OPC Article on Textual Criticism

[LanceJ]

The OPC via their 'Ordained Servant" monthly publication released this brief article by T. David Gordon:

Ordained Servant August–September 2023: Textual Criticism

Cultures, perhaps like individuals, seek equilibrium. When the cultural left pushes further left, the cultural right tends to push further right. In ...

opc.org

Would love to hear the thoughts of those interested in reading it.

Some of my own preliminary thoughts having just read it:

1) I appreciated that the OPC is willing to engage the topic on a denominational level speaking directly to it's Ministers and Leaders

2) Although T. David Gordon has a bias toward the Critical/Eclectic Text (which he isn't trying to mask or shy away from) I do think he represented the historical matters fairly

3) I do think he overstates (to the extent of bordering on conflation in my opinion) the MT and TR positions as being technically eclectic. He's not wrong but I think most who have spent time studying the matter wouldn't characterize those positions as eclectic in the same manner as the CT position.

4) He makes the most straightforward and sincere attempt at interpreting WCF 1.8 (kept pure in all ages) from the expressed perspective of a confessional CT advocate, and it's the most forward and concise interaction I've read so far, although certainly not exhaustive

5) I found it interesting that he makes a fairly strong call/suggestion that the Critical Text be adopted as a church standard. I have additional thoughts on the implications of this, both with the suggestion itself and it's practical implementation, but I'll meditate more on that before sharing.

In an effort to be fair to both sides here is Dr. Jeff Riddle's response via Word Magazine (Not surprised to see he was quick on the draw lol). I haven't listened to it in its entirety yet (It's over 2 hours long) but will do so soon.

Thoughts and opinions appreciated!

Lance

 

[J.L. Allen]

If #5 were binding, I'd have to find a new home. I suppose no small number of OPC ministers would, too.

For the record, my entire context while training for the ministry has been in churches that use CT translations (overwhelmingly ESV with an occasional '84 NIV thrown in). Despite my convictions, it is always an honor and blessing to serve these churches (using the translation in the pew). While I'm firm on my position, I'm not willing to sling mud for it.

 

[LanceJ]

If #5 were binding, I'd have to find a new home. I suppose no small number of OPC ministers would, too.

For the record, my entire context while training for the ministry has been in churches that use CT translations (overwhelmingly ESV with an occasional '84 NIV thrown in). Despite my convictions, it is always an honor and blessing to serve these churches (using the translation in the pew). While I'm firm on my position, I'm not willing to sling mud for it.

Glad to hear it brother. To be fair, I do think Gordon’s tone was gracious and fair despite his bias, and his suggestion for a CT based translation as a church standard read as more of a thought provoking suggestion than a hardline call.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

For the record, my entire context while training for the ministry has been in churches that use CT translations (overwhelmingly ESV with an occasional '84 NIV thrown in)

Brother have the faculty at MARS taken an interest in the LSB? I just wonder given its claim to be a highly accurate translation.

I speak as one who prefers the Byzantine text.

 

[greenbaggins]

I do not think the LSB is nearly as accurate as is claimed by its adherents. Its translation philosophy is that words should be translated the same way in various contexts. This results in exegetical fallacies all over the place. Words have a range of meaning that are determined by the context. Their philosophy might make it easier to use concordances for the LSB, but it will not result in greater understanding of the text. This is of a piece with D.A. Carson's critique of JMac's (who is largely behind the LSB) commentaries as having a somewhat wooden understanding of Greek.

As to Gordon's piece, it is a pretty fair discussion of the subject. However, I would differ with him on his description of the MT position. He seems to think that the MT doesn't consider all the manuscripts, when the MT position manifestly does. It favors the Byzantine because the Byzantine are usually in the majority. What is often not highlighted enough is that if the manuscript evidence is balanced, then the same text-critical canons that the CT position uses are then put in operation.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I do not think the LSB is nearly as accurate as is claimed by its adherents. Its translation philosophy is that words should be translated the same way in various contexts. This results in exegetical fallacies all over the place. Words have a range of meaning that are determined by the context.

You raise a good point Lane. I have been interested in the Reformed Christian (including Seminary professors) responses to the claims of the LSB. It seems to me Reformed Christians prefer to stick to the NKJV or the ESV.

 

[J.L. Allen]

Brother have the faculty at MARS taken an interest in the LSB? I just wonder given its claim to be a highly accurate translation.

I speak as one who prefers the Byzantine text.

You raise a good point Lane. I have been interested in the Reformed Christian (including Seminary professors) responses to the claims of the LSB. It seems to me Reformed Christians prefer to stick to the NKJV or the ESV.

Honestly, no one at MARS, from what I've gathered, is all that impressed with the LSB (not that it's thought of as terrible). Dr. Compton was excited at first but was ultimately not as impressed with it. I think the folks who produced it think it's a bigger deal than it actually is. Perhaps in Dispensational circles, it is. I don't know of it being a big deal with P&Rs anywhere. We live in ESV country. Is the LSB a big deal in your part of the globe?

Also, what Lane said regarding the accuracy of the LSB, he's right on the money.

 

[Polanus1561]

From what I gather it is more prominent with “Bible churches”.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Is the LSB a big deal in your part of the globe?

It is not well known here. I suspect it is mainly used by the small number of churches affiliated with the Masters Seminary and John MacArthur.

In the Reformed Churches of New Zealand (my denomination), the ESV is very popular with the NASB 95 a close second.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Lance, thanks for posting on this matter. I see that you're cognizant of the issues involved, and as regards the different schools of thought in the Reformed world. I also see that you're preparing for the ministry. It is good for pastors to have a gracious and clear take on the issues of textual criticism.

You may have seen my own view in the signature link below – Textual Posts – and I'm pretty well known here as a firm TR man who favors the KJV as the best TR translation. However, in my current pastoral assignment I have had my views – or more accurately my practice – changed, as my view remains undisturbed.

What I mean is that in the small congregation I serve I have a couple of men (both Nigerians) who grew up with the KJV (in Catholic families) yet distanced from their family church because the churches did not adhere to God's word but the traditions of men. So they were ripe to hear Biblical teaching and preaching.

The KJV – despite the common assertion it is easy for even young children to understand, which I can appreciate for those children who are raised in such a family setting – has not been easy for my men, and others in the congregation. So I often will preach and teach from other editions, even CT editions such as the ESV, NIV (1984), and the NLT, which often present ideas and sayings more clearly.

I do this with the understanding – given to them – that the gold standard is the KJV, or really the Hebrew and Greek underlying it. One of the men is due to be deported in a few weeks, his asylum application rejected, and I have given him (and the other man also) a concordance each, NKJVs, and CT versions, as well as Reformed material. The young man (26 I think) being deported will be sorely missed, as he is loved, and has a good heart with God's word and Spirit in it.

The other man (just turned 34) is already learning (modern) Greek, which will help him if he decides to eventually go into ministry. The bottom line for me is that they fully understand the doctrines I teach and preach, and the nuances of the Scripture passages we go through, so that they have an accurate knowledge of who Jesus is, and a comprehension of what it is to be in union with Him – and the glorious benefits thereof – secure and strong in their dependence on their God.

In the context I'm in now – and, at a month short of 82 I don't think I'll ever be in another church context – the issues of textual criticism have taken a back seat, albeit quietly foundational, to the process of forming Christ in them.

I'll probably be disowned by some KJVO folks and friends, but pleasing my God, and nurturing His children comes first.

I wish you well in your own spiritual journey and labors, Lance!

 

[Alexander Suarez]

The OPC via their 'Ordained Servant" monthly publication released this brief article by T. David Gordon:

Ordained Servant August–September 2023: Textual Criticism

Cultures, perhaps like individuals, seek equilibrium. When the cultural left pushes further left, the cultural right tends to push further right. In ...

opc.org

Would love to hear the thoughts of those interested in reading it.

Good day brother Lance,

Having just read the article, I have a few comments, but will hold off until I finish hearing/reading some of the discussion that may have occurred since the publishing of Gordon's article. I have yet to listen to Dr. Riddle's comments. Do you know if any others (especially OPC men) have formally responded?


Update:

It appears T. David Gordon had a second article published in December 2023 ("The Case for the Eclectic Greek New Testament Text"):

Ordained Servant December 2023: The Case for the Eclectic Greek New Testament Text

Aristotle wisely cautioned us to avoid extremes in our pursuit of “the golden mean,” the virtue that often resided between two extremes. I attempt ...

opc.org

Gordon's second article is a response to Bruce A. Stahl's "The Case for the Majority Greek New Testament Text" published in the same edition:

Ordained Servant December 2023: The Case for the Majority Greek New Testament Text

The question that gives rise to my inquiry is, Given the variant readings of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament books, can we know without a ...

opc.org

 

[LanceJ]

Good day brother Lance,

Having just read the article, I have a few comments, but will hold off until I finish hearing/reading some of the discussion that may have occurred since the publishing of Gordon's article. I have yet to listen to Dr. Riddle's comments. Do you know if any others (especially OPC men) have formally responded?

Kind regards,

Brother Alex,

Always good to hear from you. Hope you and the family are doing well. I'm not aware of any responses as of yet, and particularly not from OPC men, (Aside from Reverend Lane who commented on this thread). I, like you, have additional thoughts and comments but I am hoping to see some more engagement/interaction first.

Lance

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Having listened to Dr. Riddle’s comments in passing and reading the follow-up exchange by Elder Stahl and Dr. Gordon, I thought I’d share a few thoughts while reading Dr. Gordon’s original piece and perhaps stir up some profitable discussion:


Quotation 1: “I wonder what is provoking a renewed interest in the once-boring field of text criticism.”



Comment 1: I share Dr. Riddle’s sentiments below in finding Dr. Gordon’s remarks to be somewhat out of touch. This will reappear in his discussion of text families. Dr. Riddle comment: “The statement in Gordon's article I found most surprising was this one: "I have not witnessed any new paradigms in biblical text criticism, and few new tools have demonstrated significant promise." Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption? Parker's Living Text? CBGM? Ausgangstext? ECM?”



--------

Quotation 2: “The range and complexity of textual data are so great that no neatly arranged or mechanically contrived set of rules can be applied with mathematical precision. Each and every variant reading needs to be considered in itself, and not judged merely according to a rule of thumb. . . . Since textual criticism is an art as well as a science, it is inevitable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence” (Metzger)



Comment 2: While Metzger’s words may make more sense in context of his writing, Dr. Gordon’s use of them, in my mind, reflects a great omission in much of what has passed for textual criticism: the treatment of the scripture texts in the same way we might treat any other uninspired text. That is not to say there is not complexity in the treatment of certain variants. Nevertheless, there is a wariness on the part of many (me included), of leaving the determination of texts to societies, groups, individuals, who do not take into account the implications of dealing with an inspired, inerrant, and infallible text when determining text-critical questions. Dr. Gordon, to my recollection, does not address this.

--------


Quotation 3: “In my judgment, little is at stake in resolving the text-critical issues.”



Comment 3: I disagree. Dr. Gordon (and others) will say that we should not worry because no doctrine or duty is tampered with. Let me provide two personal examples which I believe suggest otherwise.



Example A – Should ministers in the administration of the sacrament say, “"This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." or “this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” I sat under a professor in one seminary who taught his students that ministers administering the sacrament with “broken for you” was not only theologically wrong but textually incorrect.



Example B – One Sunday, a minister had reached John 8 in his preaching through the Gospel of John. He prefaced his sermon with an explanation why he was not going to teach from the woman caught in adultery (in case any had it in their bibles). He did not think it was original and gave his reasons for such in a succinct manner, and proceeded with his sermon on the text which followed. After the service, one member had this look of surprise on their face wondering if anyone had heard the same things and understood its implications. This member told me he had never heard this before and was concerned of where holding such a position logically leads. He said something to the effect, ‘If that is true [what the minister presented in his preface] . . . what else is not supposed to be in the Bible?’

--------

Quotation 4: “There is widespread agreement among students of the Greek New Testament that there are three (possibly four) different “families” of textual variations. Within these families (Byzantine, Western, Alexandrian, and some recognize a Caesarean),”



Comment 4: I believe Dr. Riddle addresses this in his review of Dr. Gordon’s article, showing Dr. Gordon to be a little out of touch with where textual criticism stands today.


--------

Quotation 5: “For the book of Revelation he [Erasmus] had but one manuscript, dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin. As it happened, this copy lacked the final leaf, which had contained the last six verses of the book. For these verses Erasmus depended upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, translating this version into Greek.” (Metzger)


Comment 5: All I will note is that there is some debate surrounding what Erasmus had and did.

--------


Quotation 6: “Stephanus used fourteen other Greek Byzantine manuscripts along with the Complutensian Polyglot in his 1550 edition, and even two other Alexandrian Codices, which were given/loaned to him by Italian friends. These Byzantine manuscripts, not surprisingly, concurred with the edition of Erasmus, and the Stephanus edition is nearly identical to that of Erasmus.”


Comment 6: There’s probably some discussion that can occur around this as well, what Stephanus had and did.


--------


Quotation 7: “Not too much later, The Elziver brothers (Leiden, 1633) printed their second edition of a Greek text, nearly identical to the texts of Erasmus and Stephanus.”



Comment 7: The implication seems to be that all these texts were “nearly identical” because of the limited texts they had available to them. In other words, if they had access to the material we have today, they would have produced much more disparate texts. I remain unconvinced.

--------


Quotation 8: “Eclectic/Critical text consults any text it can find (as I put it: I consult any manuscript God’s providence makes available).”



Comment 8: To consult any text in study should not be an issue. The question becomes, to what purpose or what value and use is placed upon each existing text (or even new texts that are yet to be found)?


--------


Quotation 9: “The [Westminster] Assembly would not have known of how great the discrepancy was between manuscript evidence for the Bible compared to other ancient works, but they correctly knew God had a special/singular interest in the Scriptures, an interest so “singular” that we now know that the Assembly underestimated how “singular” God’s providence for the Scriptures was.”



Comment 9: The Westminster Assembly “underestimated how ‘singular’ God’s providence for the Scripture was”? I think Dr. Gordon does not understand the Assembly on this point of preservation. His comment a little after offering what he thinks the Assembly “probably meant” is similarly painful to read. In this regard, I think G. H. Milne’s work on WCF 1.8 provides helpful historical context as to what the Assembly had in mind.

--------

Quotation 10: “First, since I believe God’s providence orders “all things,” said providence somehow includes the variety we find in different manuscripts (or in different manuscript traditions).”


Comment 10: Agreed, but this does not say anything concerning their varied valuation and use.

--------

Quotation 11: “As another example, Westminster questionably cited John 5:39 on two occasions. [etc]”

Comment 11: Dr. Gordon again shows himself as seemingly ignorant of the Assembly’s approach to this passage. Here is William Gouge on John 5:39 as an example:

“Though in the Original and Latin translation, the word [ἐραυνᾶτε] be ambiguous, and may be taken in the Indicative mood, and the Imperative also; yet I rather take it in the Imperative, as most translations do, for a precept and duty, th[a]n in the Indicative, for a commendation of them; noting what they did: as if he had said [ye search the Scripture,] &c. yet both ways [Indicative or Imperative] the Doctrine is sound.”

--------

Quotation 12: “Westminster understands the passage to teach that the “people,” individually understood, are required to read the Scriptures privately and in their families, which would have been impossible prior to the invention of the printing press and is impossible still today among the many smaller indigenous groups who are not literate or have no Bible in their language.”


Comment 12: This comment is quite grievous. Dr. Gordon seems to think (and reiterates in his second article) that the reading of the Scriptures and the duty thereof was limited to the wealthy, learned, and Sunday church services prior to the printing press. The others were to be “very “faithful” to what they heard each week [from the lectionaries on Sundays.]” Not only does he disregard any other passage that sheds light on the duty of reading and searching the scriptures (in OT or NT), but offers somewhat of an incomplete picture of the church for 1500 years. One place to look for a slightly different conception (I think), is John Chrysostom’s preface ("the argument") to his homilies on Romans [or here (p 58-60) where he praises the frequent reading of the Scriptures].

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thank you for your thoughts here, Alex!

 

[greenbaggins]

Comment 4: I believe Dr. Riddle addresses this in his review of Dr. Gordon’s article, showing Dr. Gordon to be a little out of touch with where textual criticism stands today.

I don't think Riddle is a good source for understanding where textual criticism as a whole is headed, due to his rather extreme bias. No doubt he is a competent spokesman for his own viewpoint. But he couldn't and didn't describe my viewpoints in any way that was remotely fair.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

You raise a good point Lane. I have been interested in the Reformed Christian (including Seminary professors) responses to the claims of the LSB. It seems to me Reformed Christians prefer to stick to the NKJV or the ESV.

What has really been noteworthy to me is how frequently professors who work with the languages prefer slightly more dynamic translations such as the CSB or NIV. It's not always the case, but at a much higher rate than others, and a much higher rate than I expected.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

I don't think Riddle is a good source for understanding where textual criticism as a whole is headed, due to his rather extreme bias. No doubt he is a competent spokesman for his own viewpoint. But he couldn't and didn't describe my viewpoints in any way that was remotely fair.

Thank you for the feedback Lane. I don't necessarily disagree with what you have said. I only mentioned Dr. Riddle pointing this out as he seems to be the only one to have provided somewhat of a formal response (besides Stahls piece arguing for the majority text).

 

[greenbaggins]

What has really been noteworthy to me is how frequently professors who work with the languages prefer slightly more dynamic translations such as the CSB or NIV. It's not always the case, but at a much higher rate than others, and a much higher rate than I expected.

There could be a bit of a reaction against people who are so gung-ho about formal equivalence translations that they fail to acknowledge the fact that contributions to the meaning of a text occur on every level of the text, not just the word level, and that the word level is not always the most important level. There could also be some inherent bias towards their own contributions to the field of translation, and also the feeling some experts get when they believe a particular translation "locked it in" for them after reading the original languages.

 

[Logan]

I think my views are probably known but I am not a fan of the methodology of Critical Text for many of the same reasons that the TR proponents point out, so I'd disagree with the article posted by Dr Gordon. At the same time I am critical of the methodology of the TR proponents. Riddle always seems to respond as though you can only be one or the other.

I often recommend Maurice Robinson's "Case for the Byzantine Priority". It's a short read but highly informative. Here is a sample quote regarding problems with the methodology of the Critical Text:

Modern eclectic praxis operates on a variant unit basis without any apparent consideration of the consequences. The resultant situation is simple: the best modern eclectic texts simply have no proven existence within transmissional history, and their claim to represent the autograph or the closest approximation thereunto cannot be substantiated from the extant MS, versional or patristic data. Calvin L. Porter has noted pointedly that modern eclecticism, although "not based upon a theory of the history of the text ... does reflect a certain presupposition about that history. It seems to assume that very early the original text was rent piecemeal and so carried to the ends of the earth where the textual critic, like lamenting Isis, must seek it by his skill." Such a scenario imposes an impossible burden upon textual restoration, since not only is the original text no longer extant in any known MS or texttype, but no MS or group of MSS reflects such in its overall pattern of readings. There thus remains no transmissional guide to suggest how such an "original" text would appear when found.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I think my views are probably known but I am not a fan of the methodology of Critical Text for many of the same reasons that the TR proponents point out, so I'd disagree with the article posted by Dr Gordon. At the same time I am critical of the methodology of the TR proponents. Riddle always seems to respond as though you can only be one or the other.

I often recommend Maurice Robinson's "Case for the Byzantine Priority". It's a short read but highly informative. Here is a sample quote regarding problems with the methodology of the Critical Text:

I see the appeal of Robinson's argument, but it seems he contradicts himself. He says that the Eclectic Text doesn't resemble any manuscript or family of manuscripts, but then at the end of the paragraph you quoted he says that Eclectic critics do assume that the original text is close to the Alexandrian text-type. That would seem to imply that the Eclectic Text does closely resemble an existing family of manuscripts. Am I misunderstanding here?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I think my views are probably known but I am not a fan of the methodology of Critical Text for many of the same reasons that the TR proponents point out, so I'd disagree with the article posted by Dr Gordon. At the same time I am critical of the methodology of the TR proponents. Riddle always seems to respond as though you can only be one or the other.

I often recommend Maurice Robinson's "Case for the Byzantine Priority". It's a short read but highly informative. Here is a sample quote regarding problems with the methodology of the Critical Text:

Another thing I'm wondering is if CBGM in any way addresses or changes the concerns raised by Robinson here.

 

[LanceJ]

What has really been noteworthy to me is how frequently professors who work with the languages prefer slightly more dynamic translations such as the CSB or NIV. It's not always the case, but at a much higher rate than others, and a much higher rate than I expected.

This is quite true. At least two of my professors frequently referenced and preferred the NIV's translation over other optimal/dynamic equivalent options. Interestingly both were O.T. professors and preferred how the NIV handled poetry and wisdom literature.

 

[Logan]

I see the appeal of Robinson's argument, but it seems he contradicts himself. He says that the Eclectic Text doesn't resemble any manuscript or family of manuscripts, but then at the end of the paragraph you quoted he says that Eclectic critics do assume that the original text is close to the Alexandrian text-type. That would seem to imply that the Eclectic Text does closely resemble an existing family of manuscripts. Am I misunderstanding here?

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding. By the "earlier has more weight" methodology, there will be many instances where the Alexandrian text form is preferred by modern eclectic criticism, which will naturally make it resemble the Alexandrian text in may ways. But if readings are considered in isolation, the resulting "reconstructed" text will not resemble one that was actually transmitted and from which all the various readings could scarcely have arisen.

Another quote:

A parallel exists: modern eclecticism faces a greater problem than did the Byzantine text under the theoretical stemma of Westcott and Hort. Not only does its resultant text lack genealogical support within transmissional theory, but it fails the probability test as well. That the original text or anything close to such would fail to perpetuate itself sequentially within reasonably short sections is a key weakness affecting the entire modern eclectic theory and method. The problem is not that the entire text of a NT book nor even of a chapter might be unattested by any single MS; most MSS (including those of the Byzantine Textform) have unique or divergent readings within any extended portion of text; no two MSS agree completely in all particulars. However, the problem with the resultant sequential aspect of modern eclectic theory is that its preferred text repeatedly can be shown to have no known MS support over even short stretches of text--and at times even within a single verse. The problem increases geometrically as a sequence of variants extends over two, three, five, or more verses. This raises serious questions about the supposed transmissional history required by eclectic choice. As with Hort's genealogical appeal to a possible but not probable transmission, it is transmissionally unlikely that a short sequence of variants would leave no supporting witness within the manuscript tradition; the probability that such would occur repeatedly is virtually nil.

So what Robinson is saying is that the resulting text will resemble Alexandrian in many peculiars, but depart from any actual manuscripts or manuscript transmission in general.

 

[Logan]

I may well be misunderstanding Robinson's quote, however am I to understand him to be saying that the CT position does not operate from or with a Theory of the History of the text as an underlying supposition? That seems to be contra what I've heard from some of the more prominent CT proponents including most recently and notably Peter Gurry.

I'd encourage you to read the essay I linked. It's good

 

[mpinckard]

What has really been noteworthy to me is how frequently professors who work with the languages prefer slightly more dynamic translations such as the CSB or NIV. It's not always the case, but at a much higher rate than others, and a much higher rate than I expected.

I suspect (similar to one of the points made by Lane) that a lot of it has to do with the fact that deeper understanding of the original languages gives one a better sense of how language actually works, revealing that a lot of the supposed strengths of formal equivalence are actually oversimplifications that obscure rather than reveal the original meaning.

 

[LanceJ]

I'd encourage you to read the essay I linked. It's good

It's a long "short" read but I did read Robinsons conclusions which get at the gist of what you're referring to and what I was suspecting.

Quoted Here:

. Clark and Epp are correct: for the past century, eclecticism has functioned without an integrated history of textual transmission. That its resultant text has no root in any single document, group of documents, or texttype is an unfortunate by-product of its self-imposed methodology. Thoroughgoing eclecticism remains a scholarly endeavor divorced from external considerations; reasoned eclecticism attempts to strike a balance between internal and external criteria. Yet both systems fail precisely at the point of transmissional history: their resultant text remains without consistent documentary support, and represents a piecemeal assemblage comprised of a disparate and unrelated mélangeof preferred readings taken from isolated variant units.164 At this point Byzantine-priority theory does not fail, but offers a transmissionally legitimate resultant text which is well-supported among the manuscript base underlying the Byzantine Textform. If modern eclectic theory can secure a niche within NT textual criticism, so much more the Byzantine-priority hypothesis with its insistence upon a solid transmissional base before applying principles of internal and external criticism. Byzantine-priority thus is urged for acceptance as a preferable alternative to modern eclectic theories which ultimately fail to present a transmissionally viable "original" text.

Peter Gurry and Robinson have a nice interaction in this video at about the 1 hour mark onward (it isn't too long). In it, Peter Gurry clarifies some of the misnomers regarding the CT position and its Theory of the History of the text (or supposed lacktherof) and speaks on how recent scholarship has addressed that trend. I think it gets the conversation moving in a nice direction in response to Clark and Epp. Maurice Robinson references Clark and Epp in the video as well.

 

[Logan]

Peter Gurry and Robinson have a nice interaction in this video at about the 1 hour mark onward (it isn't too long). In it, Peter Gurry clarifies some of the misnomers regarding the CT position and its Theory of the History of the text (or supposed lacktherof) and speaks on how recent scholarship has addressed that trend. I think it gets the conversation moving in a nice direction in response to Clark and Epp. Maurice Robinson references Clark and Epp in the video as well.

Thanks for the video! I wasn't aware they had just released that one.