Sat Oct 26 10:34:17 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Oct 26 10:34:17 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA12323; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:33:00 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:29:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2214



On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> Being theologically liberal, I am perhaps not the one to answer this,

Perhaps not, but why should it matter in trying to explain the situation?

> I don't think it is exclusively a matter of theology, but it has an
> influence. The U.S. has a very large "fundamentalist" (extremely
> conservative) theological movement. Since this movement believes
> in "verbal inerrancy," many of its members (not all!) are
> committed to a particular text -- frequently the King James translation,
> and hence the Textus Receptus.

Excluding the ultra-fundamentalist KJV-Only position, this still fails to
account for the 95% of all other "conservative" NT scholars who also hold
to verbal plenary inspiration and the consequent inerrancy of scripture
yet who are in no way tied to any particular English translation and who
also fully accept an Alexandrian-based eclectic text.  

Certainly the current pro-Byzantine or pro-majority text advocates happen
to be from within the conservative wing (I would not necessarily say
"fundamentalist", since I am certain that Europeans such as Jakob Van
Bruggen or Peter Johnston would strenuously object), but this does not
seem to stem from any cause/effect principle; indeed, as I have mentioned
previously, the only reason I moved in this direction was due to the
strong suggestions of Kenneth W. Clark, who himself would be categorized
as theologically liberal.  

I would also mention the Roman Catholic scholar, Hugh Pope, who similarly
took a pro-Byzantine position in the late 1940s; whether he is from a more
conservative wing of the Roman Catholic church, I do not know.  I do know
that Jose O'Callaghan mentioned to me in personal correspondence that in
the last years of his life Bover himself was moving toward a pro-Byzantine
position, so I think that the theological inclination of the advocates is
generally irrelevant. 


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

Back