My biggest problem with Wilber Pickering is, reading his dissertation, he really don't address textual criticism per se.
He does, however, attack the methods, rather having us stay "in the dark" so to speak.
Here is what Pickering argues for, basically, he would discard any Alexandrian text because of the shorter text. (cf Pickering,
The Identity of the New Testament Text, pp. 79-83).
He says: "the fullness‘ of the Traditional Text, rather than a proof of inferiority, emerges as a point in its favor." Ibid pp. 83
Not once does he suggest that the shorter reading is at times to be preferred or that the Byzantine text-type contains shorter readings.
"Gordon Fee, who is widely recognized as a competent scholar in the field of textual criticism, has subjected Pickering's work to a close examination in a series of articles, and Fee's articles should be read by any student who has read Pickering's book. In my opinion, Fee shows that Pickering's arguments are badly flawed. This view of Pickering's work is also shared by the one scholar who might have been willing and able to defend it successfully, Maurice Robinson."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html
Funny also is the statement Pickering said in his article on Burgeon:
"God
has preserved the text of the New Testament in a very pure form and it has been readily available to His followers in every age throughout 1900 years."
https://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism#_ftn47
The article goes further to say:
"There are two fundamental problems with this view.
First, assuming that the majority text (as opposed to the TR) is the original, then this pure form of text has become available only since 1982.
48 The Textus Receptus differs from it in almost 2,000 places—and in fact has several readings which have “never been found in any known Greek manuscript,” and scores, perhaps hundreds, of readings which depend on only a handful of very late manuscripts.
49 Many of these passages are theologically significant texts.
50 Yet virtually no one had access to any other text from 1516 to 1881, a period of over 350 years. In light of this, it is difficult to understand what Pickering means when he says that this pure text “has been readily available to [God’s] followers in every age throughout 1900 years.”
51
48 Pickering states, “In terms of closeness to the original, the King James Version and the
Textus Receptus have been the best available up to now. In 1982 Thomas Nelson Publishers brought out a critical edition of the Traditional Text (Majority, “Byzantine”) under the editorship of Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and others which while not definitive will prove to be very close to the final product, I believe. In it we have an excellent interim Greek Text to use until the full and final story can be told” (
Identity, 150).
49 Metzger,
The Text of the New Testament, 100.
50 Cf., in particular,
1 John 5:7–8 and
Rev. 22:19.
51 To be sure, Pickering was unaware that there would be that many differences between the TR and
Majority Text when he wrote this note. Originally, his estimate was between 500 and 1,000 differences (“Burgon,” 120). But in light of the 2,000 differences, “purity” becomes such an elastic term that, in the least, it is removed from being a doctrinal consideration.
https://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism
Further, Maurice Robinson says:
"Certainly the
Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner. But the Byzantine Textform is
not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner."
Maurice Robinson, The Case for Byzantine Priority
One could say, he argues against Pickering saying:
"The Byzantine-priority principles reflect a "reasoned transmissionalism" which evaluates internal and external evidence in the light of transmissional probabilities. This approach emphasizes the effect of scribal habits in preserving, altering, or otherwise corrupting the text, the recognition of transmissional development leading to family and texttype groupings, and the ongoing maintenance of the text in its general integrity as demonstrated within our critical apparatuses."
Ibid, point 25
Pickering would have no part of this.
I don't see how anybody except the most serious of the KJV onlyists can take Wilber Pickering seriously.
God Bless
Till all are one.