Dear Ole Westcott & Hort

[Mexdeaf]

Sorry, but that is wrong. Both Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were on the translation committee for the ERV of 1881.

Thanks for enlightening me.

 

[TCassidy]

Thanks for enlightening me.

You're welcome. The major effect they had on the ERV was convincing the rest of the committee members to use their newly published "The New Testament in the Original Greek" edited by Westcott and Hort, London, 1881, in place of the latest edition of the Textus Receptus edited by Frederick Scrivener, 1877.

 

[Yeshua1]

You're welcome. The major effect they had on the ERV was convincing the rest of the committee members to use their newly published "The New Testament in the Original Greek" edited by Westcott and Hort, London, 1881, in place of the latest edition of the Textus Receptus edited by Frederick Scrivener, 1877.

As they saw it as being better/closer to the actual greek NT?

 

[John of Japan]

I mentioned before possible quotes about John Burgon and the TR. (Note: "Dean" was not his name, but his title in the Church of England. I really don't know why everyone calls him "Dean" so long after he's dead. He doesn't hold the title now. :smilewinkgrin: ) Though no one ended up asking for it, I'm going to put this quote on anyway.

The quote is actually by the man who edited Burgon's works after he died, Edward Miller, who was another Byzantine advocate. (I have his 1886 A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the NT, which is pretty good for the day.) Here is the quote:

"First, be it understood that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon about 550 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew's Gospel alone. What we maintain is the TRADITIONAL TEXT" (An Introduction to Textual Criticism, Vol. 1: Unholy Hands on the Bible, the works of Burgon ed. by Jay Green, p. 3; caps in original--JoJ.) Interestingly enough, the 1st ed. of the Byzantine Textform Greek NT edited by Robinson and Pierpont only has about one sixth of that 550 corrections in Matthew!

Botton line: Burgon's true position would not be welcome in the Dean Burgon Society, though they still sell his books. And that's the rest of the story. :type:

A friend has kindly supplied me with the exact figures for this point:

Comparing Scrivener 1894 text with the Robinson-Pierpont 2005 Byz. Textform, there are a total of 1943 differences. In Matthew, where my quote said Burgon would correct about 550 times, there are 157 differences between the above texts, around 3/10 (28.5%) rather than 1/6 as I said (which would be only 16.7%). So again, Burgon would have corrected far more of the TR than Robinson-Pierpont!

 

[Yeshua1]

A friend has kindly supplied me with the exact figures for this point:

Comparing Scrivener 1894 text with the Robinson-Pierpont 2005 Byz. Textform, there are a total of 1943 differences. In Matthew, where my quote said Burgon would correct about 550 times, there are 157 differences between the above texts, around 3/10 (28.5%) rather than 1/6 as I said (which would be only 16.7%). So again, Burgon would have corrected far more of the TR than Robinson-Pierpont!

know that KJVO cite and use Burgon as a source, but isn;t the real truth that he was majority text, NOT TR, as he approved the REV!

 

[John of Japan]

know that KJVO cite and use Burgon as a source, but isn;t the real truth that he was majority text,

Right, that's what I was saying with my post.

NOT TR, as he approved the REV!

By REV do you mean the English Revised Version (same as the ASV)? Or Rev. Westcott, lol.

If you mean the ERV, I don't think he did approve it, being strongly opposed to the Wescott-Hort Greek NT as he was.

 

[Yeshua1]

Right, that's what I was saying with my post.
By REV do you mean the English Revised Version (same as the ASV)? Or Rev. Westcott, lol.

If you mean the ERV, I don't think he did approve it, being strongly opposed to the Wescott-Hort Greek NT as he was.

he would have endorsed the NKJV though !

 

[John of Japan]

he would have endorsed the NKJV though !

You're probably right.

 

[Greektim]

Here is an interesting thought... Robinson uses very similar criteria as W&H to arrive at his textual conclusion, albeit an extremely different conclusion. I.e. they both have an authoritative witness and let that drive their textual decisions. He will admit as much too. Only he would say that based on a textual history or development of mss through time (transmissional history), the Byzantine text is the superior choice to W&H's Vaticanus preference or Alexandrian preference.

One thing that I think separates Robinson's view from eclectic view (among some other great points) is that his view is based on a textual development through history or the transmissional development of the text over time. He proposes a theory based on what one would expect with an honest transmissional history and sees it applied in the mss data that we have only consistently fulfilled in the Byzantine text-type. There is some promising developments in the Byzantine priority view, although I'm not wholly convinced. But when making textual decisions, I don't like to go against the Byzantine. But there are occasions where and when I do.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is an interesting thought... Robinson uses very similar criteria as W&H to arrive at his textual conclusion, albeit an extremely different conclusion. I.e. they both have an authoritative witness and let that drive their textual decisions. He will admit as much too. Only he would say that based on a textual history or development of mss through time (transmissional history), the Byzantine text is the superior choice to W&H's Vaticanus preference or Alexandrian preference.

Dr. Robinson uses a very similar geneological method to W&H. The difference is that W&H started out with a presupposition against the Byzantine (their Syrian) and for the Alexandrian, which they called the neutral text (thus giving away their prejudice!). With an honest geneological method you come out clearly in favor of the Byzantine, I believe. One place where Dr. Robinson disagrees strongly with W&H is in their theory of a Lucian rescension of the Byzantine text. Again, he disagrees with the W&H/eclectic canon of "shorter is better," based to start out with on his dissertation, Scribal Habits Among Manuscripts of the Apocalypse."

One thing that I think separates Robinson's view from eclectic view (among some other great points) is that his view is based on a textual development through history or the transmissional development of the text over time. He proposes a theory based on what one would expect with an honest transmissional history and sees it applied in the mss data that we have only consistently fulfilled in the Byzantine text-type. There is some promising developments in the Byzantine priority view, although I'm not wholly convinced. But when making textual decisions, I don't like to go against the Byzantine. But there are occasions where and when I do.

Keep reading Dr. Robinson, and stay tuned! You've probably already read them, but his essays in two books edited by Dr. David Alan Black are excellent: Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism and Perspectives on the Ending of Mark.

 

[Deacon]

Dr. Robinson uses a very similar geneological method to W&H. The difference is that W&H started out with a presupposition against the Byzantine (their Syrian) and for the Alexandrian, which they called the neutral text (thus giving away their prejudice!). With an honest geneological method you come out clearly in favor of the Byzantine, I believe. One place where Dr. Robinson disagrees strongly with W&H is in their theory of a Lucian rescension of the Byzantine text. Again, he disagrees with the W&H/eclectic canon of "shorter is better," based to start out with on his dissertation, Scribal Habits Among Manuscripts of the Apocalypse."

I haven’t been able to contribute much lately – the powers still off in my area.

Comparing Robinson to Westcott and Hort is like comparing modern presidents to presidents of the 1800. You can make some comparisons but have to consider the person in their place and time. W+H were not exactly revolutionary – they were following in the footsteps of previous textual critics but their contribution had a unique perspective.

Can you compare Robinson to modern eclectic critics? Could you say his methods are prejudicial toward the Byzantine text as W+H’s are to the “neutral text”?

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

I haven’t been able to contribute much lately – the powers still off in my area.

Comparing Robinson to Westcott and Hort is like comparing modern presidents to presidents of the 1800. You can make some comparisons but have to consider the person in their place and time. W+H were not exactly revolutionary – they were following in the footsteps of previous textual critics but their contribution had a unique perspective.

Dr. Robinson himself acknowledges the influence of W&H re his geneological method.

Can you compare Robinson to modern eclectic critics? Could you say his methods are prejudicial toward the Byzantine text as W+H’s are to the “neutral text”?

Rob

I would say no, not really. Methodology led him to the Byzantine, not prejudice. It was his geneological method that pointed towards the Byzantine, then his original research and the research of Colwell that taught him the error of the "shorter is better" canon. The eclectics still in general keep the "shorter is better" canon. Plus, oddly enough while following in the Alexandrian text footstseps of W&H they do not use a geneological method. Therefore they come up with readings that exist nowhere in the mss.

Dr. Robinson has an essay in Translating the New Testament (ed. by Stanley Porter and Mark Boda) in which he blows away the eclectic version of a passage in Luke which exists nowhere in the mss: "The Rich Man and Lazarus--Luke 16:19-31: Text-Critical Notes."

 

[Greektim]

I haven’t been able to contribute much lately – the powers still off in my area.

Comparing Robinson to Westcott and Hort is like comparing modern presidents to presidents of the 1800. You can make some comparisons but have to consider the person in their place and time. W+H were not exactly revolutionary – they were following in the footsteps of previous textual critics but their contribution had a unique perspective.

Can you compare Robinson to modern eclectic critics? Could you say his methods are prejudicial toward the Byzantine text as W+H’s are to the “neutral text”?

Rob

I'm comparing their (W&H w/ Robinson) methodological approach. So in that way, Robinson is vastly different from modern eclectic proponents (especially seeing as he has written excellent articles citing the deficiencies in eclectic approaches).

Just read JoJ's post... seems we both agree =D