Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: "Majority Text"

Expand Messages
  • Carlton Winbery
    Maurice Robinson wrote; ... You have clearly differentiated your position here from that of Hodges and Farstad. Your statement about biblical
    Message 1 of 1714 , Feb 12, 1996
    • 0 Attachment
      Maurice Robinson wrote;
      <omission>
      >Class 2: Majority Text Proper advocates
      >
      >One definite demarcation line is now crossed: the remaining two groups are
      >not tied to the KJV or the TR in any manner whatsoever, even though some
      >of their works are misquoted and misapplied by KJV-Only distortionists.
      >
      >(4) Within the "Majority Text" camp proper one finds Zane Hodges and
      >Arthur Farstad, who produced the Majority Text Greek NT edition. These
      >are joined by Wilbur Pickering who wrote "The Identity of the NT Text"
      >volume some years back -- a work which was long on critique of the W-H
      >theory but quite short on "majority text" theory.
      >
      >A basic contention of this group is theological: the text found in the
      >greatest number of copies is that which God providentially preserved.
      >Pickering alleged from this that virtually all other variant readings were
      >the result of Satanic and heretical activity, since scribes were (in his
      >opinion) uniformly "orthodox" and had a "high view" of Scripture,
      >including its inerrancy.
      >
      >The theological argument in Hodges and Farstad is not so explicit, but is
      >still mentioned as an underlying factor in their theory (Hodges and
      >Farstad sacrifice much of their theory, however, in Revelation, where they
      >follow stemmatics and end up favoring a sub-group (Ma) comprising only 20%
      >of the known MSS, thus giving rise to the anomaly that their "majority
      >text" in Revelation at times has only 20% support as opposed to the "true"
      >80% majority. *:-)
      >
      >(5) The Byzantine-priority group (which I claim to reflect) does not begin
      >nor end with a theological agenda regarding providential preservation
      >(i.e., if such occurred, then all MSS of all texttypes reflect that
      >preservation), nor is "number" a primary factor. Rather, the question of
      >whether the Byzantine text as a texttype might be more likely to reflect
      >the autograph text is the primary question.
      >
      >This approach is coupled with a detailed historical transmission
      >hypothesis and takes into account all the relevant data, as well as
      >performs praxis by utilizing standard external and internal criteria of NT
      >textual criticism (with modifications befitting the transmissional
      >hypothesis).
      >
      >William Pierpont and I have produced our own edition of the
      >Byzantine/Majority Textform in both printed and electronic form (text
      >only; no apparatus), utilizing the data from the Von Soden, Tischendorf,
      >and the Nestle26-27/UBS3-4 apparatuses. Even if one does not share the
      >same hypothesis, our edition provides a distinct Byzantine text which is
      >not abandoned at any point for extraneous reasons such as in that of
      >Hodges/Farstad.
      >
      >It is true that most if not all advocates of the true "Majority Text" or
      >"Byzantine-priority" hypotheses (groups 4 and 5 above) reflect a
      >theological conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy. This
      >position does not, however, dictate our choice of variant readings, nor
      >does it imply any desire to make the resultant text match the TR or KJV
      >or any other translation.
      >
      >I have presented a number of papers to the Evangelical Theological Society
      >on aspects of Byzantine priority, and have not made any conclusions which
      >were imposed by inerrantist or "preservationist" beliefs (I originally
      >held to a "reasoned eclectic" position, and only changed that view after
      >a careful consideration of all the evidence and questioning the theories
      >currently in vogue, thanks to the help and guidance received from my
      >text-critical mentor, Kenneth W. Clark).
      >
      You have clearly differentiated your position here from that of Hodges and
      Farstad. Your statement about biblical inerrancy is interesting. I do now
      wish to open that can of worms again on this list or b-greek, but I suspect
      that it plays a greater role than you allow, but I must read your work and
      examine your textual decisions before I make such assertions. I had hoped
      that when I finished Hodges/Farstad that I could settle back into my easy
      eclectism and be happy with my new "Textus Receptus" (UBS-N-A) and just
      read the NT.
      Grace,

      Carlton L. Winbery
      Prof. Religion
      LA College, Pineville, La
      winberyc@...
    • Julian Goldberg
      The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law, Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text with vowels and
      Message 1714 of 1714 , Feb 4, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law,
        Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text
        with vowels and cantillation marks in one complete compact black hard
        covered volume which measures 12 cm x 19 cm with over 1360 pages that
        have been arranged according to traditional chapter and verse divisions
        along with larger Hebrew letter printing and thicker paper pages for a
        volume of this size. Each book is $ 20.00 (U.S.) postpaid ($ 15.50 for
        the book plus $ 4.50 for postage) and can be ordered directly from:

        Julian Goldberg, 260 Adelaide St., E., # 215, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
        M5A 1N0.

        Thanks.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.