• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Textual Criticism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
Click to expand...
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.
 
Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
You are trusting unnamed persons. How is that better?
The KJV is currently my primary translation of the word of God I use.
Click to expand...

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.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
RighteousnessTemperance& said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is being collated, and for what purpose? Why those sets of texts?

RighteousnessTemperance& said:
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.
Click to expand...
Collation is being done not textual criticism.
 
Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
What accusations? Specify each specific accusation. Is Westtcott and Hort methods a myth? Are there no textual variants at issue?
Click to expand...

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.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
RighteousnessTemperance& said:
Define collation in this case.
Click to expand...
  1. To examine and compare carefully in order to note points of disagreement.
  2. To assemble in proper numerical or logical sequence.
  3. To examine (gathered sheets) in order to arrange them in proper sequence before binding.
For to the purpose to identify the archetype of the text from variants in some of its copies. So by doing identitying the text of it's original autograph.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Without affirming the whole of the texts of the Greek New Testament is recoved and can be agreed upon. 90% is currently agreed on by all Christians.
 
R

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
  1. To examine and compare carefully in order to note points of disagreement.
  2. To assemble in proper numerical or logical sequence.
  3. To examine (gathered sheets) in order to arrange them in proper sequence before binding.
For to the purpose to identify the archetype of the text from variants in some of its copies. So by doing identitying the text of it's original autograph.
Click to expand...
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."
 
R

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
Family 35 is itself its own evidence. The original autographs were perfect. Collation of Family 35 recovers the texts of the autographs.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
Family 35 is itself its own evidence. The original autographs were perfect. Collation of Family 35 recovers the texts of the autographs.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top