Brother green , what a blessing you have been to those of us who are interested in this ! Getting this info from the man himself, wow! Not only do you have skill enough to ask the right questions but you also do it in such a way shows the love of Christ.
Excited to hear from Dr. Robinson that the Byzantine Textform is gaining greater respect! Thank you again, Pastor Dwayne, for this interesting and informative series!
A great interview! Let's get Dr. Maurice Robinson back for more information on his findings. He has helped me greatly in not blindly accepting the conclusion of the majority of scholars on this matter. The more that I learn about this topic, the more I move away from the critical text and toward the Byzantine manuscripts.
Pretty cool to hear how Dr. Robinson stood firm of his position for his Doctorate. Of course this topic is still new to me and I have learned a lot from your interviews. I think Dr. Robinson has presented the clearest defense I have heard (granted I have not heard a lot) in support of the Byzantine text.
Love it Dwayne! 3:00 - 3:15 ish is a fantastic micro summary of the issue I'd take with Riddle et al. The persistent "quote a verse" guilt trip when they are cornered is unhelpful - especially when they are exegeting so poorly. Keep it going Dwayne! 💪🏼
I am not anti-Critical Text, anti-Majority Text, nor anti-Received Text. I think what would be very interesting is to have a team compile all of them and see what compilation text of a combination of all these texts would come up with. 94 percent is quite amazing over thousands of years of Greek manuscripts. I have heard that CBGM might settle some of these issues.
Thank you for this interview. Just wanted to make sure if I understood what Dr. Robinson was saying. When he mentions questionable readings because of not being clear because of using old microfilm, he is only referring to the passage(collation work) of the woman caught in adultery, right? I would imagine that for the rest of the NT he used microfilm also but the text was clear.
I really appreciated the questions you asked as they came into my own mind you would ask them. I hope he sent you that huge list of resources. If you can share them, please message me on here or FB.
@@Dwayne_Green I wonder what it would take for ALL majority text academia to either (A. Get behind a Bible such as the World English Bible and pool their resources to promote and publish it or (B. Pool their resources into an entirely new Bible with Old Testament and New Testament based off of the Majority text.
@@ussconductor5433 My guess is that publishers arn't willing to risk the expense for a majority text translation. Biblical translation takes years and costs MILLIONS of dollars.
This is great. I have recently found your channel, and appreciate it a lot. Just one thing: I notice that there are at times these sharp "jumps"/"stutters", even during a sentence. Are these jumps edits?
(1) The LXX is being paraphastic here. I think they got the interpretation wrong. (2) LXX mixed up the sentence structure, so the word order is changed. They put the word "seek" ( ζητέω ) in the middle, when it is the first word in the MT ( דָּרַשׁ ) . It seems to be based on how they understood the text. Or perhaps more properly how they misunderstood it. MT = masoretic text
@@MakeChangeNow *The text of the OT is the Hebrew Bible, everything else is translation.* So the LXX is a translation. MT = masoretic text is the most authoritative representation of the autographs. The phrase "scroll of Yahweh" (book of the LORD) was never "added" to the text. Now I see why you are saying this, because the phrase only occurs here throughout the whole OT. Note that the DSS (dead sea scrolls) agree with the MT: QBE Isaiah 34:16 Study and read from the book of the Lord: and not one will be missing, each its mate. For it is his mouth that has commanded, and it is his spirit that has gathered them. Also Neh 9:3 reads: the scroll of the Torah of Yahweh their God (the book of the law of the LORD their God) Sometimes the LXX translation follows closely to the MT, other times is does not, and it sounds more like a paraphrase. Sometimes the DSS (dead sea scrolls) or LXX preserves the original text vs. the MT, but this is the exception to the rule.
@@mrtdiver the LXX didn’t have anything remotely close to “the scroll Of Yahweh” in the translation tho. And that’s an earlier translation from an earlier text then the masoretic.
@@MakeChangeNow "the LXX didn’t have anything remotely close to" take that statement multiply it by 500 / 1000 times + . Because that is the situation between the MT & LXX depending on which book of the Bible you're look at. For example, Jeremiah in the LXX is shorter than the MT by about one eighth. Most Bible translators (unless they're Eastern Orthodox) use the MT as the basis for the OT. Not because they are ignorant of these differences, but because the MT (Aleppo codex and Leningrad codex) have been proven to be reliable. Earliest does not = best. More weight is given to the quality of a particular ms (manuscript) rather than an early date. No textual critic worth his weight would automatically go with the earliest manuscript. The Isaiah Scroll, designated 1QIsa^a is dated around 125 BC. And it agrees with the MT text here at Isa 34:16. People often comment on how close the Isaiah Scroll agrees with the MT. I want to remind anyone reading this what was said before. *The MT is the TEXT; everything else is translation* - the Vulgate, the LXX, etc. In other words, the Hebrew text is just a copied manuscript. While the LXX is translation. It can be literal at some places or sound like a paraphrase in other places. For biblical language students / professors a good resource for OT textual criticism is BHQ (Biblia Hebraica Quinta). Although only a handful of OT books have been completed (not Isaiah).
On the internet, there is mention that Maurice Robinson was working on his own translation of the majority text, so I wonder what happened to his old translation project, maybe it is just delayed.
I don't recall seeing or hearing this. In my discussion with Dr. Robinson, he did have a desire to see the Byzantine Text have a committee based translation, but It was my understanding that this was merely a desire and he wasn't actively pursuing it.
I've heard so many times in defense of the critical text "all experts agree'.....not true!.... I'm convinced that one of the biggest attractions to the critical text is a natural propensity to avoid hard work...It's much easier to study two manuscripts (Vat. and Sin.) and some fragments and declare "oldest is best"...than to sift through many hundreds or thousands of Byz. manuscripts... Praise God for hard working men like Maurice Robinson!
Who on here got saved from reading the Byzantine or Critical texts? You guys aren't even discussing any important doctrines or new prophetic revelations, just rehashing what we already know, seeing we all speak English and our founding father George Washington was sworn in on a KJV. You guys should try doing Bible studies teaching doctine, instead of just rambling about such vain matters.
I think this is a really short sighted comment, you seem to be implying that this is not allowed for it to be an 'area of interest' for me or Dr. Robinson. As a pastor of a church, I have other areas of study I focus on as well. If you're looking for Bible Study content, may I suggest Mike Winger, or Allen Par's UA-cam channel. If you prefer sermons, I've been posting my sermons on our church youtube page as well. For the record, my wife got saved while using an NIV, you know, a critical text translation. But we're also not just talking about people gettings saved, but also talking about instructing others in the faith, which has happened from the CT, TR, and the Byzantine.
@@Dwayne_Green nobody you know got saved from the Byzantine text or the critical text or any other Greek text. People can get saved from reading a single sheet of paper that has the Gospel on it, so just because your wife got saved from an NIV doesn't make it an uncorupted English version. If you're a pastor then you should have better sense then to waste our time with people casting doubt on the word of God with such grandiose notions of a future restoration of the word of God as if we don't already have it. That's all you are doing, distracting people from the real issues and especially those who would destroy our exact English Bible the Authorized Version that our nation was founded on and God used to make English the universal language of airplanes and computers. Time to stop acting like a babe and start to be conformed to the image of Christ. You casting doubt to believers is just vanity and is hurting the unity of this nation.
Ironically, I don’t even think anyone should swear in anything, especially not a Holy Bible!: “but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:” Matthew 5:34 KJV
What a great example of a balanced perspective regarding this debate! Love it!!
I was glad to hear Dr. Robinson speak on this matter. I've searched for his work on UA-cam for such a long time.
Brother green , what a blessing you have been to those of us who are interested in this !
Getting this info from the man himself, wow!
Not only do you have skill enough to ask the right questions but you also do it in such a way shows the love of Christ.
Excited to hear from Dr. Robinson that the Byzantine Textform is gaining greater respect!
Thank you again, Pastor Dwayne, for this interesting and informative series!
A great interview! Let's get Dr. Maurice Robinson back for more information on his findings. He has helped me greatly in not blindly accepting the conclusion of the majority of scholars on this matter. The more that I learn about this topic, the more I move away from the critical text and toward the Byzantine manuscripts.
Good idea to keep all of us in prayer on this stuff. Praise the LORD God Almighty and thanks for the video.
I watched all three of these in a row. Fantastic and very enjoyable.
Thanks Adam!
@@Dwayne_Green Your welcome
Pretty cool to hear how Dr. Robinson stood firm of his position for his Doctorate. Of course this topic is still new to me and I have learned a lot from your interviews. I think Dr. Robinson has presented the clearest defense I have heard (granted I have not heard a lot) in support of the Byzantine text.
Love it Dwayne!
3:00 - 3:15 ish is a fantastic micro summary of the issue I'd take with Riddle et al. The persistent "quote a verse" guilt trip when they are cornered is unhelpful - especially when they are exegeting so poorly.
Keep it going Dwayne! 💪🏼
Fantastic interview! Thanks Dwayne!!
Brilliant need to have another session with him
Great interview!
I am not anti-Critical Text, anti-Majority Text, nor anti-Received Text. I think what would be very interesting is to have a team compile all of them and see what compilation text of a combination of all these texts would come up with. 94 percent is quite amazing over thousands of years of Greek manuscripts. I have heard that CBGM might settle some of these issues.
Thank you for this interview.
Just wanted to make sure if I understood what Dr. Robinson was saying. When he mentions questionable readings because of not being clear because of using old microfilm, he is only referring to the passage(collation work) of the woman caught in adultery, right? I would imagine that for the rest of the NT he used microfilm also but the text was clear.
I believe so... But I can't say for sure unless I listen again, this video is from a number of months ago!
@Dwayne Green ok, would love to hear your thoughts after watching if possible. Thanks
I buy his argument.
I really appreciated the questions you asked as they came into my own mind you would ask them. I hope he sent you that huge list of resources. If you can share them, please message me on here or FB.
Links should be in the description :)
@@Dwayne_Green I wonder what it would take for ALL majority text academia to either (A. Get behind a Bible such as the World English Bible and pool their resources to promote and publish it or (B. Pool their resources into an entirely new Bible with Old Testament and New Testament based off of the Majority text.
@@ussconductor5433 My guess is that publishers arn't willing to risk the expense for a majority text translation. Biblical translation takes years and costs MILLIONS of dollars.
This is great. I have recently found your channel, and appreciate it a lot. Just one thing: I notice that there are at times these sharp "jumps"/"stutters", even during a sentence. Are these jumps edits?
Yes, These are jump cuts. My editing style has a preference for smoother audio than video.
Can you discuss why Isaiah 34:16 in the LXX is different from the Masoretic text of the same verse?
(1) The LXX is being paraphastic here. I think they got the interpretation wrong.
(2) LXX mixed up the sentence structure, so the word order is changed. They put the word "seek" ( ζητέω ) in the middle, when it is the first word in the MT ( דָּרַשׁ ) . It seems to be based on how they understood the text. Or perhaps more properly how they misunderstood it.
MT = masoretic text
@@mrtdiver I’m more concerned how “book of the Lord” got added in the current masoretic text in the English bibles.
@@MakeChangeNow *The text of the OT is the Hebrew Bible, everything else is translation.* So the LXX is a translation.
MT = masoretic text is the most authoritative representation of the autographs.
The phrase "scroll of Yahweh" (book of the LORD) was never "added" to the text. Now I see why you are saying this, because the phrase only occurs here throughout the whole OT. Note that the DSS (dead sea scrolls) agree with the MT:
QBE Isaiah 34:16 Study and read from the book of the Lord: and not one will be missing, each its mate. For it is his mouth that has commanded, and it is his spirit that has gathered them.
Also Neh 9:3 reads: the scroll of the Torah of Yahweh their God (the book of the law of the LORD their God)
Sometimes the LXX translation follows closely to the MT, other times is does not, and it sounds more like a paraphrase.
Sometimes the DSS (dead sea scrolls) or LXX preserves the original text vs. the MT, but this is the exception to the rule.
@@mrtdiver the LXX didn’t have anything remotely close to “the scroll
Of Yahweh” in the translation tho. And that’s an earlier translation from an earlier text then the masoretic.
@@MakeChangeNow "the LXX didn’t have anything remotely close to" take that statement multiply it by 500 / 1000 times + . Because that is the situation between the MT & LXX depending on which book of the Bible you're look at. For example, Jeremiah in the LXX is shorter than the MT by about one eighth.
Most Bible translators (unless they're Eastern Orthodox) use the MT as the basis for the OT. Not because they are ignorant of these differences, but because the MT (Aleppo codex and Leningrad codex) have been proven to be reliable.
Earliest does not = best. More weight is given to the quality of a particular ms (manuscript) rather than an early date. No textual critic worth his weight would automatically go with the earliest manuscript.
The Isaiah Scroll, designated 1QIsa^a is dated around 125 BC. And it agrees with the MT text here at Isa 34:16. People often comment on how close the Isaiah Scroll agrees with the MT.
I want to remind anyone reading this what was said before. *The MT is the TEXT; everything else is translation* - the Vulgate, the LXX, etc.
In other words, the Hebrew text is just a copied manuscript. While the LXX is translation. It can be literal at some places or sound like a paraphrase in other places.
For biblical language students / professors a good resource for OT textual criticism is BHQ (Biblia Hebraica Quinta). Although only a handful of OT books have been completed (not Isaiah).
I feel a little sorry for this guy, because he has to work this hard to convince others to use common sense
What was the student name that Robinson mentioned in the video?
Jonathan Borland
ok thanks
@@Dwayne_Green I’m going to find this guy…. I live in Baton Rouge and haunt New Orleans Baptist Seminary a lot
So... Which translation he use?
Hahaha! It never occured for me to ask, when he comes on again, I shall be sure to inquire!
NKJV
Thanks for putting on others than Critical Text Only folks.
the minority position is with the Majority text.
On the internet, there is mention that Maurice Robinson was working on his own translation of the majority text, so I wonder what happened to his old translation project, maybe it is just delayed.
I don't recall seeing or hearing this. In my discussion with Dr. Robinson, he did have a desire to see the Byzantine Text have a committee based translation, but It was my understanding that this was merely a desire and he wasn't actively pursuing it.
I've heard so many times in defense of the critical text "all experts agree'.....not true!.... I'm convinced that one of the biggest attractions to the critical text is a natural propensity to avoid hard work...It's much easier to study two manuscripts (Vat. and Sin.) and some fragments and declare "oldest is best"...than to sift through many hundreds or thousands of Byz. manuscripts... Praise God for hard working men like Maurice Robinson!
Who on here got saved from reading the Byzantine or Critical texts?
You guys aren't even discussing any important doctrines or new prophetic revelations, just rehashing what we already know, seeing we all speak English and our founding father George Washington was sworn in on a KJV.
You guys should try doing Bible studies teaching doctine, instead of just rambling about such vain matters.
I think this is a really short sighted comment, you seem to be implying that this is not allowed for it to be an 'area of interest' for me or Dr. Robinson. As a pastor of a church, I have other areas of study I focus on as well. If you're looking for Bible Study content, may I suggest Mike Winger, or Allen Par's UA-cam channel. If you prefer sermons, I've been posting my sermons on our church youtube page as well.
For the record, my wife got saved while using an NIV, you know, a critical text translation. But we're also not just talking about people gettings saved, but also talking about instructing others in the faith, which has happened from the CT, TR, and the Byzantine.
@@Dwayne_Green nobody you know got saved from the Byzantine text or the critical text or any other Greek text.
People can get saved from reading a single sheet of paper that has the Gospel on it, so just because your wife got saved from an NIV doesn't make it an uncorupted English version.
If you're a pastor then you should have better sense then to waste our time with people casting doubt on the word of God with such grandiose notions of a future restoration of the word of God as if we don't already have it.
That's all you are doing, distracting people from the real issues and especially those who would destroy our exact English Bible the Authorized Version that our nation was founded on and God used to make English the universal language of airplanes and computers.
Time to stop acting like a babe and start to be conformed to the image of Christ.
You casting doubt to believers is just vanity and is hurting the unity of this nation.
@@ahammer7000 Why are you wasting your time watching it then?
@@jamesmiller393 same reason you waste yours asking me why I waste mine
Ironically, I don’t even think anyone should swear in anything, especially not a Holy Bible!:
“but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:”
Matthew 5:34 KJV
11:45 Exactly