Byzantine Priority

I think one can be. The first paragraph seems to merely take one argument and then set it up as the sole (or primary) argument employed by proponents of Byzantine priority. The second one seems to indicate that Byzantine priority is not based on the idea of preservation, but on real methods of textual criticism.

Michael

 

Yes you can. Robinson is a genuine textual critic with a Byzantine priority position, gaining in respect among his peers. My son recently attended a debate on the ending of Mark at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Robinson was one of the participants. By all accounts he is a humble, good man as well as a genuine scholar.

The fact is, textual criticism is still a pretty iffy discipline, IMO. Virtually no one has approaced it in a scientific way (with the exception of James Price and his computer models), and the principles and conclusions are often based on conjecture. So I think the first statement you gave is somewhat arrogant.

Having said that, I have often been embarassed by the stuff put out by men in my own beloved IFB movement, so the first writer has somewhat of a point. It seems that dozens of pastors with a BA in Bible think they are qualified to be textual critics, and put out their own books on the subject. If not textual criticism, they write on Bible translation in a similar unqualified way. I only know of two IFB authors out there who have actually done Bible translation, yet so many claim to be experts on the matter.

 

I think what Rich Elliott is saying here s that “most” who take the Byzantine Priority position do so not because of any particular understanding of textual criticism but for doctrinal reasons.

He further narrows his statement by continuing…

Note: King James Version - keying on "onlyists"
...and Textus Receptus - Not the "Byzantine Majority text" but the 16th century texts, uncorrected.

In this case textual evidences would not sway them to change their position.

I whole heartedly agree with his statement.
…and that’s not a dig against you or others who have studied and hold the Byzantine Priority position.

Maurice Robinson IS a textual critic who holds the position of Byzantine Priority.
The author of the statement probably personally knows him and has interacted with Dr. Robinson and his work.
His statement doesn't denigrate him.

However MOST of those who hold the Byzantine Priority position do so without a scholarly background and without even the desire to search evidences out.

Present company accepted, of course. :saint:

Rob

 

Pastor Bob, I think you are reacting to a quote without understanding the argument.

In fact the next line under your quote reads:

Rob

 

The truth? MOST of those who hold ANY position on the text types do so with a minimum of scholarly background. Even someone with a graduate degree (from an MA to an MDiv on through a PhD) is unlikely to have any credits in textual criticism unless their degree is in Greek or Hebrew. In fact, on his page Rich Elliot himself says: "Send mail to page creator Robert B. Waltz (but please, only e-mail me with suggestions or additional information; I can't answer all your questions, and chances are any answers I know are in here anyway.)"

 

...but you don't need a degree to be a "critical thinker"...
...someone who can organize data and make a decision based upon logic and reason.

And so as amateurs we have to realize our shortcomings and be open to change.

It isn't the amateur critics that the authors complaining about but those who hold a position without reasonings it through.

Rob

 

As amateurs we are not as ignorant as some scholars like to think.

Considering all the "evidences" and all the "arguements" one does NOT need a degree to rationalize them to come to the conclusion of truth.

My understanding of the Byzantine texts is that they are what the Lord has used to preserve His word intact and without corruption. One has to only intermix contradictory MSS to argue against the Byzantine. So go figure, this isn't rocket science, though some would like to impress others to cause them to think it is.:sleeping_2:

Elliot's statements, as offered, do indicate an overwhelming arrogance and denigration towards "most" who don't drink his kewlaid.

 

Did you even read his article?

Rob

 

"as offered"

I remarked to what "was offered" as being arrogant.

Of course he realized he was wrong about the Byzantine texts, but then you made a perfect example of his further arrogance to say it needed further study, (as if he needed to look for something to invalidate the Byzantine).

 

And of course anyone who studies can only come to the conclusion, and not "suspect", that Hort was in error.

 

Actually, right, it was me complaining about the amateur critics, not the OP writers. :smilewinkgrin:

For the record, I do believe that an amateur can educate himself into an expert on textual criticism. William Pierpont is one who did so. At a minimum, such a person should:

(1) Learn NT Greek well.
(2) Study widely about Greek manuscripts.
(3) Study widely and long about the textual criticism methods of W & H, Pierpont-Robinson, Metzger and co., Zane Hodges, etc.
(4) Build an extensive library to refer to.

Also for the record, I do not consider myself an expert in this area. :type:

 

...but you're the best we've got so we'll keep ya!

Thanks John.

I've said it before and I'll say it again,

Some of my best "friends" on the BBoard are those I disagree with.

I'd like to think we could still fellowship and worship together....someday.

Rob

 

God willing! :wavey:

 

I'm sorry, but are you saying you're an amateur telling others how to become an expert?

Your scenario suggests acceptance of those "scholars" and their methods of corrupt ideas should be entailed to come to a conclusion of some sort.

Once I have noticed something floating in my iced tea doing the backstroke, I need not consider taking another swallow to see what it might taste like.

 

Uh, exactly which manuscript is it that "the Lord has used to preserve His word intact and without corruption? I was under the impression that no two manuscripts, in whatever "tradition" were exactly identical in every single detail. And that even includes, I believe, Codex Dabe1, known as Abschrift, a IX century deliberate copy of the VI Century Codex D, known as Claramontanus.

Is there one of the Byznatine manuscripts that is perfect in every detail? Even the various versions of the TR, are not in complete agreement, and they, themselves, are all "eclectic texts." Am I mistaken in this? If I am, what exactly is the identity (and identifying number) of the Byzantine manucript that is in "all points", exactly the one that is the perfectly preserved one?

If there is not one, isn't this, in itself, an "intermixing of contradictory" texts?

And I certainly have not seen every manuscript that is available, of the several thousand extant manuscripts, and suggest that no one else has, either.

Ed

 

Well, now, I have this suspicion that if I answer you here I'll once again be called arrogant, a word you seem to enjoy using. Fine. I can take it. But I feel no need to give you my qualifications. I'll leave it to you to guess what I'm expert in and what I'm not. Those who know me on the BB and elsewhere know who I am, and so does the Lord, so that's good enough for me.

Yep, I'm somewhat of an amateur at textual criticism telling others how I would become an expert at the subject if I wanted to. I studied the subject in detail many years ago, but have read little lately on it. Make the most of that if you will.

You have no clue as to what I believe about "those scholars." (Whoever you mean by this, I don't know.) On my recent thread on the possibility of a perfect translation you asked no questions about my positions, but preferred to pontificate.

But suppose I believed one way or the other on the versions and texts. It would still make sense to me to follow the plan I outlined. What kind of a fool would enter a debate not knowing what the other side believed? Why would it imply acceptance of the methods of W & H, for example, if I were to read their 2 volume Greek NT (1882) with the intent of learning what they believed? I have Ruckman and I have W & H. Make the most of that. :type:

 

Spin it all you want, but it's still what the Lord has used to preserve His word intact.

We all know of the differing MSS. All you've done is show the need of a once and for all compilation of those MSS into a final authority concerning the Bible, else would you rather keep guessing?

 

Nothing there worth going into any further, you answered quite well with no further question as to what one could possibly desire from you.

I like the way you congratulate yourself, again.

I asked you several questions to which you have continued to give the same elusive answer.

"Pontification" is your practice here, and there.

I have the results of W/H and the Byzantine MSS and what they produced as my evidence. I also have what you do concerning Ruckman and many others.

Ruckman has said that the KJB is what the reader can use to help him understand the complexity of the Greek and its variant verb tenses and applications.

W/H used a dynamic form of equivelence translation omitting and even denying the tense of many of the Greek verbs, thus they corrupted even the Greek in so doing. "Make the most of that."

Get this "chip" off your shoulder and arrogance won't "fit" your character so easily and stop acting upon your suspicions.