Being CRITICAL of the CRITICAL TEXT omission of MATTHEW

In this video we'll be looking at the Critical Text defense of the removal of Matt 23:14 in the Modern English Bible translations. We'll be taking a look at Bruce Metzger's commentary as well as some rebuttals by James Snapp Jr. and Dr. Jeff Riddle. We'll also be taking a look at some New Testament manuscripts as well as one of the worst internal arguments for Matt 23:14's removal. Is the Critical Text omission better? or is the Byzantine Text and Textus Receptus reading correct?
#TextualCriticism #ByzantineText
~~~ RESOURCES ~~~
Bruce Metzger's Commentary on the New Testament:
archive.org/details/textualco...
James Snapp Jr's article on Matthew 23:14:
www.thetextofthegospels.com/2...
Dr. Jeff Riddle ‪@wordmagazine‬'s article on Matthew 23:14:
www.jeffriddle.net/2023/02/wm-...
~~~ CONTENTS ~~~
0:00 Metzgers Commentary and the his two arguments
2:14 What do we weigh more when deciding readings?
2:51 James Snapps response to this verse
4:19 How the scribe couldve made a mistake in copying this verse
6:02 Jeff Riddle and his article on homoio-arcton
7:08 The Manuscripts
8:52 Looking at Codex K, or Codex Cyprius
9:28 Codex W, or Codex Washingtonianus
13:30 Included by these manuscripts
14:22 Excluded by these manuscripts
17:36 Is Metzgers commentary made before major discoveries?
18:43 Concluding the evidence
20:17 Bad internal evidence arguments
23:42 Internal evidence cant have a lot of weight

[@billcovington5836]

I’m so glad you’re doing this series; keep it up and we’re going to get our whole Bible back.

[@jamessheffield4173]

The presupposition is how did the NT evolve, not how it was preserved.

[@hefinjones9051]

A couple of comments: - you do kinda skip over the fact that it is absent from a number of versions also. The versional evidence is extrememly mixed. - the fathers also present a mixed picture on this one. - it's missing an Eusebian section number and canon reference ... which is not 100% probabtive but suggestive. (It requires a bit more of a dive into the way the Eusebian numbers work in this part of Matt). - clearly it s an early variation. Though I don't think it is straightforwardly an Alexandrian omission or a Byzantine addition.

[@hefinjones9051]

On W GA 032 .... you were wondering whether it was bleed through that accounted for those markings. I'm wondering if rather it is ink from the facing page that has stuck onto the page Matt 23.14 is on. Have a look at the previous page. Not checked it out carefully enough but it's a possibility.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Not sure why I didn't think of that! The same thing happened with some of the 'distigmai' in vaticanus... Some of them were impressed on the page from the wet ink on the other side of the manuscript.

[@lloydcrooks712]

Really shocked that modern textual critics follow the shorter reading following James Royce book work on papyrus and Juan hernandez work with codicies

[@patrickjames1492]

23:14 could have been omitted because of the identical opening words, but the same phenomenon could have resulted in the omission of any of the 7 or 8 woes. Do we have any manuscript or patristic evidence of omission in this way of any other of these woes?

[@Dwayne_Green]

Yes, BUT the second of the 8 woes makes the most sense given the 'two places' in the manuscript. I might expand on this a bit further in a later video.

[@StrategicGamesEtc]

You guys have got to stop making these Byzantine Priority videos with (what appear to be to me) careful arguments which don't resort to calling Westcott and Hort basically Satan! /jk At this rate, you and Biblical Studies and Reviews are going to convince me of Byzantine Priority by the time your all's edition of the Robinson-Pierpont comes out! (though I'll definitely buy a copy regardless)

[@rodneyjackson6181]

This is my problem. How do we know for sure it was omitted or added? Again, if the older manuscripts did not contain it does not mean it was deleted or omitted? We don't know whether added or not. We dont have any originals so we cant know for sure. Its speculation for or against this reading. This is primarily why I dont lean toward any particular text types.

[@bmanrobinson4532]

Rodney, research "The Simmonides Affair" and you'll know why exactly they where in the Bible in the first place. Your eyes will be opened, and it will clear up the confusion because God is not the author of confusion. I can send couple of links to your email only if you want them, but I've been studying this a lot, and It's clear to me what's gone on here.

[@eclipsesonic]

The one argument for the theory that it was added in later by a scribe for harmonisation purposes is that, if early scribes wanted to omit Matthew 23:14 from the oldest manuscripts we have available, then why did they keep in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47, which parallel Matthew 23:14? The only other plausible explanation is that a scribe accidentally omitted it when copying the manuscripts.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

​@@eclipsesonicsounds very plausible.

[@hayfieldhermit9657]

Without citing the DSS, how many Hebrew manuscripts support the reading of "they peirced my hands and my feet" in Psalm 22? Just to be clear, I support that reading.

[@billcovington5836]

I am curious where you got the 98% Byzantine super majority data from?

[@Dwayne_Green]

I got this number from Wilbur Pickerings F35 Greek New Testament, in the apparatus. If I'm not mistaken, this is likely one of the passages that had been fully collated in TuT so the number should be exceptionally accurate. At least at the publishing of Pickerings latest edition. I think I only counted 10 manuscripts that do not have verse 14, my assumption is that the rest do.