Wilbur N. Pickering

This is one of the few books that can push me into an autistic meltdown.

I should explain. This book attempts to defend the so-called Byzantine text-form of the Greek New Testament. Defending the Byzantine text-form is a good and useful thing to do; in an era when textual critics (those who attempt to determine the original reading of the New Testament) all tend to produce similar texts, we need those who question the assumptions and try to present alternative proposals.

But those proposals should be honest. Some defenses of the Byzantine text-form are honest; the noble name of Maurice Robinson springs to mind. Pickering -- is not honest.

The proof of this comes from Pickering's so-called Appendix C, "The Implications of Statistical Probability for the History of the Text." This is an alleged mathematical model for the emergence of the Byzantine text form. This alleged mathematical model is [1] mathematically wrong; it misuses statistics (I say this as someone with a degree in mathematics); [2] empirically inadequate (it makes assumptions which it has no right to make); [3] irrelevant (it at no point interacts with any observational data); [4] not a true model (it doesn't predict anything at all!); [5] misinterpreted by Pickering anyway.

Garbage in; garbage out. Pickering believes in providential preservation. That is, arguably, as reasonable as believing in a particular Christian denomination (it's a faith belief, and everyone has faith in something). But just say "I believe in the Byzantine text." Don't try to fool people with false mathematics!… (altro)

If you hold to the Hort theory of textual criticism, this book will make you question some of your presuppositions. Relying on both the manuscript evidence and statistical probabilities, Dr. Pickering challenges the assumption that the oldest reading is necessarily best, and that the shortest reading is preferable. Unlike many in this camp, Dr. Pickering does not resort to emotional arguments, choosing to let the facts speak for themselves. My only critique is his use of the terms "textus receptus" and 'Byzentine family" interchangeably. His meaning is clear, even in these instances, but it could serve to prejudice the reader.… (altro)