Do you agree with his general tone, that the modern version were not satanic inspired, and do not intentionally water down Jesus and the Gospel message?
Dr. White doesn't deny that KJVP exists, he just doesn't address it since he has no issue with it. Everybody(english readers) prefers some English version.
In particular, it is impossible for any Biblical text to be Satanically inspired, since it is God-breathed in the originals. To become Satanically inspired, it must be purposefully mistranslated, such as in the JW Bible's rendering of John 1:1.
He is not saying that those who are Majority text advocates are all KJVO. He is saying that some KJVO are majority text advocates. He states that the TR text is different then MT and different types support one or the other.
He also states that "a number of different possible postions fall within this one category."
He is defining the KJVO arguments by postion of defense. He is not defining all of those who advocate for the MT or even the TR. To expect Dr. White to proper define all postions of those who hold to MT or TR property is unfair. That is not the intent of the book.
He says Farstad and Hodges view is "one group that would strongly reject the term KJVO but believe that the texts used by KJV translators are superior to those used my modern translations would be majority text advocates". What is wrong with that? Were they not majority text advocates?
My first edition of the book starts out with an intro about a radical KJVO person in a bookstore demanding a "real Bible, the Bible God honors, the King James Bible, the A.V. 1611" (p. iii). Then he goes on to strongly accuse the KJVO movement of destroying churches. This (true or not) sets the tone for the first chapter.
After this beginning he gives his taxonomy, from which I quoted in this thread, in Ch. 1, "King James Only." Before listing his taxonomy he writes, "The King James Only movement...defies precise definition. One will find a range of beliefs within the broad category of 'KJV Only.' We run the risk of offending individuals within the movement when we make broad generalizations [Ya think??--JoJ], but such cannot be avoided completely. Hopefully, by defining the various positions found within the movement, we can help to focus attention upon the important issues that are at stake" (p. 1).
He then goes on to list his taxonomy, including "Group #2," which I quoted above. In that section, on p. 2 he refers to "Majority Text' advocates, mentioning in the footnote on pp. 5-6 such genuine scholars of textual criticism such as Hodges, Farstad, Robinson and Pierpont. This means he thinks of these genuine scholars, all of who oppose (or opposed) strongly the KJVO position, as KJVO advocastes.
As one who gladly contributed an essay to the 2014 Festschrift in honor of Dr. Maurice Robinson, Digging for the Truth, I find this very insulting.
Well, looks like he fixed that is the second edition. It is in the body of the book, not the footnote, that he says they reject KJVO, but lays ground work for some moderate KJVO people to use Farstad's and others work and postion to justify the KJVO postion.
I'm glad to hear that. One of these days I'll get the second edition, though I've been told by a textual critic that it has many inaccuracies in that area.
He is a CT guy. He obviously has respect for MT arguments*,
but finds the CT argument more convincing. I have never seen Dr. White treat the arguement of TR priority with any respect in regards to viability.
My guess he would flat out reject a TR priority as foolishness. He obviously rejects the "TR only" claim.
*I should clarify he has respect for SOME MT arguments
I just took a look at Ch. 1 of the revision of White's book on Amazon, and he has left the offending section pretty much as is. In a footnote on p. 73 and again in the bibliography, he does list a number of the scholarly sources by Dr. Robinson on the Byzantine Priority position. However, he then jumps to another subject, giving no indication in that section that he has read and understood Dr. Robinson's body of work.
That would be the UBS Greek NT, now in its 4th edition. My 3rd ed. lists Matthew Black, Carlo Martini (a Catholic), Bruce Metzger and Allen Wikgren as editiors.
The best in probably Robinson- Pierpoint
If you mean a Top quality MT.
Farstad's would be nice to have. I do not like Pickerings claim behind his ....so i would avoid that one.
I also assume your mean the NA 26, 27 or 28 as Aland's?
I was speaking towards the text book by Kurt Aland that described the process of the Greek nt being pieced together, as regards to the critical text, anything like that fir the MT?