Textual Criticism?

[Silverhair]

So evidence is an assumption?

The interpretation of the evidence, as per Pickering, is an assumption. He has piled assumption upon assumption and has used those to come to the conclusions he did. You can keep supporting Pickering all you like but until you provide reviews by other scholars that support his conclusions it is just his opinion.

37 that is the problem you are taking his assumption as evidence.

 

[Silverhair]

37 you are making the assumption that Pickering is right and all the other scholars are wrong.

I know of no other scholars that would make the bold claim that we have recovered the autograph text and especially not from one line of transmission. Which is what Pickering has done.

 

[37818]

Pickering’s assumption is not evidence.

Rob

What is Pickering's assumption? A conclusion is not automatically an assumption.

 

[37818]

The interpretation of the evidence, as per Pickering, is an assumption.

How?

 

[37818]

@Silverhair,
I do not agree with Pickering 100%. There are details where I must differ. It does not negate his discovery of f35 having the text of the autographs less likely. If it cannot be 100%, what is that variant that does not occur in a K^r set that would be at issue?

Dr Pickering has admitted 60% versus 40% variant in Mark 13:31. Either one can be f35. Currently the 60% reading is so identified. NA26 has whole verse as part of the Majority text. It has the 40% reading.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair,
I do not agree with Pickering 100%. There are details where I must differ. It does not negate his discovery of f35 having the text of the autographs less likely. If it cannot be 100%, what is that variant that does not occur in a K^r set that would be at issue?

Dr Pickering has admitted 60% versus 40% variant in Mark 13:31. Either one can be f35. Currently the 60% reading is so identified. NA26 has whole verse as part of the Majority text. It has the 40% reading.

37 we could go round and round on this for the next 225 posts, it is not going to change the situation. Pickering had to make assumptions about the text from the F35 manuscripts. Anytime you are evaluating something you have to do that.

It does not seem to matter what comment I present from various scholars you will hold to your view that Pickering was right. He has made the assumption that the F35 line is the best line to follow as in his mind it holds the actual autographs and he has used the errant view that the ECF quoted the F35 text's but that has been shown to be an error on his part.

I will trust what the scholars have said and we will have to leave it at that.

 

[37818]

Pickering had to make assumptions about the text from the F35 manuscripts.

Pickering has stated his presuppositions. One is that God has preserved his written word.
https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/God-Has-Preserved-His-Text-4th.pdf

 

[Silverhair]

Pickering has stated his presuppositions. One is that God has preserved his written word.
https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/God-Has-Preserved-His-Text-4th.pdf

As you said, his presuppositions. He is thus reading into the text what he expects to find. # 228 and still no scholars that have supported Pickering's view.

 

[37818]

As you said, his presuppositions. He is thus reading into the text what he expects to find. # 228 and still no scholars that have supported Pickering's view.

At issue is nevertheless the actual identity of the New Testament text. I know of no rebuttal that proposes better.

 

[Silverhair]

At issue is nevertheless the actual identity of the New Testament text. I know of no rebuttal that proposes better.

37 you have stated your view and I have stated mine. You are convinced that Pickering's approach is the best. I have given you comment from scholars that show he made errors in his approach. I have just given you the information, what you do with it is your choice.

37 it is not a matter of which you find to be better it is a matter of which is correct. Pickering made both factual and logical errors as has been pointed out in my posts.

The Byzantine Kr/family 35 Text-Form (1261-1453 C.E.) - Christian Publishing House Blog # 15

The Text of the Gospels: Do Byzantine MSS Have Less Disagreements? (Part 3) James Snapp Jr # 64

Alford, Metzger, Wiersbe, Whedon # 132

From stylos: WM 86: Review: Pickering's Greek NT and English Translation # 135

The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue - The Gospel Coalition By Michael W. Holmes # 164

Is the claim correct that many early translations and writings of the church fathers show they are in support of the Byzantine text? | Bible.org Gordon D. Fee # 193
Gordon Donald Fee (May 23, 1934 – October 25, 2022)

Abbreviations and Introduction to Principal Manuscript Evidence for the Greek New Testament (As found in the NET Bible footnotes) | Bible.org # 218

 

[37818]

Pickering made both factual and logical errors as has been pointed out in my posts.

I indeed missed them. No single specifics were ever singlely pointed out. I presume they must be in one articles you simply cited.


As you understand, the whole purpose of this thread was to present Pickerings discovery of F35.

 

[37818]

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FEE.pdf

 

[Silverhair]

I indeed missed them. No single specifics were ever singlely pointed out. I presume they must be in one articles you simply cited.


As you understand, the whole purpose of this thread was to present Pickerings discovery of F35.

I have not questioned whether Pickering brought together what he has called F35. It is the idea that F35 is the restored text of the autographs that has not been proven by you. Does it contain some of the text, sure, but so do all the other lines of transmission.

For you to say that "No single specifics were ever singlely pointed out." is just you defecting. The information was pointed out but you do not accept it. Your continued denial of the truth does not make it untrue. Why can you not provide any scholars that support Pickering's view?

If he had found proof of the text of the autographs do you not think more scholars would be writing about this momentous discovery? Why is he the only one that has been able to come to this conclusion?

 

[37818]

For you to say that "No single specifics were ever singlely pointed out." is just you def[l]ecting. The information was pointed out but you do not accept it. Your continued denial of the truth does not make it untrue. Why can you not provide any scholars that support Pickering's view?

If he had found proof of the text of the autographs do you not think more scholars would be writing about this momentous discovery? Why is he the only one that has been able to come to this conclusion?

From the very beginning those mss were dismissed. And then a claim was made they were a revision of tbe 12th c.

 

[Silverhair]

From the very beginning those mss were dismissed. And then a claim was made they were a revision of tbe 12th c.

37 you are giving one man's opinion, Pickering's. Your apparent dismissal of all other scholars is telling in itself. You want people to support your view but you still fail to provide sufficient evidence that we should. You can post fifty articles by Pickering supporting his idea but if you can not provide other scholarly reviews in support of that view then it still comes down to being his opinion.

 

[37818]

37 you are giving one man's opinion, Pickering's. Your apparent dismissal of all other scholars is telling in itself. You want people to support your view but you still fail to provide sufficient evidence that we should. You can post fifty articles by Pickering supporting his idea but if you can not provide other scholarly reviews in support of that view then it still comes down to being his opinion.

My original view on the undisputable identity of the Greek New Testament text from the autographs has not changed. It is a 100% text, though not all the text. Pickering's discovery does not change this view I have understood.

 

[Silverhair]

My original view on the undisputable identity of the Greek New Testament text from the autographs has not changed. It is a 100% text, though not all the text. Pickering's discovery does not change this view I have understood.

37 this is not now nor has been a dispute as to the accuracy of the NT texts. Various scholars have come to the conclusion that we have between 98.33% and 99.9% of the text. Even skeptics agree the we have a good text
” Even agnostic NT critic Bart Ehrman admits that “In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple-slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another” (Misquoting Jesus, 55).

It has been about your view as to the accuracy of the F35 text by Pickering.

 

[Conan]

37 this is not now nor has been a dispute as to the accuracy of the NT texts. Various scholars have come to the conclusion that we have between 98.33% and 99.9% of the text.

No this is not your position at all. These are Byzantine, Family 35 type numbers. The vast majority of scholars go for a 94%, 96% at best. Remember Fee whom you quoted? He said the Byzantine Text didn't even exist in the first 3 centuries, which is where 98-99% comes from.

Even skeptics agree the we have a good text

No they don't. You have been saying we don't have the originals, and many Textual Critics say we have lost the Original Text, that we can't know what it is.

” Even agnostic NT critic Bart Ehrman admits that “In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple-slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another” (Misquoting Jesus, 55).

Bart Ehrman has written a whole book saying the early proto Orthodox Christian scribes changed the Text to fit their theology.

It has been about your view as to the accuracy of the F35 text by Pickering.

which is the 98-99% of agreement of texts, which you and Fee say didn't exist in the first 3 centuries. You have been opting for lower percentages. Only Byzantine/Family 35 Texts get that high of percentages of agreements.

 

[37818]

It has been about your view as to the accuracy of the F35 text by Pickering.

And if you were to explain one of the reasons for believing f35 is this, what reason would you cite for his belief and what reason would you give for that reason not to be correct?

 

[Silverhair]

No this is not your position at all. These are Byzantine, Family 35 type numbers. The vast majority of scholars go for a 94%, 96% at best. Remember Fee whom you quoted? He said the Byzantine Text didn't even exist in the first 3 centuries, which is where 98-99% comes from.


No they don't. You have been saying we don't have the originals, and many Textual Critics say we have lost the Original Text, that we can't know what it is.



Bart Ehrman has written a whole book saying the early proto Orthodox Christian scribes changed the Text to fit their theology.


which is the 98-99% of agreement of texts, which you and Fee say didn't exist in the first 3 centuries. You have been opting for lower percentages. Only Byzantine/Family 35 Texts get that high of percentages of agreements.

You keep saying these things but you do not provide any proof or cite any scholars that support your view. You just keep saying F35, F35. Surely you have more than that or at least I would hope you do.

I will say that you do love to make wild leaps of logic. But you do not backup those leaps so it seems they are just your attempt to deny reality.