Theology In Translation?

Dr. Robinson is doing well and is back teaching.

Comfort's information is inaccurate.

 

Okay.

Wrong. Most contemporary scholars are eclectic nowadays. They take into due account the Byzantine text type, and even occasionally the Western text type. (I'm not aware that the Ceasarean is used, though.) Comfort is giving the old, tired view of Westcott and Hort, which is passe.

Not exactly. In the first place, Comfort apparently is not aware of the Byzantine priority view. Secondly, the position that earlier is always better is another old W & H teaching. Byzantine advocates do not agree with the "earlier is always best" canon. Errors crept into the text at a very early time, as can be seen by the many corrections in the margins of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.

Correction: there is no evidence for any early recension ever, including the so-called Lucian recension in the 4th century by Lucian of Antioch which supposedly produced the Byzantine. “History is completely silent with regard to any revision of the Byazntine text” (The Byzantine Text-Type and new Testament Textual Criticism, by Harry A. Sturz, p. 122). Again, "When Metzger summarizes the evidence for Lucian's textual work, he appears to concede that the connection between it and the Byzantine text is somewhat nebulous. Because of the paucity of historical allusions, information on Lucian's recension is restricted to 'the manuscripts which have been thought to contain it'" (Sturz, 123).

There is no historical evidence for this statement.

 

Hear, hear! :applause:

 

Not true. My primary reasons for supporting the Byzantine are text critical, not theological or linguistic.

 

If Comfort was right about Jerome's support for a Lucian recension, why didn't Metzger mention Jerome's statement in his The Text of the New Testament in his discussion of Jerome's text of the Gospels? (2nd ed., p. 76). Comfort is wrong about what Jerome wrote, as anyone can read for themselves: http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN305/jerome1.html

 

Um, these are quotes about my translation views, not my views on textual criticism. Oranges and apples.

 

Metzger and Wallace, as scholarly as they are, are both speculating with no evidence other than internal--and precious little of that. Once again, there is no historical evidence of a Lucian recension. It's kind of like the mythical "Q" tradition--everybody would like to find evidence, but no one has. Wallace: ""My best guess...."

 

Can't you source this better? Is this in a book? Journal?

Aha. I found it. You're not even quoting from the article itself, only from the blurb about the article at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3388976

 

We could trade scholarly quotes all day and still not have any evidence of a recension by Lucian. "Hort tentatively suggested Lucian (who died in 311) as perhaps the leader in the movement, and some scholars subsequently became dogmatic on the subject. The matter of the Syriac Peshitta version is often treated in connection with the 'Lucianic recension' of the Greek because of a supposed connection between them. Because the Peshitta does witness to the 'Byzantine' text Hort had to get it out of the second and third centuries. Accordingly, he posited a late recension to account for it" (The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur N. Pickering, pp. 37-38).

 

Maurice Robinson's debunking of the theoretical Lucianic recension:

 

Brother John,

I am reading Burgon's work and plan on reading Scrivener's intro to gain the other side of the story on textual criticism. Do you have any recommendations for current scholars?

Thanks.

 

If you can get the two books I quoted from by Wilbur Pickering and Harry Sturz you've got a good start. They're out of print, but necessary for their scholarly presentation of the Byzantine priority view.

Sturz is not actually Byzantine priority, but what David Alan Black calls "reasoned conservatism." But Sturz was seminal. Speaking of Black, his New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide is a good, short presentation of the eclectic method. If I'm not mistaken, he is a "radical eclectic," considering all the text types to be valuable.

Anything by Maurice Robinson is cutting edge for the Byzantine/Majority view. Here is a link to a David Alan Black interview. (They are colleagues at Southeastern.) http://www.daveblackonline.com/interview_with_maurice_robinson1.htm

Here is another interview with Dr. Robinson: http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/08/09/kjvodb-interviews-dr-maurice-robinson-pt-1/

The main thing to read by Dr. Robinson is his preface to the Byzantine textform Greek NT he edited with William Pierpont. It has been put into the public domain, so if you will PM me I can send you a PDF file of said Greek NT.

Edited in: Or, here is Dr. Robinson's Preface online: http://adultera.awardspace.com/AA/Robinson2001.html

A recent book which has two chapters by Dr. Robinson from the Byzantine priority perspective: Translating the New Testament, ed. by Stanley Porter and Mark Boda. The two chapters are: "Rule 9, Isolated Variants and the 'Test-Tube' Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective," and, "The Rich Man and Lazarus--Luke 16:19-31: Text-Critical Notes."