An Introduction to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)

An Introduction to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method of text criticism. Hopefully, this can be of help to someone. If you have trouble following along then leave a comment, and I'll try to help out. Please note that all numerical figures given are highly exaggerated to help with comprehension, and the vast majority of real-world applications will involve much more subtle data sets. Also, note that the criticisms of the method found in this video are not original to me. I am simply trying to faithfully report on some of the kinds of objections that have been raised against the method.

If you find any errors in my presentation of the CBGM please leave a comment so I can correct it. Correction notes are in the 'footnotes' section and at the end of the description.

A Short Biblical Theology of Preservation: https://www.bitchute.com/video/LquO1WweVZyW/

-----------Footnotes--------------

('*' Indicates where a footnote should have appeared in the video but was left out by mistake.)

(3:00) In the literature, on the subject of contamination, a distinction is usually made between so-called "block mixture," which involves large uninterrupted sections of contamination, and "point contamination," where a scribe introduced readings from another text at his own discretion. I broadly mention these two phenomena, though not by name, in the video.
(3:50) A text from The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan, The Author's Apology for his Book. This example has a Pre-Genealogical Coherence of 66.6%.
(5:10) A good general video introduction to the traditional practice of text criticism can be found at: https://youtu.be/A1DwAzowoPc
(15:15) See: Tommy Wasserman, and Peter J. Gurry. A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-based Genealogical Method. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2017. p.114-115
See also: Peter J. Gurry. A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in New Testament Textual Criticism. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers, 2017. p.151-157
*(16:00) The example given was put forward by Dirk Jongkind in his paper “Textual Criticism of the New Testament and the Coherence Based Genealogical Method: Some Critical Remarks” which he delivered at the INTF colloquium in Münster on January 27, 2014.
(16:40) See: Robert Paul Wieland’s video criticisms of the modern text-critical canons: https://www.youtube.com/user/RobW0071/videos
(17:40) See also: Peter J. Gurry. A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in New Testament Textual Criticism. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers, 2017. p.147-149

----Resources for further study----

*Videos
A Biblical Theology of the Preservation of Scripture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjkAXCiKtsg
Daniel Wallace — The Basics of New Testament Textual Criticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doi8JxJOtgE
The Textual Criticism of the Bible - COMPLETE course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1DwAzowoPc&feature=youtu.be

*Books
Thou Shalt Keep Them - A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture: https://www.amazon.com/Thou-Shalt-Keep-Them-Preservation/dp/0974381705/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Thou+shalt+Keep+them&qid=1571683296&sr=8-1
A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1628371994/?coliid=I1M4IZ96VX2R6G&colid=2T2GUMTIDRD57&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method: https://www.amazon.com/Examination-Coherence-Based-Genealogical-Testament-Criticism/dp/900435431X/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Peter+Gurry&qid=1572502193&sr=8-3

*Channels
Robert Paul Wieland's Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/RobW0071/videos
Taylor DeSoto's Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYVwXzBdyvpXZqTCeGWpU9A
Agros Church's Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiuLphDeynSsdQz32XvyiBQ

---------Minor Correction Notes---------

1: At 2:30 "sheer" is misspelled as "shear".
2: At 15:16 and 18:05 "its" is misspelled as "it's".
3: At 16:40 and 17:40 “principle” is misspelled as “principal”.