Featured Congratulations Dr. Maurice Robinson!

Yeah, I caught that. Clever!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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)

 

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.