When I started my RU-vid channel, there were precious few videos on YT that defended a Byzantine Priority approach. Dwayne, you are helping remedy that, my friend. Good work as always.
Thanks for this! I have for quite some time saw this problem as essentially a fatally flaw to the CT. Having it laid out so clearly here is super helpful. It’s always kind of odd to me when CT proponents puff up the CT as the “most accurate representation of early manuscripts” when it has many verses with literally ZERO backing by any manuscript. It’s such an obvious flaw in the underlying logic that it’s kind of shocking that it’s not discussed more.
I'm glad Dr. Robinson had put these together, I remember for a while not thinking, "there's got to be a list of these". And indeed there is! It would be interesting to run a similar comparison with the ECM to see what the results are, especially considering it's got a much broader MSS base.
@@Dwayne_Green As you pointed out, it’s likely that as you broaden the length of the assessed text, you will find this same problem everywhere (even in non CT texts) But the logic used in creating the CT essentially guarantees this problem exists on the single verse level many times, and if we stretched the analysis of the CT to 2 or 3 verses in conjunction, I imagine the number of these problems skyrockets. As I said, to me this basically undermines the entire logic of the system. It’s kind of shocking when it clicks in your head how bad this problem is. Especially if you have ANY belief in preservation arguments.
@@ChancyC exactly! I'm not sure how many 'verses' we can get to before declaring a 'franken text', but I would think that 105 single verses is well passed and sort of fuzzy border we could come up with.
@@Dwayne_Green I would agree, at the single verse level, 105 is way more than what I would consider is needed to get far clear of the “fuzzy border.” Thanks again for making this video. This is definitely going to become my go-to video to share when discussing this topic.
It strikes me that Critical Text and Textus Receptus proponents criticize each other for supporting many verses with little to no manuscript evidence when they are both equally guilty of doing so themselves! 😂
@@justinjustin4605 Agreed! I would argue that it's not just out there somewhere but right out in the open and utilized by generations of faithful readers, students, and copyists of God's Word up to this very day in the Byzantine/Majority/Consensus Text!
@user-fk8hr6gv6g Excellent question! My opinion is that the Lord preserved the entire original Greek text of the New Testament. And just as we believe the canonicity of the scriptures was divinely revealed to the church over time, so was the original Greek text preserved by and revealed to the church by the consensus of manuscripts that were passed down through the generations from the originals. Each manuscript is a check and balance to every other manuscript. So although no two manuscripts are completely identical we can rely on the checks and balances of the agreement between existing manuscripts to settle on the text to which God wants us to have access today and for all time. Thus, we don't have to rely on a single manuscript or even a "family" of manuscripts to determine the original text: the original text can easily be determined by the consensus of the thousands of manuscripts that exist today. Neither the Critical Text nor the Texts Receptus are completely based on the consensus found by comparing ALL of the existing manuscripts!
I'm not completely persuaded but the argument regarding the Byzantine text at the end. (There is text that appears to have been added and having exact copies doesn't address that concern.) But I agree 100% that the method used in the CT has a flaw that needs addressed. Great video and very informative (and that's coming from someone who's very new to this subject.)
It is mostly the older seminaries and seminarians that promote the value of the dominant critical texts. I don't believe the every day Christian that is _not_ leaning on these teachers for their opinions are not enamored with the position of these teachers. In my opinion it is a weak point in Christian academia to hold on to this position. If someone seeks to know the original text of scripture better, I personally think a more eclectic position will win out in the long run. What I mean is, I think as people grow in their biblical greek reading skills, and as greater access to texts in their original forms grows, I believe the next generation of scholars will more likely grow in their appreciation for the character and differences of each individual manuscript. Am I dreaming? Maybe. Either way, the Byzantine text is a breath of fresh air for the church. It shows a different path that is more compatible with those who wish to hold on to the traditional texts that have been used by the church.
So Dwayne today you win. This is a good argument. I think you should ride this till the end. I mean keep coming back to this as you get more evidence and come at it at different angles. The Byzantine text is similar to the Masoretic text (MT) in this way. There are places where the Septuagint differs from the MT, but in most cases the MT preserves the original reading. I believe that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus codices were doing early textual criticism. I don't recall hearing this by anyone. But it seems like the case when I look at how they read. They are both early texts, but differ in places because they made decisions on which reading was original.
Thank you for your deep dive and hard work.The TR does not have a copyritght as shown on the Bible Gateway website which has a huge list for modern versions. I use BG to compare verses. All modern versions have to change hundreds of words to get their new copyright when it expires. Except the KJB!Thus the ever-changing modern versions!
Thanks for this Dwayne. I always find your context interesting and thought provoking. Asking a sincere question here regarding this - are you saying that most of the Bible versions that are currently using the CT text such as the csb, nasb, esv etc, should be disregarded as untrustworthy? I've got both KJV and NKJV bibles, but also csb and nasb among others.
No. MOST of the differences between the CT and the Byzantine text will be rather minor, not all, but most. I would be hard pressed to say someone reading a CT translation is reading a different book from the Byzantine text. Where the reading is more substantial these editions will likely leave a note in the margins to make the reader aware. What I'm arguing here though, is that the Byzantine Text presents a better text than the CT. What I'm not saying, is that the CT is evil and we should throw our CT translations in the trash.
@@Dwayne_Green thanks for your response Dwayne. Unfortunately I don't read greek so I have to rely on English translations, which for me means comparing multiple versions to get an overall feel for what the authors meant. Doing that between textusv receptus, Byzantine, and CT based English translations seems to produce a remarkable consensus between them
@@georgebarlow3724Hey, Dwayne’s exactly right! If you want a tool that gives you an idea of how much the texts differ when translated into English, check out the KJV Parallel Bible online put together by Dr. Mark Ward. You’ll see that a good 95% of all differences are insignificant at most!
If one broadens the Franken Text argument to more than just a verse, then the Majority/Byzantine Text would also be charged with being a Franken Text as well. A combination of multiple variants in a single verse might not have a single Manuscript attestation, but every variant found in the Critical Text is fully attested in accordance to the principles of a reconstructed text. I don't really find the Franken Text argument that compelling. One would have to argue for a certain standard that determines if something has crossed a certain threshold to be accused of being a "Franken Text". Is it a single sentence? A single verse? A single passage? A single paragraph? A single chapter?
That is the question, isn't it! I've mentioned this in the video as well, and though I would agree that the line is somewhat fuzzy, for me, and a number of other individuals a single verse with no manuscript attestation is problematic. I understand not all will agree, but I think a single verse is well into the 'frankentext' territory.
@Dwayne_Green Thank you for this discussion. I found Maurice Robinson's arguments here persuasive. Are there fewer frankenverses pro rata in texts edited with CGBM? What does ECM Mark have at 12:36? Is the Frankentext essentially the outcome of WH favouring Vaticanus and then Nestle taking WH, Tischendorf, and another and averaging them somewhat. Is the Tyndale GNT a Frankentext to a greater or lesser extent?
I've developed a small solution to look at ECM readings and have looked at the example in this video, the NA27/28 differs from the ECM here, since variant (B) the ECM opted to go WITH the article instead of leaving it out. However the result seems to still be the same, there are no mss even in the ECM apparatus that matches this verse. It's probably worth another video to share the results, and a few other considerations.
I think the TR is close but it can't account for any usage before the Reformation. I think the reformation was a great thing, but the Church has a 1500 year history before that time. There was certainly no "TR" before then as we've come to think of. I also have some misgivings about the current critical text and some of the consequences it is leading to. For example, most CT scholars suggesting that Mark 16:9-20 is not scripture, conjectural emendation, and this frankenstein argument to name a few. Now, I don't go to the extreme to say that the "CT" is from the Devil, but I do think that the Byzantine Text provided a better framework to account for both textual variants AND a theology of preservation.
Sorry I'm a little confused. I see the 4-vartiants as 1) "For" David vs David, 2)" by" the Holy Ghost vs "in" the Holy Spirit 3) till I "make" thine enemies vs Till I "put" thine enemies 4) your" foot stool" vs thine enemies "beneath thy feet". Thanks for your help.
I'm talking about variants which are are due to manscript differences, not translational differences. And to further qualify it, I'm speaking of the variants mention in the NA27/28
I wonder if this is similar to what I do on my channel where I compare the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, instead this is the New Testament rather than the Tanakh
I do talk about things related to New Testament Textual Criticism and translation. I have a "Byzantine Priority" perspective, so often touch on issues related to the Byzantine text.
I’m definitely going to check out your channel! Have you considered comparing the LXX and Masoretic to the Dead Sea Scrolls? I’d LOVE to see some discussion regarding the Old Testament texts too!!
Mark 12:36 NLT For David himself, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’ World English Bible Mark 12:36 For David himself said in the Holy Spirit, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.”’ I dont understand Greek and dont totally understand all that you meant because I am not a scholar, but a simple man that does have some common sense. I understand the variants but when I read the NLT (whom you criticized before) a CT based translation and the World English Bible a Byzantine Priority translation, I see not one shred of difference in the meaning of the text at all. So this is why I dont lean toward any family of manuscripts at all. If the meaning of the text is the same, in my view, one is not superior to the other. We are just straining gnats and swallowing camels and dividing into little camps again. A footstool is under your feet. No difference in position. Blessings!
Agreed. It has been said over and over by many scholars of varying persuasions that except for the long ending of Mark, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the Johanine Comma that there are virtually no differences in the three main textual traditions, and that no doctrines of faith are compromised. (Except maybe drinking poison and snake handling.😉) I know scholars should study these things. But for 99% of Christians, it is an answer to a question that noone is asking. You are absolutely correct. The passage discussed here says the exact same thing, just in different words. ***This is not to criticize you or your works, brother Dwayne, it is just to say that I believe we can put full trust in each of the CT, BT, MT, and TR translations. Thanks.
@@kirbysmith4135 agree with everything you just said Bro. Kirby! I appreciate Bro. Dwayne as well. I learn alot from his videos! Even the NLT has the long and short endings of Mark in the text even though it does say they are essentially disputed verses.
5:00 Keep in mind though that the versification was created by Stephanus at the time of the Reformation. It has little to do with the ancient manuscripts, especially predating circa 1000AD Tanakh.
As an amateur programmer and an amateur translator, I feel seen. I've learned to take a deeeeeep breath when someone says "download my data and check it yourself." We live in a world with tools like XML, Google Docs, and Google Sheets. I've made it a personal policy to always make a plain Unicode text version of anything I do text-work wise available, to try to make an XML or highly structured XHTML version available when a little more structure is helpful, and to make a Google Sheet available as often as is prudent for my underlying data.
@@Dwayne_Green I know. And I'm humble, too. And it's a good thing I'm so humble. If I weren't so humble, I'd be darn near unbearable. The only thing that would keep me from being completely unbearable would be the fact that I'm so awesome. True story.
1), I think that it’s important to realize that the NA text needs to be read with the critical apparatus. From my perspective, the reason I like the critical text is because it has an apparatus. I can see the evidence for myself. With the byzantine text you don’t get that. 2) the major flaw in this argument comes from a reliance on the arbitrary verse numbers. We shouldn’t be comparing individual verses with one another. The unit of “verse” is an arbitrary number added after the fact. we should be comparing variants. 3) mark one of the most varied texts to do textual criticism on in the first place. Fwiw. It’s all over the place. Edit: forgot to add: great video :) very interesting topic
Appreciate the feedback! I did a bit of thinking about the 'artbitrariness' of the verse numbers and ultimately came to the conclusion that it really didn't matter. The point in the video is that 'small stretches of text' are not attested to in the mss tradition. I don't think it really matters weather we say "whole verse" or "within 20 words" (as an example). You could take the verse numbers out and do it based on a word count and it would still come out with similar results. As for determining how big or small the measurement should be, I would agree its a tough thing to decide, however, I did touch a bit on this in the video, and although the exact 'frankentext' size would be difficult to fix, I think 'single verse' is well beyond that 'fuzzy border'. As for the varied texts, I just picked one that looked like it would be easiest to explain, there are 105 of them at least, and Dr Robinson in the introduction doesn't claim its exhaustive, it would be interesting to see if the ECM has a similar issue in this passage. I would however agree with your point about the apparatus, our new edition will contain an apparatus with all the differences between all the printed edition, and a selection of 50 variants where we compare all the 9th century and earlier manuscripts. But it will not be anything like the apparatus in the NA text. Of course, for the last 150 years the focus has been on the Critical Text, so the Byzantine text is a bit behind on this, not only that, but significantly more mss to look at!
I'm no expert and know there are people with vastly more understanding on both the CT and Byzantine favouring camps so I'm not sure if this issue is a fatal flaw in the CT or a strength in trying to produce a composite recreation of what we think the original manuscripts for each book/letter said precisely. It's unlikely there is a 100% precise copy in existence so we rely on comparing many, all slightly different to different extents. I'm not sure it follows therefore that the precise wording of each verse must be preserved in at least one of the surviving manuscript copies, anymore that saying that the precise text of a whole paragraph, chapter or book must be preserved in at least one manuscript and be copied in total into the recreated version of the original. I do agree it's important from an academic perspective for transparency to have the CT verses identified that are themselves composites with no available manuscript with precise wording. In some respects I feel the issue is a bit like the role of science in authenticating an artwork versus connoisseurship (and I'm not knocking either entirely, they can/should work together). I'm glad at the end of day, particularly with the whole Bible available and with dynamic translations that most variants have no overall affect and may not even be noticeable by being absorbed by standard translation and then smoothed away in the interests of readability and understanding of overall thought. I generally take my NKJV to follow when people are reading from the NIV (or a mixture of versions) so I can see some of the bigger variants and translation differences but for a long time used the NIV at home and am currently using the CSB.
I bet that if we expand this to comparing single chapters instead of verses we’d find a Frankentext is the majority text. Why? Because you included non-translatable variants. Wouldn’t we also have to include every type of variant no matter how small?
I don't know why Pastor Truelove took down his RU-vid channel. I loved watching his videos. Also, I heard ATP Ask The Pastor call the The Critical Text a Frankenstein Text. Great video Pastor. 👍🏻
Seems like it kind of hinges on whether you think one particular text was inspired and protected, or all texts come from an inspired original-because if they all trace back to an original, than the interpolation of all manuscripts makes the most logical sense as each one may contribute a piece of the puzzle.
Sure, but when you have groupings of variants that have manuscript support, and groupings of variants that don't, why would we go to the groupings that don't? Alexandrinus is still fairly early, which is why I included the comparison at the end. I think it's a hard sale to suggest that we need to take each variant in isolation of the others.
@@ChancyC If the original text matched any current historical document there were be no need for "puzzling pieces" would there. You missed the original logical dichotomy. Basically the claim is "one manuscript perfectly preserves the original" and what basis should we believe that?
@@Dwayne_Green I really think logically it boils down to inspired transmission rather than originals. And that's just a different way to look at it. If only the originals were inspired, all current witnesses are relevant evidence.
@@Dizerner The rationale isn’t that “one manuscript perfectly preserves the original” The rationale is, any modern “piecing together of the puzzle” should be supported by SOME historical documentation. Otherwise you are shaving your puzzle pieces to make them fit. (To keep with the metaphor) The fact that the CT has some verses that are completely unique and completely unsupported by ANY manuscript found through all of history is a problem. You can brush it off if you want, but it’s a major and obvious flaw.
Unless there is one manuscript that fully matches the majority text, the argument is flawed. In fact, there are actually very few complete manuscripts of the Bible. I believe it is under 60. So whatever tradition you follow, it is a Frankenstein text.
The point is 'over short streatches of text'. I understand there's some difficulty with that, which I explained in a follow up livestream. The issue here is that the Critical text in numerous 1 verse segment have no manuscript support, but when you compare that the with byzantine textform, it's not just more than one, it's significantly more than one. Mark 12:36 -> zero manuscript support for the ECMs 8 choices together, the Byzantine textform, 50 mss support it and to top it off, ECM only has a fraction of the Byzantine mss in it's apparatus. this is not nothing. If you haven't watched the livestream, you'll understand the argument better for doing so :) you can catch it here: ru-vid.comHVsHaGg8MfE
Yes , this was useful and helpful. I’d really like to have this question posed to Dr Peter Gurry. So if I’m following correctly , this is only true as regards the CT edition in your hand ? I know that the NA 28 will not include all the variants but only those most likely to effect translation.
Yes, so the comparison is done using the witnesses and the apparatus from the NA27th edition. So it's possibley there *might* still be a manuscript out there somewhere that matches, however if you take a look at the witness list and its focus on the papyri and uncials, especially the older mss, it's a very slight possability.
@@Dwayne_Green Yes it does. The copy I have is a bit out of date. You'd want to follow it to the primary repository. However, I use Linux exclusively with it. I got rid of my dual boot and have run Logos on Linux now for several years. Caveat, though. It doesn't seem to work with the absolute latest version, so I don't update. You'll want a slightly older msi to install it.
A database can be in text format and contained within a document, such as a PDF. Robinson is correct to call it this. In fact, the most basic database is the CSV (comma separated values) database and that is a text file with one row representing one item in the database and its components separated by commas. An array is also arguably the most basic database and is structured similar to the CSV.
Okay. so.... TEEECCCHNNNNIIICCCLLYYY it is a database BBBUUUTTTTT a PDF is an exceptionally poor choice for a database and requires a tremendous amount of transforms to normalize the data and use it electronically!
@@Dwayne_GreenTrue, or a simple handful of lines of code to extract the data into an independent database. He also may have been using the term "database" as I often use it in my Biblical textual work to refer to useful information arranged in a consistent and useful manner, regardless where it appears. However, a better word for that is "data". If it is very well structured and extremely organized I call it a database still, but less structured I revert to data. It's human language. Terms take on a different life depending on who is using them and in what context and for what purpose. By the way, this is not my Biblical research profile I am writing from. The Rooted Word is my translation project using the Codex Vaticanus for OT and the Byz of Robinson for the NT. I welcome you to stop by. The translation in progress is offline currently after security upgrades on the website, but the YT channel has 1200 videos teaching the Scriptures. Hope to see you there. And I enjoy watching your videos here. Thank you for your work.
I am blown away at how similar and minor the differences are in the text. It saddens me to see Christians like you undermine the scriptures by making a mountain of a mole hill. I expected better from you.
What a sad comment. You have nothing better to do than attack the person. If you want people to take what you say seriously, then maybe focus on the argument he is presenting.
I wouldn't call this a 'mountain out of a mole hill', as much as I prefer the Byzantine text, I also recognize that many people have grown spiritually with their critical editions. It's not 'undermining' to discuss various text critical processes and share their resultant consequences. Are you suggesting that I should stop sharing my reasons for preferring a Byzantine text over a Critical text?
This video simply walks through, in logical and simple terms, a very real flaw in the modern critical text. That text is the underlying base for essentially all modern Bibles. Considering that issue a molehill is an odd stance. Also turning the discussion into a personal attack on someone who has spent a huge amount of time and effort into the study of the Bible and also preaching the Bible says more about you than him.
@@Dwayne_Green I am not suggesting you should stop sharing videos. I do think it is important for accuracy sake to convey how minor these differences are. We are not talking about completely different Bibles. This is so important. Unbelievers could watch your channel. I hope you would not want to be a stumbling block to their salvation by untruthfully expressing scriptural uncertainty. These debates and discussions should be had, but the tone is very important. This point should be amplified by the fact your position on the text is not shared with 99% of Greek NT scholars.
@@ChancyC Could this debate be had while expressing our textual certainty? This is of the utmost important. None of us would want to be the reason someone didn't accept Jesus because they thought there were multiple Bibles and textual uncertainty.
