Earliest is BEST? Dr. Robinson responds to James White's objections
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2023
- The Case for Byzantine Priority: jbtc.org/v06/Robinson2001.html
Affiliate links below
Rethinking Textual Criticism amzn.to/3Ynx5IV
Analytical lexicon: amzn.to/443dGhz
That was a great interview with Dr. Robinson. So glad he is willing to do these interviews - and to do this bit by bit instead of taking on the entire matter at one time! Thanks Stephen!
This is an excellent interview. It feels like the majority text side of the textual criticism debate is rarely represented fairly, if at all. It is particularly troubling that we have thousands of manuscripts and the critical text renders over 100 verses with readings that do not agree with a single one. There are many extremely intelligent people that are firmly convinced of the critical text so I am sure I am missing something but I can’t help but feel like the MT position seems to be the most responsible way to leverage the wealth of manuscripts that God has blessed us with in most cases.
Agreed
Well said. I’m quite suspicious of much of academia. Extremely intelligent people are just as likely to be wrong or deceived as anyone else. Academics are often drawn to novel theories, and go along with each other. If any of their assumptions or ‘logic’ are wrong, then the conclusion will be wrong, no matter how intelligent people are.
Love all the interviews w/ Robinson. It'd be awesome if he was a continuous regular guest -- love his content and his thinking. I'd love to know if there are any textual criticism programs he'd recommend.
Great, thank you.
Thanks for tgis excellent material!!!
The whole body of ancient manuscripts is significant and essential in determining the original as best we can. God in His providence has left us this witness to work with, and we can be assured we have the word of God just as He decreed we should. A witness to the truth of the evangelical faith has existed in every generation where the word has been faithfully proclaimed. To the praise of His glory. Ephesians 3:21.
I wonder what Dr Robison thinks about the textual criticism of the OT Septuagint, and MT
There will be a future video, Lord willing, where we discuss this
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews That would be awesome. Thank you. It is my understanding that the Septuagint translations we got nowadays are mostly based on texts resembling basically Codex Vaticanus, which then has the same shortcomings as the NT Alexandrian manuscripts.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
@@jameswillison1527 Thanks for your opinion. God bless.
God used the Church to preserve & transmit the Byzantine texts, obviously preferring them to the Alexandrian, and leading to the texts used to fuel the Reformation. Post tenebras lux.
Thanks again for yet another session with Dr. Robinson! Blessings!🙏📖
Manuscripts used by the Apostolic Churches being used for hundreds of years wore out and copies had to be made, while sects disappeared over time enabling some of their manuscripts to survive.
Praise Jesus
Just where you stand on all this is unclear. Your journey of discovery is greatly appreciated. That said, your videos in isolation, while showing a sequential direction, do not show in summary where you stand or your thoughts on the matter. A piece of feedback from a fallible person studying koine and biblical hebrew.
I hold to Byzantine Priority essentially, but I do think there are times when a split in the majoirty text can be informed by more ancient MSS.
All of the text discovered were also from the same region so unless you found a text from the Byzantine region that matches with the Alexandrian text it proves nothing.
The most accurate texts would be the ones that were used the most and would wear out the fastest. They would be continually copied and again worn out. This pattern would repeat over and over. It makes sense then that the earliest surviving texts therefore would be the ones with the most errors or corruptions. They would then be the ones NOT used the most, and thus allowing them to survive longer.
Thanks for the post. Never thought of it like that. Very practical and realistic.
Egypt preserves the manuscripts better because it's arid. European or Anatolian manuscripts were more damp and needed to be replaced. Do we base our theology on climate?
The Egyptian manuscripts that have survived from the early centuries disagree among themselves, are not exclusively (by any means) of the Neutral/Alexandrian text type which itself is not homogenous, and show readings too that are distinctively 'Western' or distinctively 'Byzantine' or both. That is not good grounds for holding to the antiquity of the Hortian kind of Critical text, so much favoured today.
Would you be willing to interview a CT scholar to rebut Dr. Robinson? It seems you (along with Dwayne Green) only interview those who agree with you. That's not meant as a dig (honestly), but it just seems to be more intellectually honest to give both sides of the argument.
To be transparent, I attended Southeastern in the late '70s and early '80s and was taught CT, but I am moving toward the BT/MT position, so this isn't a challenge/rant, just an honest question.
Well I think that’s a fair criticism of me. But it’s not true of Dwayne. He has interviewed Peter Gurry, Elijah Hixson, Dirk Jongkind and others from the Critical Text side.
When I started my UA-cam channel, there were plenty of videos defending the Textus Receptus or the Critical text. I wanted to explore the Byzantine priority approach. There are plenty of critical text videos. So I don’t feel any pressure to pump more of those out. But I’m not opposed to having Critical Text guys on. I’ve invited Dan Wallace, for example. He ignored my request.
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thanks for responding. I wasn't sure if you would. So I appreciate it.
Thanks also for the heads up on Brother Dwayne. I didn't know that.
I will say, Dan Wallace does appear to be a bit on the arrogant side. I'm not surprised he turned you down.
As I said, my question may have come across as a bit abrasive. I did not mean for it to be.
Keep up the good work!
@@kirbysmith4135 no you didn’t come across as abrasive. Blessings!
This looked like it was an interview with James white
Good feedback. I just changed the thumbnail.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsNo problem
Acts 6: 8-15 (paraphrase) the Alexandians and 4 other groups including those of Asia, paid men to lie about Stephan, for they did not believe that Jesus is the Christ.
It's even worse, the CT is based on ~45 documents, the MT is based on 415 of 5,555 Greek texts and the Antioch text that the KJV is consistent with 100,000 Antioch texts.
earliest are close to original. the kjv is full of errors.
I don’t defend every KJV reading for the record.
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews kjv is archaic English.
@@donhaddix3770 agreed. I love it. Grew up with it. It’s in my bones. But not for everybody.
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I started with the kjv in te 60's and constantly noted problems,
niv came out, I researched and switched
1984 niv ever since
@@donhaddix3770 NIV is very easy to understand. Thanks popping in.