He sounds MORE LIKE a BYZANTINE prioritist! Continued discussion about the CT, Byz Text, and the TR. 

3:57 Dwayne, you make such an excellent point here. Since the Papryi wouldn't exist in the Greek world due to climate, to limit the data to only earlier manuscripts by necessity rule out the Byzantine manuscripts and favor Alexandrian readings. It is literally stacking the deck.

Brother Dwayne. I appreciate your channel very much. I have watched you, Tim Frisch, Mark Ward, Matthew Everhard your guest here, James White, Daniel Wallace, hours of John Ankerbergs show back in the 1990's on these issues. I have come to the conclusion not to be a manuscript only person, nor a translation only person. I think the Critical, Received and Majority text all bring benefits to the manuscript table. Why limit ourselves to one set of manuscripts or one translation? I have heard the Tyndale House Greek New Testament basically follows the Critical Text with some variations. I would like to see a Greek Text that is a compilation of the best of all these manuscripts. I hope CBGM may do this. I do agree with Everhard that manuscripts in the 1500's are probably too late. God has preserved his Word in these 3 Greek manuscript families. I am not smart enough to choose what I think is the best. We may yet discover more papyri that can shed more light on this. BTW, I am Pentecostal as well and attend a KJVO church. I am for retaining all verses in the text with a star or brackets next to the disputed texts. I personally love the NLT the best, but I also love the NKJV as well. I share verses daily also from the NASB 95, the CSB, the KJV and the 1599 Geneva Bible. Therefore, I am in no translation nor manuscript box. I benefit greatly from them all.

Great video

I think there's not enough attention by critics on the proto texts behind the ancient translations. For example, the Proto-Vulgate (a Greek text) is equally old (if not older) as Codex Sinaiaticus. Just because we don't have it, that doesn't mean we don't know anything about what it said. We know that it contained the long ending of Mark because Jerome was obviously looking at it when he wrote the long ending of Mark in the Vulgate. If we consider the Proto-Vulgate, Proto-Peshitta, etc. we don't have to give up either majority or antiquity.

Thanx, Gentlemen 🌹🌹🌹🌹

Your point about canon is a good one! Interestingly, one of my favorite TR advocates, Robert Truelove, makes a canonical argument for the TR. I can't explain it as well as he does, but he argues that the TR represents an agreed upon canonical shape of the text.

LOL I thought the same thing listening to Pastor Matt speak on this topic! I've always argued a Critical Text should take the Majority Text into account. Sounds like he agrees!!

There are multiple printed editions of the TR from that time period. The TR (and “Textus Receptus” is just a marketing blurb) WAS the critical text of the time. Our scholars are doing the same thing that they were doing, just with more data at their disposal.

Also I think your pushback about the pre-1000 majority idea is good. For some NT books we have almost no pre-1000 evidence, and there's no guarantee that the manuscripts that we have are good ones.

Now this is a subject that Pickering could definitely expound on

Sorry, not trying to spam the comments 😅 But one last thought-- as a TR guy I agree with Pastor Matt that the early manuscripts are a great apologetic witness, even if I think their text is inferior. Also, I do think Pastor Matt misunderstands the TR position, as many do, when he asks what our principles are for constructing a text. Kind of the whole point is that we aren't constructing a text-- it's the text that was preserved and passed down.

Textus Receptus is correct

Even though the Westminster divines did not have the “TR versus CT”debate in mind when they stated that the Scriptures were “kept pure in all ages”, still they were confessing that their text, which was the Textus Receptus, was the providentially preserved text. So I don’t see any problem with TR advocates using WCF 1.8 as a defense of the TR position.

Can't we just have both 😁

Dwayne, you’ve been educated beyond your capacity. Your “prioritist” counter-part is worlds ahead of you (and he hasn’t reached the top floor yet either).

I think the confessions of faith have everything to do with the papacy history not the critical text like you said. The critical text is thought by some to come out of the papacy later to tear down the byzantine text.

of course it was the text of the era "the Westminster Divines" had in mind when they composed their Confession... they would not direct the readers to a non-existent text or a text the common people did not have access to... the TR or editions of it was the "Common Text" of the day...

Anyone who's done work on the Westminster Assembly's interp of 1.8? Is it anachronistic?

I find him very balanced intresting argument 1 john 5 v7 is the support in Old Latin and Latin but more intresting is the masculine tense in three and witness a point raised by Gregory of nazianzen

Is there an english translation of the majority text?

The CT has no transmission history. If so, it is weak. We don't have the history.

A Trail of Evidence But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse: 200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25. 250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin) 350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.] 350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.] 350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione 398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism 415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ) 450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are: A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven" B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.] C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.] 500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.] 550 AD Old Latin ms r has it 550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.] 750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it 800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] 1000s AD miniscule 635 has it 1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin 1300s AD miniscule 629 has it 157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse 1500 AD ms 61 has the verse Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r. The Vaudois Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

it’s wrong to allow stuff found in waste baskets, ditches and worst place of all, the Babylon’s vatican library a hundred years ago without any historical evidence of origin smells. It’s obvious there is too many “I think” starts the sentences when referring to them.