Mon Oct 28 22:39:16 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Oct 28 22:39:16 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA01836; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:38:14 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:34:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: TC and conservatives
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: 4591



On 29 Oct 1996, KULIKOVSKY, Andrew wrote:

> Now I am a not an ultra-conservative or fundamentalist
> and I am definitely not a liberal. I am an evangelical
> Christian and would describe myself as a "liberal
> conservative" ..... if that isn't an oxymoron......

Peculiar, however, to say the least *;-)

> conservatives that do.  I am constantly trying to
> convince ultra-conservative friends that still hold
> to the KJV and NKJV that these are 1) not the best
> translations available and 2) based on inferior Gk
> MSS.

The first matter is one regarding translational quality, and I would
clearly separate the KJV from the NKJV in that regard.  On point (2) I
obviously am trying to convince non-ultra-conservatives regarding a
superiority of the Byzantine Textform.

> The tendency of conservatives to reject the
> modern critical texts and modern versions is due
> to groups that write little pamphlets and booklets
> that are pro-KJV/NKJV/TR 

I think you will find that that group will _not_ defend the NKJV in any
manner.  Their only goal is a misguided defense of the KJV, sometimes with
the TR thrown in.

> and that hurl all sorts of
> (unwarranted) abuse at MSS that stand outside of the
> TR/Byzantine/Majority traditions 

These groups also oppose the Byzantine and "majority text" positions
almost as vociferously as they do the eclectic positions.

> and all sorts
> of (unwarranted) abuse and (untrue) accusations
> at TC and its practicianers. The Trinitarian Bible
> Society is a prime example. The arguments
> emanating from their pamphlets are nothing short
> of utter tripe not to mention falacious, ignorant and
> historically inaccurate and nieve. 

Absolutely.  Anyone who has not read some of this material should venture
into their area at least once. *;-)

> There have been some scholars (like Maurice
> Robinson on this list) and Hills and Pickering
> who have at least put up some intelligent,
> sensible reasoning in favour of the Majority
> tradition although I don't agree with them.

I prefer not to be included in the same list with Hills, since he is a
KJV-Only defender.  As for Pickering, I already have pointed out various
reasons for my position not to be associated with him. (And for the
record, I have never used the KJV for preaching, teaching, or study
purposes, except rarely for comparison of renderings; I first used the old
RSV, and continue to use that and other modern translations in all
matters).

> D A Carson has answered Hills and Pickering
> and most others as well in his book, "The KJV
> debate: a plea for realism" (I think that's the
> correct title.)

I do concur with many of Carson's comments regarding Pickering (though
that portion of his book is a separate section from the main thrust, which
is to refute the KJV-Only practitioners such as Hills).  I do not consider
Carson's critique of the Byzantine text, however, to be adequate.

> I read a book by Gordon H Clarke called
> "Logical criticisms of TC". 

A terrible booklet in my opinion, which shows the author to fully
misunderstand the subject about which he presumes to pontificate.

> Another misunderstnading among conservatives is
> the idea that TR = Majority = Byzantine. This of course
> is not true. In fact I believe that the TR contains readings
> that are found in no Gk MSS at all. 

This is indeed true, especially in the closing portion of Revelation where
at least 6 words were newly created as Erasmus translated the Latin back
into the Greek.  There are other places as well.

> stating their big argument: the majority of Greek
> manuscripts agree with the TR therefore it must be
> the best. This is not only untrue but also logically
> fallacious. Also, even among the majority text there is
> still are reasonable amount of variation.

I found it humorous that in the mid-1970s, before the TR/KJV folk knew
precisely that the Byzantine or majority text would not contain certain
verses or phrases found in the KJV or TR, they were all in favor of the
"majority text" term.  I have a pamphlet from one of them entitled "Why we
support the majority text" -- which text now is pamphleteered against by
the same person.  For the record, the Byzantine Textform or majority text
differs from the TR in about 1800 places, many of them significant.


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

Back