Maurice Robinson - "Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the 'Test Tube' Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective"

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
This paper from Maurice Robinson eviscerates the critical text. It is helpful to Reformation Bible advocates as well as Byzantine/Majority Text advocates.

Facebook - King James Bible Debate - 2014
https://www.facebook.com/groups/212...d=10152047755726693&offset=0&total_comments=7

Steven Avery
Kevin Deegan
"There is not a Single MS that will match the GNT or UBS cause they choose 1 from column A one from column B sometimes even relying on a single reading found in only one MS"
In fact, Maurice Robinson did a study that showed that there are over 100 individual verses in those texts that have not a single ms. support.
This is because the smorgasbord nature even goes to variants within a verse. The title of the paper is:
"Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the 'Test Tube' Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine Priority Perspective,"
Click to expand...

BEST:

"Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the 'Test Tube' Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine Priority Perspective,"

This one is the actual book pages:

Facebook - New Testament Textual Criticism
Dropbox url
https://www.facebook.com/groups/11404207692/permalink/10156725094992693/

Paper in Dropbox
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzohzjc2c...lkAvXUTM-yWUtF8cj1m_yg5VA_FG2aj2m1K0TL9pWAlHk

BVDB - July 2021
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...s-lets-kjvos-down-what-then-t6338.html#p82257

To the BVDB folks - nothing real complicated in this excellent paper from Maurice Robinson.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Maurice Robinson
https://web.archive.org/web/2017031...e.com/category/interviews/maurice-a-robinson/
kjvodebate.wordpress.com

KJV Only Debate Blog Interviews Dr. Maurice Robinson, pt. 1

We are thrilled that Dr. Maurice Robinson, co-editor of the The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 1991, 2005), has taken the time t…
kjvodebate.wordpress.com kjvodebate.wordpress.com

An additional problem affecting modern critical editions is a form of eclecticism that even in short passages of text (single NT verses or less) introduces a sequence of words that can be demonstrated as having no actual existence in any ancient MS, version, or patristic quotation prior to their modern (19th or 20th century) creation; this point is documented in my recent article, “Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the `Test-Tube’ Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective,” in Stanley Porter and Mark Boda, eds., Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 27-61).
Click to expand...

Longer Quote:

Puritanboard
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/this-kjvo-article-has-ruined-the-esv-for-me.74254/page-3

Here is what Dr. Robinson said in response to the question of what is the biggest problem with the CT.

"The primary issue remains a regionally localized minority texttype, only sporadically transmitted through scribal history in contrast to the vast majority of Greek MSS consistently perpetuated over the centuries in the primary Greek-speaking region of the Eastern Mediterranean world (modern southern Italy, Greece, and Turkey). From that region versional texts necessarily are absent and patristic quotations really are lacking prior to the fourth century; yet as soon as writing theologians appear in that region, they are using what appears to be a well-established Byzantine text. An additional problem affecting modern critical editions is a form of eclecticism that even in short passages of text (single NT verses or less) introduces a sequence of words that can be demonstrated as having no actual existence in any ancient MS, version, or patristic quotation prior to their modern (19th or 20th century) creation; this point is documented in my recent article, “Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the `Test-Tube’ Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective,” in Stanley Porter and Mark Boda, eds., Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 27-61).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Dave Black

6:10 PM My colleague Maurice Robinson has just published two essays in a new book edited by Stan Porter and Mark Boda called Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology.

1626182988049.png


In his essay titled, "Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the 'Test-Tube' Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective," Maurice challenges conventional thinking by addressing the question of the history of the transmission of the New Testament text. He concludes:

Those who maintain the status quo might reject such a claim as exceptional; yet it is the modern critical text that reflects de facto conjecture, transmissional abnormality, and historical implausibility. Ultimately, the question becomes whether confidence should be placed in a text that in the aggregate reflects conjectural speculation and lacks transmissional viability, or in a text with clear historical roots and a potential transmissional plausibility in its favor.106 If one is willing to reexamine long-standing scholarly opinion, the Byzantine-priority hypothesis becomes at least reasonably plausible, particularly in view of its actual historical existence when contrasted with the conjectural claims underlying the NA27/UBS4text.​
Click to expand...

Man do I like Maurice. Not just because he's an outside-the-box thinker. I like the questions he raises, questions that are all the more difficult because fixed opinions have long since been reached on both sides and are rarely subjected to the least examination. It is these simple and uncontested beliefs that Maurice proposes to challenge. I applaud that effort.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Then we get Peter Gurry giving a truly absurd argument

Steven Avery

@[163800553:2048:Peter Gurry] - I found most of your argument here. Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament? https://books.google.com/books?id=F4jcEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT32 It may or may not...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com




Peter Gurry - I found most of your argument here.
Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament?
https://books.google.com/books?id=F4jcEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT32
It may or may not show up.
Most of Peter’s response is weak, illogical and unimpressive.
The idea that the no-manuscript problem somehow negates or conflicts with the over-reliance on Vat-Sin is truly absurd. Peter went fishing.


But let us focus on the more serious and detailed form of the argument made by Maurice Robinson. In a 2009 essay, Robinson identified over one hundred verses in the standard critical edition (the NA27 at the time) that did not exist in their entirety in any known manuscript, version, or church father. The use of eclecticism, in other words, resulted in a text in these places with zero support and thereby uncovered “an inherent problem within the various forms of eclectic methodology. 84 A later, unpublished study revealed two hundred and ten more places where two verse segments had the same zero support. The problem this presents us with is that “the resultant text-even within relatively short segments—becomes an entity that apparently never existed at any time or place.” And ultimately, that leaves us with “questionable results regarding theological textual confidence as a by-product.”85 Do we want to stake our faith on a Frankenstein text? The answer from these critics is no. The solution offered is found in the Byzantine text, or the Majority Text, or perhaps the textus receptus, depending on who is raising the objection.

But the basis for the criticism is unsound. The first indication of this is that it conflicts with another frequent criticism of the eclectic text, namely, that it is too hidebound to Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. This has been the charge since at least Burgon’s day and remains a favorite of King James Onlysists. But which is it? Is the eclectic text wrong because it’s too similar to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus or is it wrong because its text never existed at any time or place? These arguments are running in opposite directions. They can’t both be right. They can, however, both be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Steven Avery
Top contributor
Peter Gurry - here is the first part, with your totally absurd, illogical hand-wave:
"But the basis for the criticism is unsound. The first indication of this is that it conflicts with another frequent criticism of the eclectic text, namely, that it is too hidebound to Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. This has been the charge since at least Burgon’s day and remains a favorite of King James Onlysists. But which is it? Is the eclectic text wrong because it’s too similar to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus or is it wrong because its text never existed at any time or place? These arguments are running in opposite directions. They can’t both be right. They can, however, both be wrong."
====================
This is complete nonsense from Peter Gurry:
What Maurice Robinson called the critical text:
"regionally localized minority texttype, only sporadically transmitted through scribal history"
applies to both the Vat-Sin problem and the bogus text problem. In fact, it is the Vat-Sin problem that leads to the bogus Critical Text problem !!!
The Peter Gurry claim that there is a conflict in pointing out two sides of the same coin is a totally illogical joke.
====================
To be fair, the rest of the section looks like it raises an issue or two, relatively minor, but at least the rest is not totally absurd as the lead-in above.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
K. R. Harriman newsletter
krharriman.substack.com

The Pericope Adulterae

To Include or Not to Include John 7:53–8:11
krharriman.substack.com krharriman.substack.com

Robinson notes that NA27/28 sides with readings that have only one noted Greek witness in thirty-three cases, two noted Greek witnesses in eighty-eight cases, and three noted Greek witnesses in 210 cases, as well as two instances (in Acts 16:12 and 2 Pet 3:10) where there is no Greek attestation.12 "

12 Robinson, “Pericope Adulterae,” 116 n. 7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top