Featured Dear Ole Westcott & Hort

Thanks for enlightening me.

 

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

 

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!

 

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 !

 

You're probably right.

 

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.

 

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."

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.

 

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

 

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

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."

 

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