Dr. Maurice Robinson knows more about the PA than probably any living human.

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

I've asked him when he'll publish his research! Comes out when I get part 3 edited :)

@wesleytyler147

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green Can't wait!!

@lloydcrooks712

2 жыл бұрын

This is great Dwayne you need a video of how you got Maurice on your channel

@SirChristoferus

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green I suspect that the data about Greek Orthodox lectionary cycles will be particularly insightful: for these cycles shine a very bright proverbial light on why the Pericope Adulterae occasionally changed places in various Greek Orthodox manuscripts. It wasn't that our ancient Orthodox cousins were trying to find the right place to put it; nay, it was the logical result of certain fluctuations in the lectionary cycles.

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

@@SirChristoferus THat's interesting. I haven't had a chance to fully dive into the PA, but I think James Snapp Jr. makes some observations on it and the lectionary cycles.

As I persevere in my textual compilations and practice translations, I find that the Byzantine text-type is the closest match to my personal method of adjusting my UBS-5 text through textual criticism. My method is intended to harmonize three weighty witnesses - early Greek manuscripts as the primary witness, early translations as the secondary witness, and patristic citations as the tertiary witness. As you may be realizing now, this method would give us a very good snapshot of what the early church as a collective whole was reading, all the way from the coasts of the Iberian peninsula to the lands of the Tigris river. I suppose you could call this method "Triadic Eclecticism."

Brother Dwayne… the pushback between Mark Ward and Jeff Riddle as we speak, is one that needs a formal debate. I believe that you could do a phenomenal job moderating it. The ones from JW, Gurry, Riddle and Snapp have been greatly beneficial…Just throwing it your way

@HebrewGreekKnowledge

2 жыл бұрын

I second this

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

I have considered moderating a debate or two and have even reached out to a few people (not related to Confessional Bibliology) but don't have any solid commitments right now, hoping that will change in the future.

Very interesting, Dwayne! I like it how you always ask if they believe that their edition of the Greek NT is 'the closest to the original text' 😂

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

It's an important question! 🤣

@wesleytyler147

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green It certainly is.

Gracias.

Thank you for this excellent and useful interview with what is probably the best textual critic in the world, for his consistent and rigorous methodology and his respect for the subject to which he has dedicated decades of his life. blessings, great video. Blessings

Thanks for this series! Another great video here. Im already looking forward to the next part and listening to it through all over again from start to finish. Keep up the great work!

I think it's amazing that he says M5 is the best and better than M7 while Pickering is very certain that his M7/F35 is the best and even says it matches the originals. I would love for you/someone to unpack this.

@Dwayne_Green

18 күн бұрын

We're all waiting for Dr. Robinson to publish his full collations of the pericope adulterea! When that comes out, I'm sure there will be tons of data to look over :D

fantastic... so much interesting info in so few minutes... an awesome experience to listen to Dr Robinson on the Byz text... good work, as always... :)

3:27 and 3:30 👈 Exactly. Right on point.

Another home run! Thank you!

A question I wished you would have asked, is: Is it reasonable to think that there will only be a 6% difference between the 2 text types if Wescott and Hort used the TExtus Receptus as the scaffold for their critical text? The. The next question is “did they?” And of course they did. They themselves even wrote in their letters to each other that they were to maintain the TR wording as much as possible and they would only make trifle changes that would seem inconsequential, but when those changes are taken as a whole, a different doctrine would appear other than that in the TR. Therefore, it is fallacious to think that there is only a 6% difference with the minority text types. I am not accusing Maurice of being dishonest as he did say he used the Nestle text. It’s that it wasn’t pointed out that the root for this text was W-H’s text and it did the TR as a scaffold (for admitting from their own letters, deceitful purposes)

@FollowerOfTheLight2782

5 ай бұрын

What do you mean is tr and the mt text not so good ?

Thank you, Gentlemen 🌹🌹🌹🌹

Pastor Dwayne, Any word on a completion date for your NT project? I am looking forward to it! God's best to you and yours. Psalm 19:7-14

@Dwayne_Green

Жыл бұрын

Not yet, we're currently working through the variant editions. It's still happening, it's just taking some additional time. :)

@Pastor-Brettbyfaith

Жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green Thanks for your response. Have a blessed Lord's day brother.

So basically, there isn’t really enough difference between the major printed texts for anyone to be seriously alarmed over ? Are not the CT guys merely continuing the work of Erasmus ? Should we really believe that the reformation is over in this regard? I am enjoying your content brother Green , keep it up . Maybe some day you will join your brothers in the 1689 camp :)

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks! And you made me chuckle 🤣

Could You do a video comparing, percentage wise, differences in variations from the following editions of NT: Textus Receptus Nestle-Aland Patriarchal Text Hodges-Farstad Robinson-Pierpont Family 35 God bless You

Thank you Dwane. Very insightful. I wanted your opinion. Which byzantine text form edition would you recommend? Thank you.

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

There really is just one, that has been released a few times. I have the print edition from 2005 which is nice because it's hard cover. the 2018 is updated, but as far as I know is only available in paperback.

@lloydcrooks712

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green what one has the apparatus?

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

@@lloydcrooks712 They both have apparatus', but if your referring to other byzantine type New Testaments (not the Byzantine Textform), the Family 35 text by Wilbur Pickering has a pretty informative apparatus!

@yahrescues8993

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green What are the differences between 2005 and 2018? How major are they?

Text critics always say that Erasmus and KJB translators only had a few dozens Manuscripts but NOW we have 5000+, would Maurice say the majority text 5000+ would agree with Erasmus and KJB translators NOT the Critical Text?

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, the Majority would be much closer to the TR text than the Critical text.

@nerdyyouthpastor8368

2 жыл бұрын

The majority of extant manuscripts are Byzantine. TR is based on a small percentage of the Byzantine manuscripts. As Dr. Robinson said in the video, the his edition of the Byzantine text (which agrees very closely with the majority of manuscripts) agrees with the TR about 98.5% of the time and the NA27 about 94% of the time.

@hudsontd7778

2 жыл бұрын

Ok thanks green, I would also add that just because a reading is NOT in the Majority of Greek Manuscripts 1 John 5:7 as a example does not mean it's a Wong reading? Greek Manuscripts is a great witness to authentic reading but it should not override other Manuscripts witnessess and writings of church fathers who quoted Early Manuscrips scripture verses as well.

@yahrescues8993

2 жыл бұрын

@@hudsontd7778 I still wouldn’t expect it to be in a Greek New Testament though. I have thought quite a bit about this reading. I would be interested to know if the 3 heavenly witnesses are in anything other than Latin. Also it could be a thought of did Jerome add it, or was there Greek manuscripts which had the reading.

To drill down a bit and answer the same questions EVERYBODY HAS that can not read Greek or have time to even if you can read Greek is minus the conversation about the PA, ending of Mark and 1 John 5:7 what are the differences between Majority, CT, and TR?….and how are the differences handled in translation into our English reading Bibles?….which ones accurately translate the text from Greek to English the most?….

@yahrescues8993

2 жыл бұрын

There are apparatuses available between Robinson and Stephanus TR and Robinson and Scriveners. There are variants listed in the NKJV who go by Hodges Majority text. One variant which I was shocked to find out existed was Luke 9:23 where Jesus says deny yourself “daily” in the TR and CT translations, but it isn’t in Hodges Majority, I would have to check Robinson but I’m pretty sure it isn’t there either.

@yahrescues8993

2 жыл бұрын

The verse is there just the word daily which isn’t

@bradb2680

2 жыл бұрын

Most of the differences are not translatable to English or are spelling differences. Different bible translations choose their reading differently. In general they more or less follow independent critical editions ( being a good translator is different than being a good text critic). There isn't really a good argument that any particular well done translation is any more accurate translation than any other. This is because the goal of "translation" is much too broad for us to rate one translation as better than another. If you want to know which translation is best for you it is best to read the section at the beginning of most bibles which is called something like "note to the reader". This will tell you the translator's goals.

The 1.5% difference between the Byzantine text ( Robinson/Pierpont) and the TR text , sure does add a lot of weight, focus and decision making regarding 1 John 5:7-8? Are there any other major texts that would fit in the 1.5%? Blessings

@nerdyyouthpastor8368

2 жыл бұрын

Acts 8:37 is probably the next most significant passage where the TR and Majority/Byzantine texts diverge. Rev. 22:19 was especially significant to me, but it might not be to someone else.

@Kenneth-nVA

2 жыл бұрын

@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 I totally forgot about Acts; thank you for pointing that out.

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

Hard to say what you mean by "Major" texts, but acts 8:37 is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

@yahrescues8993

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kenneth-nVA There is an apparatus available for differences between Robinson 2005 and Pickering, Robinson 2005 and Stephanus, Robinson 2005 and Scrivener, in a PDF format. If you need help finding it let me know

@Kenneth-nVA

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green major , for me would be the big three, the Acts passage that nerdy-yp brought up, Matt 18:11 for starters. For me, a misspelling is within our understanding but to have chunks missing of whole verses, is major. Imho… lastly; my understanding of the 1.5% difference would be these “ chunks”

Are the gospels legends? Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it. C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)

Wait till they discover that Hebrew Cosmology is true.