Textual Criticism?

[Silverhair]

Well, assuming Pickering is mistaken about f35. Greek New Testament text. That a reading identical in the TR, W-H, NU, MT and F35 Greek New Testament would be such a text.

Without agreeing with Pickering's view, can you state how and why he came to his view? What do you understand his evidence to be? Again, without agreeing with his conclusion.

From what I have read he came to his conclusion based upon his understanding of the F35 texts but also considering that he dismissed the relevance of other textual methods.

"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 also used what he called quotes from ECF as being from the F35 text line but this was shown to be false.
"Gordon D. Fee, who is probably the best patristic text-critical scholar alive today, has said that there are NO ante-Nicene fathers who quoted the Byzantine text.
As well, there is a recent article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society that deals just with Burgon’s approach. The author found that it was terribly faulty."

But if anything called into question the view of Pickering it would be his comment:
"This includes the position that the precise original wording has been preserved to our day, and that we can know what it is."

It is the evidence that I have read from various scholars that has made me question Pickering's conclusions.

"In place of this use of both internal and external evidence, or ‘reasoned eclectism’, Pickering and van Bruggen call for the adoption of a strictly numerical approach: that reading supported by a majority of Greek manuscripts is to be accepted as original.50 Pickering attempts to set forth a system of ‘weighing and counting’ manuscripts, based on a restatement of Burgon’s seven ‘notes of truth’, but this is misleading, since he explicitly rejects the use of internal criteria. Thus the only way to ‘weigh’ a manuscript is in comparison with the original, which is determined by counting—a circular procedure. Fee’s evaluation of Pickering’s seven criteria as only seven different ways of counting seems correct.51 Fee further points out that the proposal only to count manuscripts ‘simply eliminates textual criticism altogether”52"

50 Pickering, Identity, p. 138; van Bruggen, Ancient Text, p. 38.
51 “Fee, ‘Critique’, p. 423.
52 Ibid.

I have asked a number of times for reviews from scholars that support Pickering's conclusions. None have been forth coming. All I have had is out of hand dismissal of scholars that have disagreed with Pickering and or the conclusions he has drawn.

You ask me why I disagree so I will ask you why you agree considering that other scholars do not?

 

[Silverhair]

KJV advocates? This is not Textual Criticism, but written against KJVOnlyism. It is full of errors as well. Both the Syriac Peshitta and the Gothic are Byzantine Text in the Gospels. At least 8 of 10 readings will agree against the Alexandrian Text.

Also there are thousands of quotations by Burgon. This is reviewed by Alexandrian Text people. For them to just dismiss years of work without giving any real figures or real examples seems unscholarly. I call bullhockey. They are heavily biased. Just like their critical text decisions are unsupported by the actual evidence and their decisions short and shallow, so could this be. Considering the whole academia hasn't been able to take on Burgon's work, this is just a cheap shot wishing they could. Thousands of quotations. Anyone who has actually read Burgon, who defeated Westcott and Horts theory's easily, want proof.

So according to you everyone that disagrees with Pickering is a KJVonlyist or just does not know what they are talking about. I think you have a rather closed mind on this.

 

[37818]

This review is of the second edition.
Is now in the third edition. Now uses letters instead of numbers in it's apparatus. Also NU reference was to NA26 not the 27th, and UBS 3rd edition.

 

[Silverhair]

@37818 I can appreciate that you like Pickering's work. He may give what he considers compelling reasons to trust that F35 has given us the autographs but that is what you would expect him to do. Where are the scholars that support his view. I have shown you why scholars do not agree.

 

[Silverhair]

The review is of the book not the quality of the text form a text critical point of view.

 

[37818]

You ask me why I disagree so I will ask you why you agree considering that other scholars do not?

Personally textual variants has been a case by case issue.

Based on this lastest information my agreement is more now than it was in 1977. See video in Post #200.

 

[37818]

The review is of the book not the quality of the text form a text critical point of view.

Yes, it is a review of the print edition of his book.

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-conten...ment-According-to-Family-35-Third-Edition.pdf

 

[Silverhair]

Personally textual variants has been a case by case issue.

Based on this lastest information my agreement is more now than it was in 1977. See video in Post #200.

The F35 text is just one line of transmission and a late one at that, although I am sure you will disagree.

You have one view of the Pickering's view regarding F35 and I have another. So we will just have to agree to disagree on his conclusions.

 

[Conan]

So according to you everyone that disagrees with Pickering is a KJVonlyist or just does not know what they are talking about.

No! Not at all! That ancient article had lumped Majority Text advocates with KJVOnlyist.

I think you have a rather closed mind on this.

The article was rather closed minded. I didn't want a new believer to be mislead by it.

 

[37818]

The F35 text is just one line of transmission and a late one at that,

Can you please cite this source. Or give an unique variant to F35 that can only be late.

 

[Silverhair]

Can you please cite this source. Or give an unique variant to F35 that can only be late.

@Conan & @37818 we have been going over this now for 210 posts. I have presented a number of posts that include comments from various scholars you have not provided one scholar in support of your view re F35. We are just going round and round. If and when you decide to provide some scholarly support let me know. But as of now I have other things to do. It has been fun. Have a good evening.

 

[37818]

@Conan & @37818 we have been going over this now for 210 posts. I have presented a number of posts that include comments from various scholars you have not provided one scholar in support of your view re F35. We are just going round and round. If and when you decide to provide some scholarly support let me know. But as of now I have other things to do. It has been fun. Have a good evening.

The word of God is immutable (Psalms 119:89) and self authenticating (1 John 2:27). Jesus cited Deuteronomy 8:3 in quoting it, Luke 4:4, "That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of GOD." And He argued, In Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." God preserves even the spelling of His word. Smallest letter and parts that make a letter.

 

[Silverhair]

The word of God is immutable (Psalms 119:89) and self authenticating (1 John 2:27). Jesus cited Deuteronomy 8:3 in quoting it, Luke 4:4, "That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of GOD." And He argued, In Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." God preserves even the spelling of His word. Smallest letter and parts that make a letter.

I agree as God said "all will be accomplished"
Mat 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

God has provided the information to know Him and to be saved by Him. Praise God for His loving mercy.

 

[Conan]

@Conan & @37818 we have been going over this now for 210 posts. I have presented a number of posts that include comments from various scholars you have not provided one scholar in support of your view re F35. We are just going round and round. If and when you decide to provide some scholarly support let me know. But as of now I have other things to do. It has been fun. Have a good evening.

You have not presented any evidence by any scholars whatsoever. You keep citing the same Gordon Fee stuff from the 1970's, way before Pickering found Family 35. Fee probably died way before Pickering collated and discovered family 35. By the way fee was wrong back then. His conclusions were wrong. He is known to write biased stuff. To bad you don't have enough knowledge yourself to know that. You rely on the same bad 1970's work that was written before the discovery of Family 35. That's not wise. Gordon Fee was a critical text person, and rejected the vast majority of all Greek Manuscripts for 2 or more older but mistake filled manuscripts. In other words, when you said scholars should use all manuscripts, Fee wasn't one of them.

Again and for the last time, we wanted you to discover for yourself family 35.

 

[Silverhair]

You have not presented any evidence by any scholars whatsoever. You keep citing the same Gordon Fee stuff from the 1970's, way before Pickering found Family 35. Fee probably died way before Pickering collated and discovered family 35. By the way fee was wrong back then. His conclusions were wrong. He is known to write biased stuff. To bad you don't have enough knowledge yourself to know that. You rely on the same bad 1970's work that was written before the discovery of Family 35. That's not wise. Gordon Fee was a critical text person, and rejected the vast majority of all Greek Manuscripts for 2 or more older but mistake filled manuscripts. In other words, when you said scholars should use all manuscripts, Fee wasn't one of them.

Again and for the last time, we wanted you to discover for yourself family 35.

I have looked at F35 and at Pickering's flawed view that it gives us the autographs and as I said before truth is still truth. You like F35 so hold to it. You have not provided one scholar that supports Pickering's view. You just dismiss all those that point out his errors.

Funny you say Fee did not use all manuscripts and dismiss him but Pickering did not use all manuscripts and you laud him.

FYI Gordon Donald Fee (May 23, 1934 – October 25, 2022) so yes he was alive when Pickering was doing his work on F35 texts.

 

[37818]

Pickering's flawed view that it gives us the autographs . . .

What is that flaw? Please explain in your own words this flaw.

 

[Silverhair]

What is that flaw? Please explain in your own words this flaw.

I have said what his flaw is a number of times but you are just not hearing it. He has made the assumption that the F35 texts give us the original autographs text " the precise original wording has been preserved to our day" W. Pickering. This is based on his errant view of those texts. He was in error when he said the ECF quoted from the Byzantine texts. Gordon D. Fee, who is probably the best patristic text-critical scholar alive today, has said that there are NO ante-Nicene fathers who quoted the Byzantine text.

Re read my posts at #'s 15, 64, 132, 135, 164, 193. I have shown you why I do not view F35 as you do but neither you or Conan have given me reason to do so. I have asked that you provide reviews by scholars that support Pickering's conclusions, none have been forth coming. What you have done is quote Pickering supporting Pickering.

I am not saying that Pickering's work is not important but it does not rise to the level that you think it does.

 

[Silverhair]

Principal Manuscript Evidence for the Greek New Testament

No ancient literature has survived in its original form; everything we have is derived from copies of the originals. The NT is no exception. However, in comparison with any other ancient literature, the NT is without a peer—both in terms of the chronological proximity and the surviving number. Several ancient authorities are preserved in only a handful of manuscripts. Not so with the NT. There are approximately 5,500 Greek witnesses, ranging in date from the second century AD into the middle ages. Besides the Greek evidence, there are nearly 30,000 versional copies (e.g., Latin, Coptic, and Syriac), and over 1,000,000 quotations from the NT in the church Fathers. NT textual criticism has always had an embarrassment of riches unparalleled in any other field.

The Greek Witnesses
The Greek witnesses are by far the most important, since in large measure they represent some of our earliest witnesses and since they involve direct reproduction from Greek to Greek. There are four kinds of Greek witnesses: papyri, uncials (or majuscules), minuscules (or cursives), and lectionaries. The first three are important enough to warrant some discussion here.


The full article can be found here:
Abbreviations and Introduction to Principal Manuscript Evidence for the Greek New Testament (As found in the NET Bible footnotes) | Bible.org


J. Harold Greenlee's book, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 68:

"No Christian doctrine hangs upon a debatable text; and the student of the NT must beware of wanting his text to be more orthodox or doctrinally stronger than is the inspired original."

 

[37818]

He has made the assumption that the F35 texts give us the original autographs text " the precise original wording has been preserved to our day" W. Pickering.

So evidence is an assumption?

.
. . Gordon D. Fee . . .

A Critique Of W. N. Pickering’s "The Identity Of The New Testament Text" -- By: Gordon D. Fee | Galaxie Software
1979.

 

[Deacon]

So evidence is an assumption?

Pickering’s assumption is not evidence.

Rob