Why this EXPERT changed his mind! Byzantine Priority: Interview with Dr. Maurice Robinson.

The Case for Byzantine Priority: jbtc.org/v06/Robinson2001.html
Affiliate links below
Rethinking Textual Criticism amzn.to/3Ynx5IV
Analytical lexicon: amzn.to/443dGhz
Jay Green Interlinear: amzn.to/445wbCo

[@coreymihailiuk5189]

A fascinating and I believe a very important interview. Thanks for inviting Dr. Robinson on to speak about this topic.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@kuehling83]

Stephen - THANK YOU for posting this interview. I'm diving deeper into this stuff - the first 10 min of introduction and Dr Robinson's telling of his own background helped summarize a lot of things I was unclear on! Much appreciated!

[@markmarkster]

The eclectic text approach does appear flawed versus the text families approach. Detailed interviews like these are greatly appreciated

[@SirChristoferus]

I often find that early translations and patristic citations tend to lean towards the Byzantine text, with other text-types occasionally popping up from time to time.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

There is more material coming from Dr. Robinson, Lord willing. And we will address some of this.

[@SirChristoferus]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Personally, I think it’d be a very worthwhile endeavor to manually examine each textual variant, however small it may be, and produce a Greek text that aligns equally with early Greek manuscripts, early translations, and patristic citations - a text whose timeline spans all the way from the pen of Mark to the scriptoriums of Byzantium. That’d give us a pretty good idea of exactly what the early church was reading as a collective whole - a snapshot of the apostolic and patristic era.

[@ShoelessPoimen]

I’m so grateful for this interview.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Glad you watched!

[@vusumzingceke6518]

People who do not care about textual criticism clearly do not care about Bible exposition which is preceded by exegesis, and exegesis which is preceded by hermeneutics. So, this is my way of saying that, you are doing great work and I absolutely love your guest.

[@LoveForTheWord]

Stephen, Great to meet you at the Greek & Hebrew for Life conference. Thanks for telling me about this interview and thanks for hosting Dr. Robinson!

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Great to meet you too!

[@helgeevensen856]

what a blessing to have him on... to listen to the background with K.W.Clark and on... Dr Robinson has done so much good TC work... and very interesting it started with Clark... thanks... 👍👍

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I did feel honored to speak with him.

[@paulakahn9384]

Super excellent! Thank you so much for posting this!!

[@kimstoliker2111]

Thank you for this video. In the school I attended we were taught that the critical text never actually existed because Westcott and Hort found two texts that were not used by bible believing churches. Doug Stoliker

[@blackeyedturtle]

My sincere thanks for producing and posting this extremely informative video. Something about the Alexandrian sourced papyri and mss I always discerned as being off the mark. I now have a good source of reliable scholars to read and study, thanks to Dr. Maurice Robinson.

[@jwatson181]

Maurice rejects the KJV and the TR. I am glad this channel has endorsed that view.

[@blackeyedturtle]

@@jwatson181 At no point in this video did Maurice say. "I reject the King James Version as an accurate English translation, and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, as a reliable Greek text. To the contrary, Dr. Maurice Robinson considers the Byzantine family of text (from which the Textus Receptus is derived) more reliable than the Alexandrian, from which the Critical Text - Nestle-Aland is derived. I perceiveth thou hath a very convoluted and selective sense of hearing. Thou seemeth more concerned with attacking the value of the King James as a translation, than concerned with supporting the fact that God hath promised to preserve His words. And that seems like a strange adversarial approach, for one who claims to believe in Jesus as The Messiah.

[@jwatson181]

@blackeyedturtle He just did a video with Mark ward outlining his view. The truth shouldn't hurt your feelings.

[@gastie1]

This was a great video. I really enjoyed the discussion and Dr Robinson's insights. Looking forward to the rest of it. Thanks for this!

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

More to come!

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

Thank you, Gentlemen. Recommended by Dwayne Green.🌹🌹⭐🌹🌹

[@RGGifford]

I'd be interested to hear if Dr. Robinson had any thoughts about why there hasn't been a mainstream widespread Byzantine Priority translation and until fairly recently there really hasn't even been any.

[@sametsahin5024]

I have the same question. I think continuity argument should naturally include widespread translations.

[@HickoryDickory86]

It's not exactly "mainstream," but the Greek/Eastern Orthodox New Testament (EOB) is a translation of the Patriarchal Greek New Testament of 1904, which is a Byzantine Text. The Patriarchal Text is the "received text" in the truest sense of the words (more so, I would argue, than the Textus Receptus) as it was based on over 100 lectionaries (from Mount Athos, Constantinople, Athens, and Jerusalem), giving a primary witness to the text as it was actually received by the Church and used in her worship. And it was originally published by commission of Patriarch Constantine V in response to the craze of eclectic textual criticism taking hold of Europe at that time. Just want to throw that in as an historical nugget since it seems a lot of people don't really know about the Patriarchal Text if they're not actual Greeks and/or Orthodox.

[@AnHebrewChild]

⁠@@HickoryDickory86I find it so odd that the newly-released Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James for the NT instead of the translation you cited) I was SO very disappointed as I was expecting a distinct translation like the EOB in the NT Any ideas why they would opt for the NKJV? Very puzzling...

[@HickoryDickory86]

@@AnHebrewChild It's mainly because the Orthodox Study Bible's pioneer, Fr. Peter Gillquist, was an editor for Thomas Nelson at the time of its inception, and St. Athanasius Academy (which he helped found as an arm of the then-Evangelical Orthodox Church) partnered with Thomas Nelson for its production. And logistically, the Study Bible (NT and Psalms published in 1993; full Bible in 2008) preceded the completion and publication of the EOB NT (2011). And perhaps also because Thomas Nelson are loathe to publish anything they don't own the copyright to. In fact, the Old Testament in the Orthodox Study Bible is more or less a revision of the NKJV Old Testament for the Jewish/Protestant Canon books, and of Brenton's for the Deuterocanonical books not in the NKJV. In fact, the original Study Bible in 1993 was criticized by Orthodox clergy for using the straight NKJV Psalms. Because of this, they edited the NKJV OT text to bring it in line with Rahlfs' Septuagint for the complete Bible in 2008. I am sad that the EOB project is dead (apparently due to lack of support), because I would have loved for them to complete the whole Septuagint (a planned thorough revision of Brenton's). I also would love for the Orthodox Study Bible to replace the NKJV NT with the EOB NT, but sadly I don't see it happening. Maybe someday I and a few others can pick up the EOB mantle, finish the Septuagint, and create our own Orthodox study Bible. I would like to see the creation of a Byzantine Majority Septuagint first, though, since even the OT text published by the Church of Greece today is more or less just a light revision of Rahlfs'.

[@hefinjones9051]

Curiously enough I had just read the fuller and the shorter versions of that essay in the last week or so. Even though I don't agree with him it is a delight to see him in action and to hear his perspective.

[@eternallogic6394]

Why would you agree with the critical text and it's Frankenstein verses that have no manuscript support?

[@hefinjones9051]

@@eternallogic6394 someone passed on a copy of the list of 105 frankentexts and TBH the first few that I reviewed were very unimpressive and consisted of little more than itacisms and placements of articles. Also dependence on Swanson's text rather than the ECM is a weakness.

[@SolaScriptura21]

Would you happen to have a list of books on textual criticism for beginners?

[@yahrescues8993]

If you don’t get any other response, I would recommend reading John Burgon, particularly ‘the revision revised’

[@CornerTalker]

6:40 Burgund. Miller, Edward. Scribner.

[@EJ_7715]

What verse is pieced together? Can you please mention these details so we can follow?

[@yahrescues8993]

They are in his article of the ‘case for Byzantine priority’ I’m quite sure Matthew 19:29 is.

[@barrygladden]

Please direct me to where you stand on this matter... no links in the notes.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I appreciate your curiosity! My stance on this matter is essentially Byzantine Priority with a few qualifications.

[@sthelenskungfu]

Is there any Byzantine manuscript that is considered the best in the family?

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Not to my knowledge. Byzantine theory values the collective witness of the entire tradition.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Family 35 is the only significant line of transmission, both ancient and independent, that has a demonstrable archetypal form in all 27 books; plus a totally new critical apparatus that gives a percentage of manuscript attestation to the variant readings, and that includes six competing published editions. For this second edition the accents and diacritical marks have been added to the text. Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD The Greek New Testament According to Family 35 by Wilbur N. Pickering ThM PhD (Author)

[@rossjpurdy]

Only 6% is at issue???

[@wordforursoul787]

Hey have u heard of the Simplified KJV I heard it is a better update to the KJV than the NKJV and also the Majority Standard bible

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I’ve seen it advertised. I don’t know much about it.

[@wordforursoul787]

Hey what are ur thoughts on the WEB bible is it a accurate translation

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I thinks it’s a very reliable translation

[@Mmchanb]

As someone who reads Greek daily, I find they are all flawed including the WEB, but the KJV/NKJV do a better job than the rest (in my humble view).

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@Mmchanb where do you find it flawed ?

[@Americanninjaman]

​@BiblicalStudiesandReviews A video on your opinion of the WEB would be interesting. I believe it's the only Majority text in print and I really like that it's copyright free.

[@Mmchanb]

As with all translations, the flaws are numerous. It’s simply impossible to literally translate between two languages, and the differences in grammar of Greek and English make it even more so. I don’t mean to denigrate any translation by admitting that fact, however. If you’re interested in learning Greek, I can heartily recommend Bill Mounce’s “Basics of Biblical Greek” as a great starting point.@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

[@jamessheffield4173]

Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?

[@AnHebrewChild]

True. Regarding Reasoned eclecticism: Finally brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course and be glorified, even as it is with you: *and that we may be delivered from **_unreasonable_** men:* for all men have not faith. Not every professing Christian actually has faith. Lack of faith leads to calling unreasonable thinking, 'reasonable.' By this I'm not making any judgment on any individuals, just a general observation. be blessed

[@AnHebrewChild]

I should add: due to our Lord's words in Mat13:24ff as well as John6:12 I tend, by principle, toward a FULLER, LONGER reading. This leads inevitably to the words of the Byzantine & received. On the same principle, side note, I tend toward a broader "canon." I'm happy with my KJV with apocrypha (in essence this is the Greek Orthodox 80 book bible) :] Anyway, out of all the comments on this video.. I really really appreciated yours. Thanks for what you wrote.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@AnHebrewChild And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; 39 Articles of Religion

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@AnHebrewChild Thanks. Blessings.

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@jamessheffield4173 are you Anglican? A big thanks to your church for producing the Authorised KJV! Very cool. Blessings to you as well.

[@robwagnon6578]

Amen y'all I kind of got the feeling I'm still kind of a white belt when it comes to studying these things but to me it seems like the critical text is often used man's ingenuity man's science to cut and paste together and then call it close to the inspired? Plus I don't like how the critical scholars use the phrase more reliable or older manuscripts It sounds like they are being critical with other scholars but not with themselves!!

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I have another video planned on this topic which I hope will appeal to a broader audience. It should be coming soon. This one gets pretty deep into the woods. I’m hoping that will be a super light introduction

[@SolaScriptura21]

Is there a modern bible that isntranslated from the byzantine text?

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Yep here is one you’ll want on your shelf! www.amazon.com/Text-Critical-English-New-Testament-Byzantine/dp/B0BCD849S5/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=22H85C4SX07HZ&keywords=adam+boyd&qid=1693105397&sprefix=adam+boyd%2Caps%2C132&sr=8-1

[@SolaScriptura21]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews thank you, grace and peace in our Lord

[@hermes2056]

Don't the early church fathers not have the Byzantine text at all? I just find the frankentext objection silly.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Here is the objection about the church fathers addressed: Dan Wallace’s BEST objections against the Byzantine Text (Part 1) kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqrWqJyegaabaa8

[@hermes2056]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews is it just him poisoning the well?

[@hermes2056]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews yah I would find his argument compelling if he 1. Didn't defer to Burgon. He's literally ignoring about five decades of patristic scholarship. 2. Critical text adherents aren't arguing that the Alexandrian manuscript is identical to the autographs. 3. If he interacted with scholarship from the past century. I'm not sure why Byzantine text people always bring up wescott, and hort. I always forget he thinks the long ending of Mark is original.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@hermes2056 I don’t think so.