Mon Feb 12 12:47:12 1996

From majordom  Mon Feb 12 12:47:12 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA05732; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:47:12 +0500
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:44:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Bart Ehrman 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: "Majority Text"
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1350
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

   Thanks to Maurice Robinson's explanation of the five differnet kinds 
of "Majority Text" advocates.  It's a very useful taxonomy.  I have a 
question, Maurice, about one of your statements:

On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> 
> It is true that most if not all advocates of the true "Majority Text" or 
> "Byzantine-priority" hypotheses (groups 4 and 5 above) reflect a 
> theological conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy.  This 
> position does not, however, dictate our choice of variant readings, nor 
> does it imply any desire to make the resultant text match the TR or KJV 
> or any other translation.  
> 
    My question (actually, questions):  Do you know of *anybody* who 
subscribes to such a theory who does not "reflect a theological 
conservatism, including a belief in biblical inerrancy"?  If not, how do 
you explain this phenomenon, that scholars who have nothing at stake in 
the matter (I'm excluding the scholars who *do* have something at stake, 
i.e., those whose agenda include the desire to overthrow conservative 
views of the Bible) uniformly take the other side of this "debate"?

   As you probably know, I don't mean for these to sound like rhetorical 
questions; I'm genuinely interested in knowing what you make of this.

-- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Back