Textual Criticism?

"Family 35 is itself its own evidence. The original autographs were perfect. Collation of Family 35 recovers the texts of the autographs." Your post # 53

You are using circular logic here 37818. You are using the F35 to prove the F35. While F35 has contributed to our knowledge of the wording of the autographs they can not be said to reproduce the autographs.

 

You still have not provided proof that the F35 is actually the text of the autographs. Many scholars hold to different text that what the F35 provides so it seems that the only one that holds to the F35 text is Pickering.

 

As Pickering has translated it. I am not questioning that he did but when you claim that it is the text of the autographs you need to provide more than just your claim. And saying that the F35 family is consistent proves the F35 family is the text of the autographs does not hold water.

This comes from the preamble of, GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS TEXT!

"True evidence, objective reality, should be the same for everyone. However, the interpretation that different people give to that evidence can vary considerably. The different interpretations derive from differing sets of presuppositions"

As it says we all have presuppositions. You are coming to this debate with one that says Pickering's work has recovered the autographs. Mine is that if Pickering did recover the text then show us the proof. Then we should have numerous scholars that having reviewed his work agree with his findings. Have his findings been peer reviewed and if so by whom?

Remember a claim is only a claim until you provide proof.

 

37 you are just trying to deflect. It is not weather my bible has text from the autographs, it does. You have claimed that the F35 provides us with the complete text of the autographs and contrary to what you are claiming I have not said that the F35 does not contain any of the autograph text.

I asked you if Pickering's work had been peer reviewed. Since you did not provide any evidence that it has then I have to conclude that it has not. If the text that Pickering has were so good then I am quite sure that other scholars would jump at the chance to review it.

You continue to claim things for the F35 text that you have failed to substantiate. You say I have rejected the explanations you have given but you have rejected the evidence from scholars that I have provided. 37 I am not looking for explanations I am looking for evidence or at the very least other scholars confirming what Pickering has claimed.

It would be fantastic if we had the text of the autographs but I am not willing to just jump on the bandwagon. Give me some solid evidence that what you are claiming is actually true.

A claim without evidence is just a claim.

 

We are back to square one as what you have done is ask us to believe the F35 gives us the last 10% of the autographs because Pickering has said the F35 gives us the last 10 % of the autographs. That has not changed but neither has the question. Why have other scholars not come along and after looking at his work given support for his theory.

37818 all that you have done is say F35 proves F35 because look how consistent the text is.

Since Pickering wants to be a textural critique then he has to abide by the same rules as other textural critiques. Peer review of your work.

 

37 you want others to trust what Pickering has said and yet when I ask you if his work has been peer reviewed you deflect and ask me what the difference is. I am not a Greek scholar so I am not qualified to make those distinctions. That is why I asked about peer review.

How else is one supposed to frame this discussion? You made a claim and I asked for proof of that claim. Your proof seems to be, well just trust what Pickering said. That is not proof, it is not even good evidence. It is just one man's opinion of what the text shows him. And yet you seem to dismiss what other scholars have said, which is your option. Just as it is mine to ask for some solid evidence to backup your claim.

Text from the second video you presented
0:30
when we
0:30
use the word perfect in this video
0:34
we mean two manuscripts that are
0:36
identical to each other
0:38
but outside of this video we use the
0:42
word
0:42
perfect to indicate the agreement
0:46
of the manuscript with the archetype of
0:49
family 35 which in our
0:53
view corresponds to the autograph
0:56
to the original text obviously the
0:59
manuscripts
1:00
that we are going to present here are
1:03
perfect
1:04
besides being identical to each other
1:07
they
1:08
also correspond to the family archetype

All he is saying is that the F35 manuscripts he uses agree with F35 family which we thinks has the original text. An opinion.

 

Of course different presuppositions make a deference in how one looks at something. But you have to be able to backup that presupposition if you are going to claim that it is valid. I have been asking you to provide support from other scholars and you keep deflecting.

As you said in another post "The two views. One denies the original text of the New Testament is knowable, the other contends it can be fully identified." So backup your position. I have provide information from a number of scholars and you keep saying just trust me. Your not providing a very strong argument here 37.