# Question for TR Preferred



## Gloria Dei (Oct 5, 2012)

I just wanted somebody to articulate why they came to the conclusion that the TR is the closest to the original manuscripts. I can logically follow a MT or CT argument and have jumped back and forth between them, but have been unable to find a logical argument for the TR; all I have found are KJV Onlyists ranting. Thank you in advance!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 5, 2012)

Hello Brice – welcome to the PB!

That’s a fair enough request! I hope to demonstrate that there really are irenic, scholarly, and godly proponents of the TR and AV _priority_ (not _only_, as shall be made clear) view. As I am busy on a project involving the Book of Revelation and its relation to the times we are in (from the amil position), I will just steer you, first, to a response to a challenge from Dr. James White of AOMIN:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/

And then to another response to another AOMIN person and _his_ challenge:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/#post304894

As these are sort of lengthy, it may take you a little time to get through them, but they are edifying to those seeking answers to the question you asked. For further studies from the TR / AV priority school, I would refer you to this compilation:

Jerusalem Blade's textual posts (a partial compilation) - Blogs - The PuritanBoard

I hope this is helpful, Brice. Thanks for inquiring!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gloria Dei (Oct 5, 2012)

Thank you; I'll go through those.


----------



## Gloria Dei (Oct 5, 2012)

I just finished the first post and that really clarified very much. I found it very convincing and thorough and may come to agree with you regard the text; this brings me to at least the MT for now. I will now start to read the other links.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Oct 5, 2012)

Here are my reasons for preferring a Byzantine Text Type:

* Make up 85-90% of all manuscripts where the critical text types are only 10-15%. 
* Used by the East since the 2 and/or 3rd century where the critical did not gain popularity until the 19th c. 
* Only about 3% variation amongst the family of texts where critical family has countless variations (check out the apparatus of any Greek NT from the critical texts).
* A large number of copies preferred in Byzantine text tradition over "older" mss in the critical tradition. 
* Variety of regions from which mss come preferred over "strong" central areas (like Alexandria). This shows the catholicity of the text. 
* I also believe (and others don't) that Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8 binds us to an ecclesiastical text that has been preserved by the Spirit of God throughout the ages. 

Now with all that said, I do preach from the ESV (boos from TR guys, eye rolling from the rest of you). I do my work from the Byzantine text types and explain differences. I find this a happy comfortable place for me. 

Dr. Gerald Bilkes teaches a class on the Text of the Bible at Puritan Seminary. It is MOST excellent and probably the only thing you will get like that at a NAPARC-connected seminary. 

These are my thoughts. Yours?


----------



## Tim (Oct 5, 2012)

N. Eshelman said:


> * I also believe (and others don't) that Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8 binds us to an ecclesiastical text that has been preserved by the Spirit of God throughout the ages.



I think that Presbyterians should take this point very seriously. It is not mentioned enough.


----------



## Gloria Dei (Oct 6, 2012)

N. Eshelman said:


> Here are my reasons for preferring a Byzantine Text Type:
> 
> * Make up 85-90% of all manuscripts where the critical text types are only 10-15%.
> * Used by the East since the 2 and/or 3rd century where the critical did not gain popularity until the 19th c.
> ...


I'm not really asking for a defense of the Majority Text, but rather a defense of the Textus Receptus specifically.

Also, Nathan; you ask for my opinion as to why I have the preference that I have. My answer to that is; I agree with your points perfectly and have pondered those exact things for a while, but later (tonight) have come to a MT leaning (after reading Jerusalem Blade's post). I am just looking to see why the TR people stand where they do (how they came to that conclusion).


----------



## Gloria Dei (Oct 6, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade; what makes you believe that the Textus Receptus in particular is closer to the original rather than the Majority Text? Is it because it was used during the reformation, underlies the KJV, or what? I'd really like to understand why you believe this variant (rather than the MT) is what God providentially brought back to the church.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 6, 2012)

That’s a good question, Brice.

This that follows is excerpted from post #10 of the http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/#post557693 thread:

My main concern with the Majority Text position _*as a final outcome*_ of the Lord’s preservation of His word is that it remains but provisional, unsettled.

Hodges and Farstad’s, _The Greek New Testament According To The Majority Text_ (Nelson, 1982), has on its jacket (of the second edition):
Scholarly discipline permeates the editor’s logic and conclusions; yet Hodges and Farstad make no claims that this text in all its particulars is the exact form of the originals.​ 
and on page x of the book we are told:
The editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all particulars the exact form of the originals…it should therefore be kept in mind that the present work…is both preliminary and provisional.​ 
If, as stated, this MT work isn’t a final and settled Bible, and (others say) the AV-Received Text isn’t, and the CT / Alexandrian isn’t either, are we left in the awkward position (to put it unreasonably mildly!) of having only a tentative, provisional Bible? When I asked a similar question of someone recently, I was answered, “No, I do not have a Bible I can hold in my hand and say, ‘This is the Word of God.’ ”

Professor Robinson’s work may well be better than the aforementioned MT text, but the same applies – as demonstrated by Wisse's research: all the heads haven’t been counted in the Byzantine MS camp. Must we wait another 50 years or more for that count to be tallied? And even then that would not alter the providential preservation of the Reformation's Bible. I realize that Professor R. will disown me as an illegitimate offspring of his and his colleagues in the Byz camp, for he does not acknowledge as valid my leap of faith to the TR / AV position. I admit, it _is_ a leap of faith, but if it is based soundly – that is, if my exegesis of the texts is sound – who is to dispute it on the basis of a scientific methodology? I take the same faith / exegetical stand as regards the record of God’s creation and man’s fall in Genesis over against the evolutionary “science” that tells me to stick with what can be scientifically proven (not that evolution can be proven, though they allege it can!).

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”.... and by “his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness”.... “no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly” (Matt 4:4; 2 Pet 1:3; Ps 84:11)

Whether one takes the _absolute_ preservation stand (which has abundant merit in the realm of faith), or the 99.99% preservation stand of Owen and Hills, we have the ability to say, “Yes, this Bible I hold is the sure word of God.”

I will not be subject to “the tyranny of experts” (to use Machen’s memorable phrase) if I do not concur entirely with the methods they use; I may use their work as I see fit, but am not bound by it. The MT labors are immense and of precious value; we stand on their shoulders – or to perfect the metaphor, we leap from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand.

I know many generations have said, “We are in the time of the end”; nonetheless, there are signs that lead me to say we are very close – the Gospel having gone out into _*most*_ of the world, and a coming (so I see) persecution of Christians even in the once-Christian Western world – and can it be that we don’t have a Bible _*yet*_ we can say is the sure word of our God? I believe He gave us one almost 400 years ago, just prior to the great missionary work of Britain, and at the commencement of modern English, the trusty sword of our Reformation fathers against the bloodthirsty and persecuting harlot. 

End excerpt

---------

*[IMPORTANT NOTE: I HAD ATTRIBUTED THESE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING QUOTES TO DR. MAURICE ROBINSON, BUT HE SENT A MESSAGE TO ME SAYING THEY WERE NOT HIS, AND WOULD I PLEASE CORRECT THIS ERRONEOUS ATTRIBUTION. I CHECKED THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS AND HE IS RIGHT. I APOLOGIZED TO HIM AND ASKED HIS FORGIVENESS FOR MISREPRESENTING HIM. SO THESE QUOTES ARE NOT FROM DR. ROBINSON.]*

I posit these quotes to demonstrate an attitude among some textual scholars that disdains faith being brought into the precincts of textual criticism, such as E.F. Hills and many of the Reformation divines and scholars brought to the endeavor. I will comment on them afterwards.


#1) One group of textual workers (I hesitate to call them scholars) base their whole method on theology. These are the Providential Preservationists. So, for instance, Wilbur N. Pickering, "I believe that God has providentially preserved the original wording of the text down to our day... I see in the Traditional Text ('Byzantine') both the result and the proof of that preservation" _(The Identity of the New Testament Text]/i], First Edition, 1977, pp. 143-144.)....

Since I cannot understand the viewpoint of the theological critics, I will not attempt to take this point further. I will simply make the observation that a scientific criticism must necessarily reject any theological approach.


#2) One must be careful in assessing people who prefer the Byzantine text. Most such are not textual critics, and do not engage in textual criticism. Anyone who favours the King James Version or the Textus Receptus, or who claims providential preservation or some kind of divine sanction for a particular text, is not and cannot be a textual critic. It is unfortunate that these non-critics have infected the arguments about the Byzantine text, as their irrational, unreasonable, and uncritical arguments serve only to muddy what should be a reasonable and fruitful debate. It is even more unfortunate that some legitimate critics who support the Byzantine text have accepted their rhetoric. This argument, like all critical arguments, must be decided based on evidence and logic, not faith or claims of what "must" be so. The typical argument is "providential preservation" -- the claim that God must have preserved the original text in all its purity. But as Harry A. Sturz (who is about as sympathetic to the Byzantine text as anyone can be while not being a pure Byzantine-prioritist) notes, "Hills [the leading exponent of this sort of preservation] fails to show why the sovereign God must act in a particular way." [Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism (1984), p. 42. Italics added.] (For more on this subject, see the article on Theology and Textual Criticism: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Theology.html) (from, The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/ByzPrior.html )_​_


I have respect for those scholars who labor to discern the Byzantine text – these labors are very valuable. I am not a textual critic; rather, a student of God’s Word and the history of its transmission. I do not have to be a mechanic to understand the principles of quality control in the production history of a Mercedes Benz, and be able to drive it well. What we have in some Byz scholars is the attitude that only mechanics are allowed to legitimately theorize on the process and end product of God’s vehicle of communication. Their presupposition is that only a “scientific criticism” is able to adequately sort through and assess the data and come up with an acceptable theoretical construct. In their view a theological presupposition is not scholarly, i.e., not scientific.

Science deals with evidences, with facts, with hard data. Things pertaining to faith, or theological factors, have no place in assessing matters pertaining to the product of God’s Word. So some Byz scholars say. But is this so? Science deals with things of the world, but not the things of Heaven. What in the spiritual realm can be apprehended by scientific method?

The Word of God was spoken by prophets as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; likewise with the apostles of the Lord Jesus. The Lord Himself had the Spirit without measure, and always spoke those things His Father gave Him to speak. Jesus told His apostles that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance all things that He had said. The LORD said through David He would preserve His Word through all generations, and through Isaiah that the words He had put in the mouths of His people would not depart from them and their seed for ever. Jesus said that man must live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, and that Heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not. Through Peter He said that through [Scriptural] knowledge of Him and by His divine power He has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, those words we must live by one of these things.

So the Lord has said He would preserve His word for us. May we not factor in the promises of God as we seek to discern the production of that He preserved? What right – warrant – has science to say we may not do so? Is this not in fact the above-mentioned “tyranny of experts” seeking to bring us into bondage to their views? Can science discern the malign hand of Satan in its attempt to destroy the integrity of Scripture, or the providence of God in gathering and preserving it? Such things are beyond its purview.

“...the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things which are freely given to us of God...” 1 Cor 2:11, 12.​ 
It seems to me spiritual discernment – exercised through faith in His Word and by His Spirit – is an essential element in arriving at an understanding of how God worked in preserving His Word. What, science based on a secular methodology shall figure out how and where God did this? (I am certainly not saying that Byz scholars who disdain theological presuppositions in text criticism do not have any spiritual discernment, but they do say that textual criticism is not the place for exercising it!) What saith Scripture?

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 

And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

That no flesh should glory in his presence. 1 Cor 1:27-29​ 
From some, however – though certainly not all Byz scholars – we get this:

*WE* are the scholars, *WE* are the wise, *WE* determine the truths of the Bible in this scientific discipline of text criticism, of which *WE* are the masters! You who proceed in this area by measly faith, we disdain and despise! Get you from this house!

Gentlemen, I must say your house is left unto you desolate.

The day is dying, sun low in the sky, night drawing on. It appears the governments even of the “civilized” West are slowly turning against the church of Christ, many seeking to enact legislation silencing and restricting the church by criminal law. The devil has come down to the earth, having great wrath, knowing his time is short. Nations rattle nuclear sabers against other nations, and those with eyes to see know that hearts moved by the devil know no restraint or sanity. And in days such as these we still do not have the settled Bible God promised to give us, His beloved children? Shall we have to wait till after the resurrection to get it? Or has He already given it to us? And if He has, which is it?

Our forebears of the Reformation asserted that God indeed had given us His settled Word, an intact Bible faithfully translated from original-language manuscripts, the readings of which originally “...being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical” (WCF 1:8).

As with other prophetic utterances, here we may look back and discern how God fulfilled His promises of preservation. I know it is replied, “But nowhere Scripture says *how* God will keep those (prophetic) promises of preservation.” We often discern the fulfillment of prophecy with *hindsight*. I believe the view of His fulfilling His promises in the Reformation texts has *far* greater merit and credence than all other alternate views. 

It has been asked, “If only the Greek Byzantine and its Textus Receptus editions were the providentially preserved text, what about the other locations in the world that had neither a Byzantine nor a refined TR – did they not have a preserved and adequate Bible?” And I would answer:

There is a preserving of the text, and there is a preserving of the text — the latter where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT and MT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated and brought to maturity through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV etc. The minute preservation occurred in the primary edition (the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek TR and their King James translation) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (and some say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches. The distinction is between an adequate preservation as distinguished from preservation in the minutiae.

As regarding the Lord’s promise to preserve His Scripture (Matt 24:35; Psalm 12:6, 7; Isaiah 59:21; etc), many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word. When the Lord prophesies, does it have to come about instantly? Is there not sometimes progression, or delay? We see it is so in the events leading to the formation of the finished product of the editions of the TR from which the KJ translators produced their English masterpiece in God’s providence.

I see no other view of a preserved Bible that makes such sense. Of course others will not agree, but I can defend my view. My stand is by faith, confirmed by reason. It was the faith of the Reformation; we who believe as they did are in good company, despite the views of the moderns.


------------


Brice, I hope you don’t mind my bringing up excerpts instead of writing directly to your questions. It is sort of like not wanting to invent the wheel twice, seeing as I have already written on these things. The linked thread in my first post to you – the one to Alan Kurschner – dealt in-depth with the differences between the TR / AV versus the Byz / MT views, as that was the basis of his challenge.

Please feel free to comment or ask further questions.

Steve_


----------



## Zach (Oct 6, 2012)

N. Eshelman said:


> Here are my reasons for preferring a Byzantine Text Type:
> 
> * Make up 85-90% of all manuscripts where the critical text types are only 10-15%.
> * Used by the East since the 2 and/or 3rd century where the critical did not gain popularity until the 19th c.
> ...



That was really helpful, Pastor Eshelman. As someone who reads the ESV, would you recommend reading a KJV or NKJV alongside it for Bible Study since I cannot read the original language?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Oct 6, 2012)

Zach said:


> N. Eshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Here are my reasons for preferring a Byzantine Text Type:
> ...



Yeah. I think that the KJV or NKJV along side of the ESV is great. The NKJV is great on its own, I just do not prefer it for public reading (same with NASB). I have taught my congregation that when they see "some manuscripts have..." at the bottom, they should look at the KJV or NKJV and go with the footnote by default.


----------



## Zach (Oct 6, 2012)

N. Eshelman said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> > N. Eshelman said:
> ...



Does the ESV footnote every instance of difference between the manuscripts? Also, what is the Greek text that was used for the translation of the ESV?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Oct 7, 2012)

From "About the Translation" on ESV.org: 



> The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.
> 
> The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions.
> 
> In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.



I believe that all footnotes that tell us what "other mss" say are references to the Byzantine textual type.


----------



## Zach (Oct 7, 2012)

N. Eshelman said:


> From "About the Translation" on ESV.org:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you! I didn't even think to look in the "About the Translation" section.


----------



## Gloria Dei (Oct 7, 2012)

Steve; I just wanted to thank you for what you have given me. I can see how you came to your conclusion and that was exactly the question I asked. I will try to research this more, but for now, I believe you. In other words: you have (possibly through the power of the Hold Spirit ) convinced me of the Textus Receptus position that I previously had held as the only undefendable text.
My Kindest Regards,
Brice


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 7, 2012)

You're very welcome, Brice. For further study I think this is a great book: Dr. Thomas Holland's excellent intro to the subject, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version. _Please feel free to post again or PM me if you want to talk further.


----------



## KMK (Oct 7, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> You're very welcome, Brice. For further study I think this is a great book: Dr. Thomas Holland's excellent intro to the subject, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version. _Please feel free to post again or PM me if you want to talk further.



Awesome! I just downloaded it to my Kindle for $3.99! Thanks for the tip, Steve.


----------



## MW (Oct 7, 2012)

Gloria Dei said:


> I just wanted somebody to articulate why they came to the conclusion that the TR is the closest to the original manuscripts.



Those who are concerned with physical evidence, who accredit a kind of divinity to paper and ink, and who are in some sense still attached to the devotion of relics, are obliged to date and count the small percentage of MS. evidence which has survived, and to adopt a science falsely so-called for the purpose of giving the illusion that what they possess comes close to what the living God has inspired.

Those who are concerned with "divine testimony" as the ordained means for authoring and perfecting the faith of God's elect, who believe in one only living, true, and invisible God, and who trust in the special providence of God in and for the blood-bought church of the Lord Jesus Christ and the testimony of the Spirit to assure the hearts of God's people in all ages, must presuppose the entire preservation of the word of God in all ages, and receive the ecclesiastical text in the same way they receive the ecclesiastical canon of holy Scripture.

The ecclesiastical text can never be a matter of preference; it carries an exclusive truth-claim which demands acceptance. Nor can it be accepted merely as that which comes closest to the original, but must be received as the very word of God. Faith cannot stand on anything less.

Where there is more than one translation of the text, one must choose which is more faithful to the original, and the choice made will be a matter of preference. That preference, however, like the choice of one's confession or church, should be a preference born out of conviction for the maintenance and propagation of the truth as it is in Jesus.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 7, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Gloria Dei said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted somebody to articulate why they came to the conclusion that the TR is the closest to the original manuscripts.
> ...



Amen.

I am an infant in these matters, but it seems to me that the starting point for textual criticism should be that GOD SPOKE and promised to preserve his words. I think there is a great error in basing the text critical discipline on the notion that the bible should be treated like any other piece of literature. Having such an error for the starting point is bound to produce many errors and false assurances about the "real" text; no matter how genuine and "honest" a godly man might be. Men have been honestly wrong in the past.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 7, 2012)

KMK said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> > You're very welcome, Brice. For further study I think this is a great book: Dr. Thomas Holland's excellent intro to the subject, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version. _Please feel free to post again or PM me if you want to talk further.
> ...



Ditto. And for the record, you have been instrumental in tipping my scales in favor of the TR/KJV.


----------



## Gloria Dei (Oct 9, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> You're very welcome, Brice. For further study I think this is a great book: Dr. Thomas Holland's excellent intro to the subject, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version. _Please feel free to post again or PM me if you want to talk further.



Alright; I'll see if I can get a copy of it. Thank you again.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 10, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> You're very welcome, Brice. For further study I think this is a great book: Dr. Thomas Holland's excellent intro to the subject, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version. _Please feel free to post again or PM me if you want to talk further.



I have started reading this book. It appears to be the kind of book for which I have been hoping. It is not too technical. It is informative enough to make one sharp in the TR/KJV discussion, but does not overburden the reader with too many facts. I hesitated studying this subject further because of it's technical aspects. One of the other things I appreciate about this book is that it appears to be a far cry from the ungodly bickering of KJV-only crowd so prevalent on the internet—the author hasn't lost his cool and seems fair on the subject. Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 10, 2012)

I have made significant corrections in post #9 due to Professor Maurice Robinson contacting me (initially through Rich) and saying that my attributing to him the two quotes in that section was erroneous, and would I please correct them – which I have done. I also apologized to him and asked for forgiveness for misrepresenting him. My mistake came about due to his Introduction to _The New Testament In The Original Greek According To The Byzantine / Majority Textform_ appearing on the website with the other essays, and I thought they were all his, and it was his website. I erred. His response was gracious; he said:


Dear Mr Rafalsky,

I certainly mean no ill will, nor am I at all grieved or upset by any misattribution of quotations (certain other people among the KJV-only or TR-only community have often distorted material that I actually _have_ written in various problematic manners, but that is another issue). Rather, I only have a concern for accuracy of attribution in this matter. . . So, to make things clear, I am **not** the author of either “Theology and Textual Criticism” nor “The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis” as appear on that website. Rather, my position on the text is best represented in my essay “The Case for Byzantine Priority”, which does not make the claims to which you react in the other essays quoted above.

I hope this will clarify matters somewhat, even if we otherwise differ on certain textual matters.​ 

The (genuine) essay of his he mentioned can be found here: The Case for Byzantine Priority. 

I think the professor was more gracious than I in the whole matter!


----------

