Fri Feb 16 18:21:50 1996

From majordom  Fri Feb 16 18:21:50 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA26384; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:21:50 +0500
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:19:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: "Majority Text"
In-Reply-To: <199602130427.UAA15498@desiree.teleport.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2651
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:

> Carlton L. Winbery wrote to Maurice Robinson:
> 
> >You have clearly differentiated your position here from that of Hodges and
> >Farstad.  

> This is a question for Maurice...would you put your position, purely in
> terms of your rejection of current critical methodology, close to that of
> Jakob van Bruggen ?  What I found fascinating about his critique was that it
> was almost totally composed of quotes by current critics of their own
> method; interspersed with quotes from Kilpatrick, Eliot.  In terms of where
> he ends up as to the type of text he chooses, I can't say that I'm sure what
> he holds.

I would suggest that Jakob van Bruggen (and Wm. Wisselink, who completed
his doctorate under Van Bruggen) would be far closer and more in sympathy
with my own views than would Hodges, Farstad, or Pickering.  Van Bruggen
and I differ often over interpretation of passages, which interpretation
affects our manner of internal-evidence defense of various Byzantine
readings, but we still favor almost an identical Byzantine/Majority text
of the NT (including the major differences in Revelation from the H/F
stemmatic text in that book). 

The use of a string of continual quotes from contemporary eclectic 
critics, each attempting to shoot down one or another element of internal 
evidence espoused by another is an entertaining exercise when done well.  
Van Bruggen is careful enough in this regard, and basically emulates the 
same type of critique as does Eldon J. Epp in his "Requiem" and 
"Interlude" articles.  

However, such academic "proof-texting," while demonstrating that there is 
not total peace and harmony in eclectic-land, does not of itself establish 
any alternative as better.  I myself avoid that type of proof-texting, 
since it is not a solution, but (as Epp maintained) a "symptom."

I also want to avoid any connection with the utter mess that Wilbur
Pickering made out of various scholarly quotes in his "Identity of the NT
Text" book, where he blatantly took passages out of context, misquoted
other passages, and misapplied the lot in a poor attempt to discredit the
eclectic position (and ruined the real thrust of his book in the process).


=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   
=========================================================================

Back