What Stand Does BJU Take?

[Yeshua1]

Actually he is not. He has great respect for the Alexandrian textform. He just believes the Byzantine is better.

As do I. After all the Alexandrian agrees with the Byzantine most of the time. You just have to respect that.

So you would see that either Greek text would be good to use for study and translation purposes, and you just prefer MT one?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for informing me. That's good to know. I'm sure he was educated by various scholars on that. I know he had a discussion with Dr. Maurice Robinson about Byz. Priority.

But the taxonomy in the first chapter has not been changed. He still talks about a "wide range of beliefs within the broad category of King James Only" (p. 23), then lists the textual argument in Group #2, including Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont. That is simply wrong. This Group #2 is not and has never been KJVO, and really should not have even been discussed in the book. Hodges and Farstad were at Dallas, an NASB stronghold, and Dr. Robinson has never been anywhere near a KJVO position.

For my own part, my position has been Majority or Byz. Priority since the mid 1980s, but I've never been KJVO in any way, shape or form. I preach from the KJV and still read it, but I've read the NASB off and on since the early '70's, and have read through various versions since then. In Japan we used the Shinkaiyaku, the Japanese version of the NASB, there being no version from my preferred texts. Yet there I am, listed as one in a group within the KJVO movement in White's book. He needs a 3rd edition to correct this and all of the other errors.

How do you like the Nasb?

 

[Yeshua1]

The following is taken from a footnote on page 92 of Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism by stanley E. Porter & Andrew W. Pitts.
"...no distinctively Byzantine readings are identifiable in the Greek manuscripts, church fathers, or versions from the first several centuries --certainly some remains would have been left, even if the manuscripts were in constant use. If the Majority text most accurately reflects the original, we would expect some traces of it chronologically close to the original. These significant obstacles for the Majority text approach still have not been convincingly overcome by its adherents."

So that would mean that the Critical text actually does give to us closer to what the originals were, or at least closer to what the first and second generation Christians knew to be the NT?

 

[TCassidy]

So you would see that either Greek text would be good to use for study and translation purposes, and you just prefer MT one?

No.

 

[TCassidy]

The following is taken from a footnote on page 92 of Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism by stanley E. Porter & Andrew W. Pitts.
"...no distinctively Byzantine readings are identifiable in the Greek manuscripts, church fathers, or versions from the first several centuries --certainly some remains would have been left, even if the manuscripts were in constant use. If the Majority text most accurately reflects the original, we would expect some traces of it chronologically close to the original. These significant obstacles for the Majority text approach still have not been convincingly overcome by its adherents."

I recommend you read The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism by Dr. Harry Sturz. Dr. Sturz was Dan Wallace's professor of Textual Criticism at BIOLA. Dr. Sturz studied at Dallas Theological Seminary and received his ThM, and ThD, from Grace Theological Seminary. This book was his Th.D. dissertation and was subjected to intense peer review. He sheds a lot of light on the claim there are no ancient witnesses to the Byzantine text.

 

[TCassidy]

Correct

No, it is not correct, as has already been shown in this thread!

 

[Yeshua1]

I recommend you read The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism by Dr. Harry Sturz. Dr. Sturz was Dan Wallace's professor of Textual Criticism at BIOLA. Dr. Sturz studied at Dallas Theological Seminary and received his ThM, and ThD, from Grace Theological Seminary. This book was his Th.D. dissertation and was subjected to intense peer review. He sheds a lot of light on the claim there are no ancient witnesses to the Byzantine text.

So Dr Wallace would and does disagree with him them

 

[Yeshua1]

No.

So only the MT would reflect the origpnal text to us, and the Critical Greek text is what then?

 

[Rob_BW]

I recommend you read The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism by Dr. Harry Sturz. Dr. Sturz was Dan Wallace's professor of Textual Criticism at BIOLA. Dr. Sturz studied at Dallas Theological Seminary and received his ThM, and ThD, from Grace Theological Seminary. This book was his Th.D. dissertation and was subjected to intense peer review. He sheds a lot of light on the claim there are no ancient witnesses to the Byzantine text.

I've been meaning to ask, any recommendations on a more entry level text on NT textual criticism? Hopefully something that manages to present both sides fairly? And cheaper than 67 bucks would be nice.

 

[TCassidy]

I've been meaning to ask, any recommendations on a more entry level text on NT textual criticism? Hopefully something that manages to present both sides fairly? And cheaper than 67 bucks would be nice.

You can get it used for under $5 on Amazon.

The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur Pickering. Look for a used 1st edition. After that he began to go down hill insisting Family 35 was the only inspired word of God in Greek. Or something like that.

There are some good articles on line that may pique your interest:

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html

But John of Japan will probably have a better list of suggested reading. Give him a holler.

 

[Rob_BW]

You can get it used for under $5 on Amazon.

The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur Pickering. Look for a used 1st edition. After that he began to go down hill insisting Family 35 was the only inspired word of God in Greek. Or something like that.

There are some good articles on line that may pique your interest:

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html

But John of Japan will probably have a better list of suggested reading. Give him a holler.

Thank you.

Oh @John of Japan , and recommendations?

 

[Rippon]

Carl P. Cosaert has a chapter Clement of Alexandria's Gospel Citations in the book The Early Text of the New Testament edited by Charles E. Hill & Michael J. Kruger. Let me cite part of a footnote on page 404.

"...the presence of some Byzantine readings in early papyri does not point to the existence of an early Byzantine text-type, as Harry Sturz mistakenly concludes...The Byzantine text-type only appears several hundred years later, around the time of Chrysostom [349-407 --Rip], when Byzantine readings are no longer occasional but begin to appear as the dominant readings in MSS."

I repeated the above in case TC missed it.

 

[Rippon]

So that would mean that the Critical text actually does give to us closer to what the originals were, or at least closer to what the first and second generation Christians knew to be the NT?

Yes indeedy.

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you.

Oh @John of Japan , and recommendations?

With your criteria I would recommend New Testament Textual Criticism, by David Alan Black. It's concise and a comparatively easy read, inexpensive, done by a recognized scholar. Unfortunately, since it is copyright 1994 he doesn't include the Byz. Priority view, but he does talk some about the Hodges/Farstead majority position.

Dr. Black is an eclectic, but departs from them in holding to the longer ending of Mark.

As for the Byzantine or Majority view, follow Dr. Cassidy's recommendations. And anything you can find online by Dr. Maurice Robinson will be excellent.

If you want to go deeper you'll have to slog through some heavy reading. Let me know if you want more recommendations.

 

[Yeshua1]

With your criteria I would recommend New Testament Textual Criticism, by David Alan Black. It's concise and a comparatively easy read, inexpensive, done by a recognized scholar. Unfortunately, since it is copyright 1994 he doesn't include the Byz. Priority view, but he does talk some about the Hodges/Farstead majority position.

Dr. Black is an eclectic, but departs from them in holding to the longer ending of Mark.

As for the Byzantine or Majority view, follow Dr. Cassidy's recommendations. And anything you can find online by Dr. Maurice Robinson will be excellent.

If you want to go deeper you'll have to slog through some heavy reading. Let me know if you want more recommendations.

Just curious as to what would be the reall issue/problem for using eitherthe latest critical greek text, or the MT for study and translation use?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes indeedy.

Seems that we just might have a MT only viewpoint here?

 

[Rob_BW]

With your criteria I would recommend New Testament Textual Criticism, by David Alan Black. It's concise and a comparatively easy read, inexpensive, done by a recognized scholar. Unfortunately, since it is copyright 1994 he doesn't include the Byz. Priority view, but he does talk some about the Hodges/Farstead majority position.

Dr. Black is an eclectic, but departs from them in holding to the longer ending of Mark.

As for the Byzantine or Majority view, follow Dr. Cassidy's recommendations. And anything you can find online by Dr. Maurice Robinson will be excellent.

If you want to go deeper you'll have to slog through some heavy reading. Let me know if you want more recommendations.

Thank you very much for the repy.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 3 PM Pacific.

 

[Yeshua1]

With your criteria I would recommend New Testament Textual Criticism, by David Alan Black. It's concise and a comparatively easy read, inexpensive, done by a recognized scholar. Unfortunately, since it is copyright 1994 he doesn't include the Byz. Priority view, but he does talk some about the Hodges/Farstead majority position.

Dr. Black is an eclectic, but departs from them in holding to the longer ending of Mark.

As for the Byzantine or Majority view, follow Dr. Cassidy's recommendations. And anything you can find online by Dr. Maurice Robinson will be excellent.

If you want to go deeper you'll have to slog through some heavy reading. Let me know if you want more recommendations.

That is a very good book on this subject, as there are really scholarly works written to support both the CT/MT positions, but to wade into those, experts only need apply to get the full gist from them, and i am far from that, as was taught some of the basics, but not the stuff the translators and textual critics get into to!
The main thing still remembered was that the NA 26th of that time was best for critics due to all of the aparatus in it, but the 3rd edition UBS best for translators, as they did not need all of that stuff in margins!

 

[John of Japan]

How do you like the Nasb?

I disagree with the source texts and with the Lockman Foundation policy on allowing usage. (They are much too paranoid about copyright.) As a translation it is quite literal and therefore excellent for study, but could be in better English. They needed some more style editors.