Which Majority Text?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by nate, Feb 23, 2011.

  1. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which Byzantine/Majority Text do you guys think
    Code:
    
    
    is superior Hodges/Farstad or Robinson/Pierpont?
     
  2. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    I prefer Robinson/Pierpont. I believe their methodology is superior. I remember many years ago when I first got the Hodges/Farstad and read the Introduction, I felt their method was somewhat unwieldy, though an improvement on the eclectic method.

    I feel that Maurice Robinson has a better grasp on textual criticism in general than Hodges did. I think he's proven that by his scholarly defenses of the Byzantine Textform. In Translating the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), ed. by Stanley Porter and Mark Boda, Robinson and Barbara Aland both teed up on textual criticism. Dr. Robinson blew Rule 9 of the eclectic method out of the water with his article, "Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the 'Test-Tube' Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective" (pp. 27-61).

    Later in the book Robinson dealt with Luke 19. In her brief article introducing the section, "The Text of Luke 16" (pp. 93-95) Barbara Aland started out by saying, "First of all, I agree with Dr. Robinson that the Byzantine text is by far not as bad as former generations thought" (p. 93). So the Byzantine is getting more respect nowadays.

    Here is a sample quote from the Preface of the Byzantine Textform NT that illustrates what I mean:

     
  3. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is also another Text that represents the Byzantine Tradition, rather unknown in the West, is the Patriarch of Constantinople's 1904 Text. I think maybe because Textual Critics in the West have for so long disregarded the Byzantine text. The new Eastern Orthodox Bible's NT will be based on this text! I'm curious to see if it contains Act's 8:37, or the Johannine Comma.
     
  4. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    You can see the EOB at http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/download/eobntpublic.pdf.

    It includes both Acts 8:37 and the Comma Johanneum, although it footnotes the Comma with
     
  5. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems the Patriarch's Text really didn't use any form of Textual Criticism to determine variant readings. I found on this site http://www.standardbearers.net/R.D.html
    an assertion that the PT of 1904 was compiled using only 20 Byzantine MSS. Thanks for the link to the site I will definitely start reading through it!
     
  6. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    It would appear that the Orthodox value the Patriarchal Text much as the Council of Trent valued the Vulgate: Because of its traditional role in the church (having been used by the church, thus sanctifying the text), not necessarily because of its absolute correspondence to the autographs.

    As the forward to the EOB says:

     
  8. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    I've been sent the link to a great website: http://koti.24.fi/jusalak/GreekNT/NTTexts.htm

    You can download the Byzantine Textform 2005 and other great files here, including the Antoniades 1904/1912. Also, there is a link to a PDF which collates the Antoniades Patriarchal edition against the Robinson-Pierpont NT.

    According to my information, the versions of the 1904 Antoniades you can find on the Internet are "woefully inadequate." To get the true differences between the Antoniades 1904/1912 and the Robinson-Pierpont, download the version on this link as edited, checked and verified by by Maurice A. Robinson and Jussi Ala-Könni.

    Furthermore, my informant tells me that the Antoniades does not have good manuscript support. It was edited mainly from lectionary mss, so while it is "'acceptable' text for Greek Orthodox liturgical purposes" it is certainly not the best representative of the Byzantine text type.
     
  9. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    John, are you using the Robinson/Pierpont Text in your translation? Thanks for another informative link!
     
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    We're using Scrivener, but in doing the first draft I compared Robinson/Pierpont to Scrivener and Stephanus throughout the NT and was impressed. I've toyed with the idea of doing a R/P translation parlell to what we're doing, but probably won't ever have the time.
     
  11. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Klaus Wachtel, Early Variants in the Byzantine Text of the Gospels in Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies, Gorgias Press, 2006.
     
  12. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    So it is mostly Byzantine, but has some other readings, eh?
     

Share This Page

Loading...