Then disregard my answer. I misunderstood what you were stating.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
-
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!
What Stand Does BJU Take?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Sorry, I was unclear. Chapter 1 remains pretty much the same, but later on in the book in another chapter on p. 73 he mentions Dr. Robinson and his essays and Greek NT in a footnote.
I don't know what you mean. As I've said even on this thread, my position is Byzantine Priority.
Strange, posted to you, but part was to other poster here!
To a degree, yes, depending on how well the translators did.
I suppose that here you are talking about Metzger's textual commentary. To my knowledge, there is yet to be a complete textual commentary from the Byz/Maj position.
Before abandoning the hapless pro-Alexandrian bias in the presentation of James White in his book, I'd like to point out a typical blunder. On p. 153 (1st ed.), following an article by Daniel Wallace, he claims that only 8 examples of Byzantine readings can be found in the papyri. However, this is quite simplistic.
Harry Sturz (The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism) notes 170 places (p. 74) where there is a Western-Byzantine alignment in the papyrii versus the Alexandrian, and has an appendix which shows that. In other words, there is far more Byzantine support in the papyri than White recognizes. (I should note here that Sturz was not a Byz/Maj advocate, just a textual critic who understood the importance of the Byzantine text type.)
White could have found this out easily. He lists Sturz in his bibliography. However, he simply relies on Wallace who, scholar that he is, is notably opposed to the Byzantine.
Harry Sturz (The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism) notes 170 places (p. 74) where there is a Western-Byzantine alignment in the papyrii versus the Alexandrian, and has an appendix which shows that. In other words, there is far more Byzantine support in the papyri than White recognizes. (I should note here that Sturz was not a Byz/Maj advocate, just a textual critic who understood the importance of the Byzantine text type.)
White could have found this out easily. He lists Sturz in his bibliography. However, he simply relies on Wallace who, scholar that he is, is notably opposed to the Byzantine.
Concerning lumping us Byz/Maj types in with the KJVO movement, as White and others have done, Dr. Robinson once pointed out to me that he has always used modern versions, and never ses the KJV "in any capacity" (his words).
For their part, Hodges and Farstad were strongly behind the NKJV, and were also behind the HCSB in its original plan of translating from the Majority text. After Farstad's death the HCSB went to a critical Greek text as their original.
For their part, Hodges and Farstad were strongly behind the NKJV, and were also behind the HCSB in its original plan of translating from the Majority text. After Farstad's death the HCSB went to a critical Greek text as their original.
How would you rate Dr Wallace as a textual expert?
And think the 28Th edition of NA included some more Bzt renderings as possible ways in their textual apparatus...
I read that also, as Holman originally intended the HCSB to be translated off the MT, but switched to the Critical text mid way... What modern versions use MT source?
I never took White's intent to lump the MT supports in with KJVO. In my second edition he is very clear that some reject KJVO. He names Hodge and Farstad by name as rejectors in the book. In the 2nd edition he seems clear to me that he is just saying some KJVO people base their argument of the MT postion. He doesnt claim a MT priority equates with KJVOism.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
That would be my take on him also!
Dr. Wallace has made some good contributions to textual criticism. However, his anti-Byzantine bias is disappointing to me.
On the other hand, an article last year in JETS (59/4, pp. 675-689) by Peter Gurry, "How Your Greek NT Is Changing," introduces a new tool for textual criticism called the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) appears to be changing minds some about the Byzantine text type. Maybe I can write more here on the BB about that after I finish reading the article, which is pretty difficult.
Is he totally against it, or just thinks the Critical text is superior to it?
And do think that regardless using/preferring CT/MT/Bzt text, still have the word of the Lord!
Like Westcott and Hort, he has a presupposition that the Alexandrian is the best text type, so as a rule he rejects Byzantine readings.
Not having read the whole 2nd ed. I'll try not to judge. But his taxonomy as read on Amazon did look the same as the 1st edition.
If he's going to pontificate on textual criticism without being a textual critic, I really think he needs to learn the subject better. Ironically, it is a common fault of KJVO authors to do that.
His 1st ed. bibliography shows mixed bag of books on the subject: some really good stuff from back in the day, but some really out of date stuff, like B. B. Warfield's treatment, Alford's Greek NT, and Wuest's Word Studies.
That would mean that he views the critical text in same fashion you would the MT, correct?
My biggest concern with Dr wallace is that he seems to take a less than view on inerrancy of the scriptures, or at least seems to see it as not being really that big a deal!
There are similarities, but the methodology is quite different.
But the end results, as in the text, would be pretty close, correct?
- Status