Dr. David Alan Black is my favorite Greek scholar. He’s down to earth, genuine. We were born in the same year, 1952. Him being a surfer must have something to do with cool personality. He sure talks fast, though.

Thank you for doing these interviews. I learn something every times. (And now I need to buy more books.)

I am in agreement with the final statement by Dr. Black, that we need to look at all the Greek manuscripts. God has preserved them all.

“… in the mouth of two or three witnesses” is a great principle to be applied to textual criticism. Awesome interview, Dwayne!

We must keep in mind the questionable validity of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Interesting discussion on Sturzian Method by Dr. Black.

Looking sharp, Dwayne!

One summer I took a class with Harry Sturz. It was thrilling.

Another piece of internal evidence that shows Paul wrote Hebrews is the use of episunagoge in 10:25, which is only used there and in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, and was likely borrowed from 2 Maccabees 2:7-8.

Great job getting David Alan Black Dwayne!! Question. So is the Sturzian view essentially a majority text opinion?

4:11 - Codex W (32) is essentially Byzantine in Matthew (c. 400) and the Peshitta Gospels are essentially Byzantine (late 300s). Really, Family Π, the Peshitta, Codex A, part of Codex W, the Gothic version, and the archetype of the Purple Codices N-O-Σ-Φ are all echoes of the early Byzantine text.

Compare Sturz's approach to these principled embraced in equitable eclecticism: 1. Textual criticism is a science, not an art. It is an enterprise of reconstruction, not creation. 2. The text of the New Testament should be reconstructed in its component-parts: the Gospels, and Acts, and the General Epistles, and the Pauline Epistles, and Revelation. 3. Relationships shown by patterns of readings in one part of the New Testament should not be assumed to exist in the others. 4. The genealogical descent of a group of manuscripts from an ancestor-manuscript other than the autograph is not assumed without actual evidence that establishes links among specific manuscripts (such as shared formats, shared marginalia, shared miniatures, or readings which conclusively show a historical connection). 5. Variants involving nomina sacra are placed in a special class, and receive special attention. 6. The assumption of preference for the shorter reading is rejected. 7. If a variant has very sporadic support from witnesses greatly separated by age and textual character, this may indicate that the variant was liable to be spontaneously created by copyists, rather than that it was transmitted by distant transmission-streams. 8. Exceptional intrinsic merit is required for the adoption of variants attested exclusively or nearly exclusively by bilingual manuscripts in which a Greek variant may have originated via retro-translation. 9. Conjectural emendations are not to be placed in the text. And: 0: No principle should be applied mechanically. 1. A variant which explains its rivals with greater elegance and force than it is explained by any of them is more likely to be original. 2. A variant supported by witnesses representing two or more locales of early Christendom is more likely to be original than a variant supported by witnesses that represent only one locale. 3. A variant which can be shown to have had, in the course of the transmission of the text, the appearance of difficulty (either real or imagined), and which is rivaled by variants without such difficulty, is more likely than its rivals to be original. 4. A variant supported by early attestation is more likely to be original than a rival variant supported exclusively by late attestation. 5. A variant which conforms a statement to the form of a similar statement in a similar document, or in the same document, is less likely to be original than a rival variant that does not exhibit conformity. 6. A variant which involves a rare, obscure, or ambiguous term or expression is more likely to be original than a rival variant which involves an ordinary or specific term or expression. 7. A variant which is consistent with the author's discernible style and vocabulary is more likely to be original than a rival variant which deviates from the author's usual style and vocabulary and the vocabulary which he may naturally be expected to have been capable of using. 8. A variant which is fully explained as a liturgical adjustment is less likely to be original than a rival variant which cannot be thus explained. 9. A variant which is capable of expressing anti-Judaic sentiment is less likely to be original than a rival variant which is less capable of such expression. 10. A variant which can be explained as an easy transcriptional error is less likely to be original than a rival variant which cannot be explained as an easy transcriptional error or as one which would be less easily made. 11. A variant which can be explained as a deliberate alteration is less likely to be original than a rival variant which is less capable of originating in the same way. 12. Ceteris paribus, in the Synoptic Gospels, a variant which does not result in a Minor Agreement is more likely to be original than a rival variant which results in a Minor Agreement.

Of the three 'text-types' (Byz, Wtn, Alexn) the Byz is the least one that stands alone. That summarises his main points and points to the ubiquity and thus the antiquity and the purity of the Byz 'text-type'.

Great discussion. Thanks much!

Could you give the info again about the composition of Mark’s gospel? I was aware of Papias’s comment about Mark being the “interpreter” of Peter. But I was not aware of the five “didaskalia” given before the ???? That’s the part I couldn’t make out. Additionally, what’s the source for that info? Thanks!

Dr. Black does not differentiate between God's active preservation of the text and His passive preservation of the text. God's passively preserves the wicked also and actively preserves His People. A quick point on Sinaticus and Vaticanus... I believe based on purity, one of these manuscripts needs to be thrown out as corrupt (or both) but it is clear based on the thousands of differences between these two documents (and not just simply spelling errors) that they cannot both be God's Word equally even though they are said to be of the same heritage (although their lineage is unknown) That level of corruption needs to be avoided. Perhaps this is why they are in such good condition since no one used them?

distinctively Byzantine readings - the Harry Sturz analysis - 150 in papyri Bing search