Congratulations Dr. Maurice Robinson!

[Greektim]

Keep studying until you come to the eternal verity of Byzantine Priority

It's funny, b/c I still am not so convinced on certain textual matters like Dr. Black. But his influence on internal evidence has been pretty substantial for me. Internal evidence is corroborative but not probative.

http://www.daveblackonline.com/synoptic_problem.htm

 

[John of Japan]

All I meant was that SEBTS has an eclectic group of New Testament scholars. I even added a smiley face. I wasn't making a comment about a particular textual priority.

Yeah, I caught that. Clever!

 

[John of Japan]

It's funny, b/c I still am not so convinced on certain textual matters like Dr. Black. But his influence on internal evidence has been pretty substantial for me. Internal evidence is corroborative but not probative.

http://www.daveblackonline.com/synoptic_problem.htm

I'll be waiting for your complete conversion. Dr. Black is probably set in his ways, though. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[jonathan.borland]

Nice try. ; } I called Dr. Black an eclectic, but his own term is "reasoned conservative" on the lines of Sturz, who was not an eclectic. So if we follow Dr. Black's terminology (which I should have done), Kostenberg is the only eclectic, but there are two Byz. Pri. men and one fence sitter.

Dr. Black accepts both the Johannine Comma and the longer ending of Mark, which is unheard of in eclectics. So, if you'll allow me I'll take back my classification of Dr. Black as eclectic. (I used that term because someone had used it to me about him, I dis-remember who.)

Probably not the Comma (1 John 5:7-8) but the pericope of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11).

 

[Greektim]

Probably not the Comma (1 John 5:7-8) but the pericope of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11).

Right for Dr. Black. I still lean against the pericope adulterea as authentic.

 

[John of Japan]

Probably not the Comma (1 John 5:7-8) but the pericope of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11).

Oh shucks, you're right. I don't know why I can't keep the names for those two straight.

 

[John of Japan]

Right for Dr. Black. I still lean against the pericope adulterea as authentic.

Just wait until Dr. Robinson publishes his collation of all the mss. on the pericope adulterae.

 

[Yeshua1]

Right for Dr. Black. I still lean against the pericope adulterea as authentic.

Isn't the common consensus though that the woman caught in adultery story was indeed well known and attested to b many of the early cp probably really happened, but was church fathers, but that it was not seen as ever being part of the original text of the Gospel of the John?

So was regarded as being a real story/historical accurate, but that John did Not pen that down to be included into his Gospel, but was a lter on addition, fill in ?

 

[Yeshua1]

I'll be waiting for your complete conversion. Dr. Black is probably set in his ways, though. :smilewinkgrin:

is a difference between holding to an Electic viewpoint, or holding to the priority of the Critical Greek text?

Aren't they saying same thing?

And is the latest approach to say that the Alexandrian and bztd
documents date from about same time period?

 

[John of Japan]

is a difference between holding to an Electic viewpoint, or holding to the priority of the Critical Greek text?

Aren't they saying same thing?

Not exactly. "Eclectic" is a method of textual criticism wherein the Alexandrian is given priority as having the oldest mss. On the other hand, "Critical Greek text" is the Greek NT produced from the particular eclectic method of a few scholars.

And is the latest approach to say that the Alexandrian and bztd
documents date from about same time period?

The work of Harry Sturz, delineated in his book The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, proved that there are many Byz. readings just as old as the Alexandrian text, so his conclusion was that all text types should be considered equally in determining a reading. Some call this a conservative eclectic methods, but Dr. Black as mentioned above calls this the reasoned conservative method. It is not the same as the Byz. Priority method.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not exactly. "Eclectic" is a method of textual criticism wherein the Alexandrian is given priority as having the oldest mss. On the other hand, "Critical Greek text" is the Greek NT produced from the particular eclectic method of a few scholars.

The work of Harry Sturz, delineated in his book The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, proved that there are many Byz. readings just as old as the Alexandrian text, so his conclusion was that all text types should be considered equally in determining a reading. Some call this a conservative eclectic methods, but Dr. Black as mentioned above calls this the reasoned conservative method. It is not the same as the Byz. Priority method.

So this approach would be similiar to say the Niv, who used differing greek texts/sources , and took what they held to be the best one to go by?

The greek text would be in the greek somewhat llike what the Nkjv had done, using TR as main textual base, but also marking down MT/CT renderings in the margins?

And the apartutus of the Nestle-Aland Greek text, when it gives others textual varients, would be eclectic at that point?

 

[John of Japan]

So this approach would be similiar to say the Niv, who used differing greek texts/sources , and took what they held to be the best one to go by?

The greek text would be in the greek somewhat llike what the Nkjv had done, using TR as main textual base, but also marking down MT/CT renderings in the margins?

And the apartutus of the Nestle-Aland Greek text, when it gives others textual varients, would be eclectic at that point?

I'm not quite sure of what points you are making here, since you are referencing several different texts in response to two different methods of textual criticism, the eclectic and the reasoned conservative. But I'll try to answer.

The NIV is based on an eclectic text, slightly different from the Nestle-Aland/UBS (the same text in their latest incarnation). The NIV translators did their own eclectic textual criticism to choose some readings different from the critical Greek text.

The NKJV is based completely on the TR, regardless of what KJVO people say. The differences between the KJV and NKJV are almost always translation differences, not textual differences. The reasoned conservative method would produce a Greek text with the pericope adulterae and longer ending of Mark, but without key TR passages such as 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37. There would be many other more minor differences with the TR or the Byzantine Textform.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not quite sure of what points you are making here, since you are referencing several different texts in response to two different methods of textual criticism, the eclectic and the reasoned conservative. But I'll try to answer.

The NIV is based on an eclectic text, slightly different from the Nestle-Aland/UBS (the same text in their latest incarnation). The NIV translators did their own eclectic textual criticism to choose some readings different from the critical Greek text.

The NKJV is based completely on the TR, regardless of what KJVO people say. The differences between the KJV and NKJV are almost always translation differences, not textual differences. The reasoned conservative method would produce a Greek text with the pericope adulterae and longer ending of Mark, but without key TR passages such as 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37. There would be many other more minor differences with the TR or the Byzantine Textform.

Thanks for the clarrification!

So ther field of textual criticism appears to be in an ongoing flux, no standard 'this is it" state regarding how to view he original language texts, correct?

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for the clarrification!

So ther field of textual criticism appears to be in an ongoing flux, no standard 'this is it" state regarding how to view he original language texts, correct?

There is no consensus among textual critics, that is true.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no consensus among textual critics, that is true.

So there is really no sound reason to say that the ONLY Greek text good to use is the TR/MT/CT etc, as all of them have essentially what the Lord wrote to us in the originals?

More of a conviction/preference, then truth/facts?

 

[John of Japan]

So there is really no sound reason to say that the ONLY Greek text good to use is the TR/MT/CT etc, as all of them have essentially what the Lord wrote to us in the originals?

More of a conviction/preference, then truth/facts?

Sorry, now you're away from the OP. :type:

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry, now you're away from the OP. :type:

Just a follow up question...

is there a standard greek text that you use for translation into Japanese?

 

[John of Japan]

Just a follow up question...

is there a standard greek text that you use for translation into Japanese?

We are translating from the TR in line with our skopos. :type:

(For an explanation of "skopos" see about halfway down at: http://paroikosmissionarykid.blogspot.jp/search/label/Bible translation)

 

[Yeshua1]

We are translating from the TR in line with our skopos. :type:

(For an explanation of "skopos" see about halfway down at: http://paroikosmissionarykid.blogspot.jp/search/label/Bible translation)

Is japan still really hard nut to crack for jesus?

Asking, as we helped to support a missionary there, who in 3 + years of outreach saw 7 come to faith in Christ!

 

[John of Japan]

Is japan still really hard nut to crack for jesus?

Asking, as we helped to support a missionary there, who in 3 + years of outreach saw 7 come to faith in Christ!

After 150 years of Protestant missions, only 1% of Japanese claim to be Christian, including the Catholics and the cults (JWs & Mormons are strong). Compare that to most Muslim countries with up to 5% Christian. So I'd say the missionary you helped to support was doing a great job.