White debating Maurice Robinson would be like a 4 year old boy trying to beat up Randy Couture, former UFC heavyweight champion and an MMA legend (not to mention being an NCAA wrestling champ back in the day).
James White is pretty smart you know.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
New Interview with Dr. Robinson
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
James White is pretty smart you know.
A lot of smart people are completely ignorant about textual criticism. Other smart people have studied textual criticism on their own, but gotten it completely wrong.
The problem is that so far no proponent of the CT has been able to overcome the primary fault of the eclectic methodology.
There is also though the truth that one cannot use the majority position as being the primary one without any question...
Still hold that regardless of how one views this issue, the Greek texts that we have either in MT/CT are pretty much the same as the origonals were, and that we can have confidence that either of them qualify to being the Word of God to us now, and that either text can be used as a basis to translate off from and producing a solid translation!
Not DA Carson!
And who has suggested elevating the Byzantine textform to unquestionable status? I must of missed that claim.
Where did you get your Ph.D./Th.D. which qualifies you to make a definitive determination regarding the relative merits of Dr. Carson's or Dr. Robinson's CV or textual position?
Pickering.And who has suggested elevating the Byzantine textform to unquestionable status? I must of missed that claim.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
No, he didn't. I have read "The Identity of the New Testament Text" several times and I can't find where he ever claimed his "New Testament According to the Majority Text" was above question.Pickering.
In fact, to arrive at the most reliable text certain questions have to be asked:
1. Antiquity - The age of the actual manuscript. This is not a conclusive text for a 14th century mss may be an accurate copy of a 3rd century mss, whereas a 6th century mss may be a poor copy of a 3rd century mss.
2. Consent - The number of other witnesses. Normal practice is to accept the word of the majority of witnessess against the different readings of a few, especially when those few do not agree with each other.
3. Variety - The universality of evidence. Manuscripts supporting a certain reading should come from a variety of geographical locations and be attested to be a variety of other mss, lectionaries, versions, and Patristics.
4. Respectability - The reliability of the witness. Manuscripts which habitually contain errors are poor witnesses.
5. Continuity - The unbroken tradition of a witness. Have the readings/mss in question been widely accepted by churches over a wide spectrum of time?
6. Context - The evidence of the whole passage. The nature of the text surrounding a questioned reading can cast much light on the issue. If the reading is surrounded by obvious errors, it is much less likely to be a true reading.
7. Reasonableness - The internal credibility of the text. If a text contains grammatical absurdities, or obvious geographical, scientific, or biblical errors, the reading is not likely to be reliable.
"Presumably the evidence is the same for both believer and unbeliever, but the interpretation of the facts depends upon the presuppositions used. Let the conservative Christian not be ashamed of his presuppositions—they are more reasonable than those of the unbeliever…. God has preserved the text of the New Testament…the Traditional Text is in the fullest sense of the term, just that." - An Evaluation of the Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament Textual Criticism,” p. 90.
The traditional text he speaks of is the MT. His presupposition is that God preserved the MT. So to question the MT is to question the autographs.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
I too have read Burgon, along with Tregelles, Scrivener, Hoskier and the more contemporary such as Hodges, Farstad, Bock, Sturz, and, of course, Robinson.
But nowhere do I see any statement that the Byzantine Texform is beyond question.
White debating Maurice Robinson would be like a 4 year old boy trying to beat up Randy Couture, former UFC heavyweight champion and an MMA legend (not to mention being an NCAA wrestling champ back in the day).
Kind of the same analogy to be used between you and ..... never mind
I must correct my earlier statement. I just got an email from Dr. Robinson wherein he quoted a mailing from Wilbur Pickering in which Dr. Pickering stated:
“The Original Text is the ultimate archetype; any candidate must also be an archetype—a real, honest to goodness, objectively verifiable archetype; there is only one—Family 35. I affirm that God used Family 35 to preserve the precise original wording of the New Testament Text; it is reproduced in my edition of the Greek Text. I affirm that God has preserved the precise original wording of the New Testament, and that we can, and do, know what it is. It is reproduced precisely in my edition of the Greek New Testament.”
So, it seems I was wrong. (Not the first time so I didn't break a perfect record.)
There does seem to be at least one person who sees his own Greek New Testament (Family 35) as being above question and an "objectively verifiable archetype" of the original manuscripts.I am not certain on what basis Dr. Pickering makes that assertion, as Dr. Robinson pointed out in his email to me, some of the variants within the Byzantine text form are so equally divided as to be a statistical toss up. (My wording, not his. He articulates these things much better than I do.) I wonder what infallible method Dr. Pickering used to choose between two equal probabilities?
So, McCree79, you were right and I was wrong. I tender my humble apologies for not doing my homework before posting.
PS: Dr. Pickering's "Family 35" Greek New Testament is available for download at http://www.bgnt.net/
Between me and a lot of people, including my son.
But it was hyperbole.
That's not what I meant. I meant between you and Comfort.
Why in the world would I want to debate him?
P. S. This sub-form is about Bible translation. That's an area of expertise as well as personal evangelism.
Not saying beyond question, but you and others have elevated it to being superior to the Critical texts, which if fine, but also suggesting that many textual critics do not regard it in that same fashion!
That's because of the Westcott/Hort presupposition that the Alexandrian was superior. Putting the Byzantine above the Alexandrian is based to some extent on the proven canon that the shorter reading is, in fact, not the best.
Think about it. Which textform is more likely to represent the original"
One that has been in constant use in churches for 1500 years (that we know of) or one that never existed until 1850 and after?