The Majority Text Position

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by reubdog, Jan 16, 2003.

  1. reubdog

    reubdog
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was wondering in all this KJVO debate (I myself am a recovering KJVO-guy) if any of you would consider yourself a Majority-Text man? Not a TR man. but would prefer the readings of either Farstad & hodges text or the Pierpont and Robinson Majority-textform. Personally, I think P&R hit the nail on the head, unfortunately we may not see an english Bible done from their text.
    thanks
     
  2. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    how so, wld u like to elaborate on ur verdict?

    (i'm neither TR or MT, btw.)
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    My guess is that the NKJV would be the closest to a MT Bible when you consider the margin notes.

    Having read about the methods used by CT editors, it is my personal feeling that maybe the Byzantine texts are not weighed strongly enough. I personally think that MT plus early witnesses should carry the most weight.
     
  4. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the best written defense of the Majority Text position vs. the eclectic approach?

    I'm not interested in a bunch of KJVO propaganda, but a reasoned, historical, scientific study of text types that concludes the MT is the strongest text type.
     
  5. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Although I do not agree with this article in its entirety, it is thought provoking and interesting. It make help you a bit.

    IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT?
    by James R. White
     
  6. reubdog

    reubdog
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, you won't hear any KJVO propoganda from me. I've been down that road and am a recovering KJVo'er : ) Erasm. only had between 4-12 (and that's being generous) greek texts. from which he produced his Texts (that's textual critisim, by the way : ) Since his time Huge quantities of manuscripts in the Byz. family have been discovered, and studied. It is on these Byz. texts that the 2 MT texts have come from. There are 2 theories to get the "best" readings 1.) Farstad & hodges - strains method. There are different "strains" of texts within the MT 2.) Pierpont & Robinson's numbers theory, basically the more the better. Now I realize that is grossly over simplified, but I prefer P&R's.

    The eclectic approach depends on whether yu mean radical eclectisicm, which says you don't even need textual evidence to go with a particular reading (Bad, and wierd) or the kind where all families (Byz, aleph, B ect...) are examined and, theoretically, viewed on equal footing (NASB would prob. be the closest)
    So why the MT position? between the TR and The 2 MT editions there are aprox. 1750 differences ( that's like one a page.) but between aleph and B there are over 3,000 variances in the gospels alone! now i have my UBS text, TR, and MT, and honestly, 95% of the time the diff. are incredibly small. I think this is a testimony to the Power of God.I see that He preserved His word in the bulk of the extant mss. best represented in the byz. family colated in F&H's text and P&R's
    thanks,
    reub
     
  7. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the quote (and the link in your PM). The article seems to be a solid summary of the text forms and their use in history.

    I'm really looking for a book or article that evaluates the consistency of the MT with the originals, beyond just explaining what the MT is. I have heard that some who are knowledgeable of Greek and the manuscripts believe that the MT type is more accurate than the older Alexandrian text type. Although they are in the minority of modern scholars, I would be interested in seeing their argumentation and conclusions, provided they are not KJVO advocates.
     
  8. reubdog

    reubdog
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  9. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, reubdog.

    Perhaps I need to clarify what I'm asking for some more.

    I am familiar with the differences between the MT and eclectic approaches. I don't consider a TR position to be valid in any way, personally. I can't understand why one would take a microscopic fraction of the Byzantine text form and hold it up as the standard.

    I would be curious to see where a knowledgeable individual makes a reasoned case for the superiority of the MT form over the eclectic approach. Establishing preference based on the weight of numbers is irrational to me.
     
  10. reubdog

    reubdog
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    I respect your opinion. Like i said, i over simplified things with P&R's view
    "The first 43 pages of Pierpont & Robinson's 57 page Introduction offers the most compelling modern argument for the Byzantine-priority method that I have yet to see in print. "
    that's what a reviewer said about the intro to robinson's text. check it out on amazon. Lord bless
    reubdog
     
  11. reubdog

    reubdog
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    P.s. as far as I go i don't accept a lucianic reccension. without that i think that the MT position holds tremendous wieght. Because "the text explained by none others" is usually seen as the best text. I think Origen and his friends may have not had the best results while trying to maintain a pure text because of their disadvantage of not being greek. (this is not at all shouting "alexandrian cult" that's crazy) So i think the churches in asia minor and the greek orthodx churches had an advantage when it came to their work with the texts. with no reccension and if you don't accept the "strains" view then the byz family is just unbelieveably heavy. Not to the total exclusion of aleph and B, but it just makes those texts with their inconsistencies lightweights, in most cases. just my opinion : )
    and a few others : )
     
  12. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not referring to your perspective on P & R's text, but to the common argument for the MT that it is superior because it is the majority.

    If it IS the superior text form, it's not because it's the majority, but because it's closest to the originals. The fact that there are a lot of copies doesn't have any bearing on that issue. From what I can tell it seems that you would agree with that point.
     
  13. reubdog

    reubdog
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    guilty, as charged - sorry i didn't get your question right off the bat [​IMG] Ya, i agree with you totally. the numbers help the cause because of the solidarity of them, but that's just iceing on the cake. [​IMG] There's a lot more to Christianity than numbers in more than one area! [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...