Well done, guys.

Great video. 22 TR editions. Nestle-Aland 29 editions thus far and Byzantine Editions I know of Robinson and Pierpont and Farstad-Hodges. To be a onlyist on any manuscript family would be ridiculous. If you have a preference, fine.

Thanks so much for uploading the interview Dwayne.

As Dr. Maurice Robinson has convincingly argued, the Byzantine Text is the most stable text. Dr. Decker's approach only reinforces that conclusion, albeit indirectly.

The marginal note in the CP concerning the doxology at the ending of the Lord's Prayer is interesting. The editors say the doxology was a liturgical response by the people and this response, found in Greek Church lectionaries, eventually made its way into the NT text itself. The Latin Church, using the Vulgate, didn't have the doxology in her NT text but the people of the Latin Church have always recited the doxology as a liturgical response after the saying the Lord's Prayer together.

Yes ! I’ve been waiting to hear more from one of our own 1689 guys

Ooh-those comments in the TR editions' margins are super interesting! That might make a great paper in itself! And what do the prefaces of these editions indicate about the editors' view of preservation?

For me the remarkable point is not the differences between TRs but the perpetuation of oddities, if not errors. Erasmus' end of Revelation persisted despite manuscript discoveries. The (untranslatable) misprint from his only manuscript at Revelation 17:4 was still uncorrected in Scrivener 1894.

There's nothing quite like speaking out of both sides of one's mouth.

This is a very revealing interview. I wonder how staunch King James only defenders will react to this new information. This upsets the apple cart in a big way.

5:45 The Sermon on the Mount is actually Matthew 5-7.

Did you give us any major variants?

God’s word persevered through tens of printed editions of the Greek New Testament, just as it did through thousands of hand-copied manuscripts in centuries past. Of course there is a winnowing process as scribal or printer mistakes, for example, are caught, but this in no way hampers the perspicuity of his word. If there were no corrections or small variations in succeeding editions, there would be no cause to issue them. The point is, the funnel of transmission was narrowing, and the highest view of his word was held by his church, which faithfully performed the task of bringing the scriptures into the printed domain during its earliest years. This is most unlike academia’s post-enlightenment approach to the text today, as well as its ever-widening views of what constitutes scripture. The resultant uncertainty continues to grow and influence the modern church. Thanks for conducting and sharing the interview, Dwayne!

Instead of "putting on your TR hat" and hypothesizing what they'd say, why not just have a discussion panel with a TR advocate (a respected one, not just some guy on Facebook)? The goal should be to understand each other, not talk about one another in isolated silos.

Timothy Decker category: Category I: Major variants (“great significance”) This makes a mockery of textual criticism dealing with real major variants of great significance. Take Matthew 5:25 as an example, virtually unknown as a variant, I think they must have the second "deliver" in some TR editions(s). The apparatus shows it massively supported by Greek and Latin mss against Vat-Sin and the Also-Rans. σε παραδῷ omitted, which is barely translatable. Matthew 5:25 (AV) Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. If you are calling this a "Major" variant, of "Great Significance", your methodology is obviously fatally flawed, and only designed for FUD.

A very interesting video. I was completely zoned in through its entirety.

Sorry Dwayne, 7:05, we don't see it as a threat.

23:23 Decker is neither TR or CT, he is really "nuanced." Right... like that is all the world needs, more individualistic, build-a-bear, textual theory from someone whose lack of Latin would disqualify him from any translation committee from the 17th century.

The TR. God’s inspired and preserved word. Before rationalist skeptics invented modern textual criticism, there was NO idea in the church of separating inspiration and preservation. The Reformers and Puritans believed they had access to God's precise word in the original languages in the Received text.

AV TR and Byz people have been laughing at this "methodology" of "major variants" since Dwayne Green and Timothy Decker started peddling this nonsense. From an earlier comment on Facebook, slightly enhanced (how much time to spend on absurd argumentation?) ===== Granted, the omission of the Matthew 6:13 Lord's Prayer doxology would be a "Major" variant in terms of textual difference, but ... please ... it was simply left out in the Complutensian Polyglot in a somewhat confused deference to the Latin omission, using the lexicon history as an excuse. The CP was a wonderful edition, and can marginally be considered TR, but really, it can also be quite the irrelevant. Nobody in Authorized Version or Textus Receptus lands has cared about the CP error here for a long time. (e.g. see Burgon's wonderful section in "The Causes of the Corruption".) Somehow, I cannot take this pseudo-MAJOR variant methodology as of any consequence. ================================= Plus, these folks are clueless in not seeing that the Textus Receptus methodology was progressive, (and providential) with major improvements in the pathway from Erasmus to Stephanus to Beza to the AV. So, e.g. in Luke there is a "major" TR variant, when Theodore Beza (first in 1582, I believe) corrected the blunder in the Greek texts which had normalized on "their purification", and gave us the true text, which was preserved in the Latin, various versions and ECW (even in Greek.) Luke 2:22 (AV) And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; Thus the TR preservation and improvements were a process, over a century, not RANDOM, as implied by this faux tripe "methodology".

I'm sure he believes what he is saying, but the fact the editions he reviewed were supplied by Elijah Hixson leads me to believe he was seeking out confirmation bias. The variants he cited are very weak. I don't see none of them as major variants and finding variant's within the Textus Receptus is no threat to Confessional Bibliology, Textus Receptus people or King James people, because all acknowledge variations in the Textus Receptus tradition such as the omission of 1 John 5:7 in Erasmus first 2 editions and the reading of "her purification vs their purification in Luke 2:22 etc. The only type of TR people this would be problematic for are TR generalist and there are very few of those it's a niche position.

There may be 22 TR versions, but there must only be one that was correct, now lost, used by the AV/KJV translators and later recreated by Scrivener 😉