it is well passed time for a major publisher to give us a Byzantine text translation.

You put it well and carefully and I've been trying to say this for a long time to my colleagues..

Excellent! And so why would we trust the educated guess of a modern day scholar MORE than the consensus of the ancient, early church? Terrific point, Bro Dwayne!

Thank you for your work

Thank you, Dwane. It is good note that the Tyndale House greek new testament is a critical text that contains 0 conjectual emendations .

You state that the Critical Text folks argue for “some form” of Divine Preservation, but from what I have seen or heard, getting them to define what that means is about as easy as getting a TR/KJVO person to tell you which TR is the best representative of Divine Preservation! Thanks, Pastor Dwayne, for another enlightening discussion!

Hey brother Dwayne! Greetings from Patagonia, Chile. Big fan of #byzantine priority , thank God for your channel and ministry!

Always a blessing to hear from you. I share your view of the Byzantine text. If you make more videos like this, defending it, I think you'll help a lot of people get their bearings on this fascinating issue. God vless you, and God bless his Holy and Eternal Word!

I tend to agree 😁Thank you Pastor Dwayne. ✝

Thanks for the support of the Byzantine text, as they say the "cream rises to the top". 3 Times Israel was instructed to build an alter of stones to the Lord ( Dt. 27:5, Ex 20:25, Josh 8:31 ) but they were forbidden to wield iron on the natural rock (else it be polluted), granted they were tasked with building the alter but there were restrictions. Conjectural emendation may be the iron "lifted up" against the stone polluting the "altar" or the pure word.

Excellent argument

I'm no fan of conjectural emendation either, but this is more of an argument against certain critical text advocates than the critical text position itself. The Tyndale House Greek New Testament does not contain any conjectural emendations. Dirk Jongkind is one of a number of critical text advocates that oppose conjectural emendation. It may be an argument against the TR, since its various editions include a few conjectural emendations. However, I don't know that its advocates are opposed to saying that God lead Erasums or Beza to the original reading that had been lost from the manuscript tradition. Their faith rests in the printed text, not the manuscripts behind it. As much as I would love to oppose all conjectural emendations on theological grounds. I don't believe I can do this IF one defines "conjectural emendation" as strictly as you just did. I cannot avoid believing that there are a few places in the Old Testament where the original reading is not found in any extant Hebrew manuscripts, but it found in one or more of the ancient versions. In particular, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that Saul was only one year old when he became king (1 Samuel 13:1) or that Ahaziah was both 22 (2 Kings 8:26) and 42 (2 Chronicles 2:22) at the beginning of his reign. I believe that the original readings of the NT are all found in the Greek manuscripts (I strongly opposes the conjectural emendations of the NA28 or the ECM), but I think in the OT, I have to allow for the possibility that, on rare occasions, God allowed the original wording to be preserved in a translation rather than in the original language manuscripts.

🎯Amen!😎👍😊🙏📖Blessings!

Yes!

I seem to recall a video you did some time ago with Dr. Robinson where he outlined another problem with the CT being that by its nature it has a 'Frankenstein's monster' thing going on. My understanding (by memory) was that because the CT is built on a word by word basis, when you go and grab 10, 15, 20 words in a row, that combination of words in that position is completely new and unlike any historical document on record. I may be misunderstanding or misrepresenting that point perfectly, but I remember thinking at the time that that whole concept also causes major problems (at least for me) when thinking about preservation.

I would be interested if you made a video on your exact stance on preservation. Like is it that we have the exact words in the main text of a printed edition, or is it that it is the reading above or below the line of a printed edition, or perhaps a 3rd option?

@Dwayne_Green if preservation is through the Greek manuscripts, does it follow that there must always be people who know Greek well enough to read printed texts from those manuscripts?

If we are going to tout the Byzantine Priority, we need more translations with BP, but as far as I know there are only 2 in English. Almost all translations are CT and TR of which I love the NLT and the NKJV.

Help me a little here. Is it conjectural emendation if it based on a version that also, supposedly, was based on Greek manuscripts at some point? I would assume true conjectural emendation would be reliant on no evidence at all. Here, there is evidence, though it is outside of the original language of the New Testament. Couldn't it be possible that an early version may better preserve an original reading than later Greek manuscripts, or is that not possible? Thanks!

I am somewhat between the Nestle Aland and the Byzantine Text. Although I would disagree with Scrivener on some readings I agree with much of what he said. “By collecting and comparing and weighing the variations of the text to which we have access, it aims at bringing back that text, so far as may be, to the condition in which it stood in the sacred autographs” I believe we have enough Greek manuscripts to avoid conjectural emendations. I don’t believe we are bound by the editorial decisions of the Nestle Aland, or ECM, or any printed edition, English translators think they are either, compare ESV at Acts 13:33. In fact the NASB95 sometimes would go with a Byzantine reading from the apparatus, I’ve noticed a few at Hebrews 3:6, 4:2, and the one at 11:37 which is still in the 2020 and LSB. What I do believe is that which Richard Bentley said. “The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all.”

👍👍

Have you done any research considering the Latin Manuscripts like Codex Vercellensis ?

You really need to provide a definition of what you mean by preservation. I know there are different Aryans in the definition, but you would need to provide yours. Robinson says that the idea of preservation rules out conjecture emanation you might wanna quote him on that too.

My only issue with these examples is that they are supported by some manuscript evidence, even if the evidence is in the ancient versions. They are "conjectural" in the sense that we're carefully guessing at the exact Greek word equivalent of an extant non-Greek reading, but they are not coming from nowhere. Contrast that with the KJV's most infamous emendation, Beza's modification of Revelation 16.5 to read "who is and who was and who is to be" (NKJV). That's a reading that our dear Calvinist scholar introduced purely on similar phrasing in 1.4, 8 and 11.17: "who is and was and is to come."

Thanks for this. I have a question. Why do critical text advocates ignore quotes from the majority text by church fathers which clearly date earlier than the oldest existing manuscripts?

Doesn’t Robinson say that the TR isn’t from the Byzantine text? He says this in a recent interview with Ward/ Berg… did I understand him correctly? I always understood that the TR was from the BT

Is there a printed version of the Majority Standard Bible,I kinda like that reading

I know of no text critic today who would argue that the Byzantine text as we find it promulgated in the minuscules is the result of a concerted fourth-century recension. Peter Gurry Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog

Huh! I find it fascinating how much Critical Text Land looks like Germany! 😂

Nestlé is just for chocolate not for a Greek text...LoL

Being a TR advocate, I prefer the Majority text over and above the Critical text (by far) I also recognize that the TR comes from Antioch and the Byzantian line of text (it is the right line for several reasons rightly laid out in your videos) however, it makes an error, a very similar error to the Critical text advocates, that is that it prioritizes the scientific method above God's Word. You may say that this is not the case but at bottom, God's Word simply becomes a numbers game to the Majority text advocates. Although it's nice to be on the right side of the greater number of greek manuscripts, but mere numerical considerations cannot bring us to God's Word. There is no room for faith. There is no room for lesser represented texts ie. 1John 5:7. There is no room for preservation in all its aspects (not just a one-dimensional numerical approach). Again, I am very grateful for the work that the majority text guys because it really helps people understand the lineage of Scripture and that the evidence is really on our side (both majority and TR to a greater or lesser extent). I understand the topic is much more nuanced than this and further discussion would need to be had to flesh it all out but i believe that Majority text is a powerful tool that can be used but it lacks much and misses the mark slightly on preservation. The Bible never said that the preservation of Scripture would be a numbers game.

You can be sued for quoting that speech. Check the laws.

The Byzantine manuscripts are olderr and most certainly not "better" worse if anything though all our manuscripts have been corrupted in some way. ACTS 15:24 is a prime example of a textual variant between the NIV(Alexandrian manuscripts) and the KJV (byzantine manuscript) where a corruption is shown in the KJV by adding that gentiles arent requred to follow the law of Moses.