I've been continuing to listen to the Word Magazine series on Wallace & Text Criticism, and I was wondering if you could clarify your own position for me a bit.
1. How exactly do you define "traditional text" or even the TR?
I am skeptical of the modern critical text because of its roots in the Enlightenment, rationalism, and skepticism toward Biblical authority and the doctrines of both inspiration and preservation. I am likewise skeptical of the canons of modern text criticism (such as the superiority of the lectio brevior) and modern confidence in the ability of text critics supposedly to reconstruct the original text.
I believe we can use all available resources better to understand the traditional text and its transmission/preservation. Thus far, I have not yet discovered a traditional text reading that I believe is inferior to alternative readings suggested in the Majority Text or Critical Text.
2.a. What are the criteria for making such a judgment?
We must also evaluate the internal evidence: How does this reading fit with the context, theology, and style of the larger work? Are there reasonable explanations for why the traditional reading might have been altered or changed? Is it reasonable to affirm the traditional text?