consider all the evidence that the manuscripts give us as none of them give us the complete story.

 

As of yet I have seen you quote nothing as evidence against Family 35.

You are not ready to interact with advanced views on Textual Criticism. Perhaps in a few years you will develop your own views.

there you go again, accusing of things. Family 35 is Textual Criticism, whether Pickering is right or wrong. KJVOnlyism, TROnlyism are not Textual Criticism. Perhaps one day you will understand the differences.

So why don't you believe Family 35 to be the Original Text? What is the flaw in Pickering's thinking?

 

@Conan your arrogance is saddening actually. I really do not have time to deal with people that have closed minds such as yours.

You have yet to provide any solid evidence supporting F35 as being the text of the autographs. Those that make that claim are the ones that need to provide the proof of their claim. Good luck with that. Does F35 contain some of the text of the autographs, sure, but so do all the other manuscripts we have.

F35 is not Textual Criticism but the study of F35 would be.

Textual criticism of the New Testament is the identification of textual variants, or different versions of the New Testament, whose goals include identification of transcription errors, analysis of versions, and attempts to reconstruct the original text.

Did I say that KJVonlyism or TRonlyism were text studies NO but then again neither is your F35onlyism. They hold to their particular view much as you do and they will defend it to the Nth degree just as you want to defend your F35onlyism.

What is the flaw in Pickering's thinking? Just that, it is his opinion based on how he views the evidence. I have no problem with F35 being called a good translation but to say it is the text of the autographs is a step to far. Anything beyond that is just speculation.

 

Pickering’s approach becomes the critical one. He asserts two points: many Majority readings are early, and early Fathers do support the Majority text. For this second point he relies entirely on the labours of Miller and Burgon, who collected a huge file of patristic citations of the New Testament.26... What is one to make of the contention that the 8:2 MS ratio of extant MSS in favour of the Majority text swings probability overwhelmingly in favour of it being original, and that the Majority text is found in early witnesses and Fathers?

The latter point, it appears, simply will not stand. With regard to the Fathers, Fee, who is among the most active and significant researchers in the area of patristic citations, has demonstrated quite clearly that Pickering is simply wrong; his list of nearly thirty Fathers who allegedly ‘recognize’ Majority readings has no basis in fact. No early Father witnesses to the Majority text; the only one prior to Chrysostom known to have used it was the heretical Asterius the Sophist (d. 341). Pickering’s claim to the contrary overlooks completely the researches of the last eight decades. Further, in citing Burgon and Miller he is only repeating their errors. Miller, e.g., claimed that seven Fathers supported the Majority reading in Matthew 9:13; Fee’s check, however, showed that only one of the seven actually did so.27 In sum, Pickering’s whole point is without foundation.

Pickering and the others are correct, on the other hand, in saying that Majority readings are early, but they still fail to make their point, since they have confused readings with text-type. Many Majority readings are ancient readings; this has been known, though inadequately recognized, at least since the discovery of p 45 and p 46 over forty years ago.28 But while individual readings are early, the Majority text as an identifiable grouping of readings is not. That is, one must distinguish between the earliest appearance of scattered readings and the earliest appearance of an identifiable pattern of readings. The distinctive grouping of variants that identifies a text as ‘Alexandrian’ can be found in the second century, as can that which marks the so-called ‘Western’ text-type. But while Majority readings can also be found in the second century, the Majority text cannot; the characteristically Byzantine pattern of variants occurs only at a later time.

The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-majority-text-debate-new-form-of-an-old-issue/

By Michael W. Holmes

 

Excellent Silverhair, just excellent! An out of date writing from along time ago. Now, please tell us. Please! What in the world of Textual Criticism does that have to do with Family 35? What does that have to do with what Pickering is up to now? You don't even have the right century! How would you like it if I quoted an old article from 50 years ago but since then you grew and discovered many things but the 50 year old article was out of date and did not represent what you believed today?

Find someone that writes about Pickering's current position of Family 35 is what we would be looking for. You know, someone writing in this current century, not an old out of date 1970's thing that has nothing to do with Pickering's current position.

Wilbur Pickering's current position is Family 35. Let's engage with it please.

 

So your saying that Pickering's view on F35 has changed? How has it changed? What the article said about Pickering's research is still valid, truth is still truth.

Do you not consider what Pickering is doing is Textual Criticism?

You keep say NO to everything but I have not seen you provide any supporting articles by other scholars.

 

He didn't even promote Family 35 back then. He probably didn't even know it existed. Certainly he hadn't even collated the Manuscripts.
Your googling old, out of date and not applying information from the 1970's.
Did you even watch the videos posted by 37818? Did you follow any of his links? His information is current, from the 2000's, not the 1970's. That is where you will learn about Family 35 and Pickerings current views.

 

Did the information that Fee gave change between then and now? Truth is truth no mater how old the truth is. Have you provided any supporting scholars of Pickering ideas, NO.

F35 are good manuscripts but they are not the standard by which all others are to be judged as you seem to think. They are used as all manuscripts are, to try and find the best text of the autographs.

This from a radio interview Pickering did in 2021 July

Just what I'd thought I'd do here, in case maybe some of our listeners aren't familiar with your work, is just read a brief introduction. This is something that I took from one of your books, The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken, the New Testament Translation with Commentary. Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering is a Christian missionary living in Brasilia, Brazil. He has a ThM and PhD in Linguistics. Of those actively involved in New Testament textual criticism, no one holds a more radical view in defense of the inerrancy and objective authority of the Sacred Text. This includes the position that the precise original wording has been preserved to our day, and that we can know what it is.

This was Pickerings's stated view of the manuscripts
The ruling paradigm at the time, and still, which is the eclectic approach, is based on the false presumption that the original wording was lost and beyond objective recovery.

He then made this comment
I am not a textual critic. I am a student of the text. A critic is above the text. The text is above me.

But he had already made himself a textual critic by his statement. All scholars are students of the text of the manuscripts.

The Trinity Foundation - Transcript of TF Radio Episode 12- Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering

Pickering is the one that made these comment not me. You still have not provided a single scholar that supports his view. Note he did not say close to but rather the precise original wording.