View Single Post
  #275  
Old 02-10-2021, 04:23 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,341
Byzantine and Majority Texts (and Received Text)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
The Majority Text, especially as CAPITALIZED (as you did) refers to a specific TEXT, published as such, and which is the basis for the revised editions of the New King James Version as well as the various Orthodox Bible versions published in English in the last several decades.
Incorrect on various points.

1) the NKJV text is the Received Text, as is the Authorized Version. Arthur Farsted had an idea to use a Majority Text edition, but that was abandoned. In the New Testament there are only a couple of small (yet important, like Hebrews 3:16) textual distinctions between the AV and the NKJV. The NKJV does manage to mangle itself in its translation attempts to depart from the AV.

2) Orthodox Bible versions are not based on a majority text either. Simply read the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37 in those texts to determine that for yourself. Another verse good to check is 1 John 2:23b.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
"The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others. There are two published Greek texts which purport to represent the Majority readings -- Hodges & Farstad 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson 1991. The reader may click on the links in the previous sentence to go to brief descriptions of these texts, and a list of all their differences is given here."

--- http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html
The R&P text is called the Byzantine text, not Majority, and works on a threshold basis. If no variant makes a specified pct (80, maybe 70) then other factors are brought to play, the most numerous is not necessarily taken.

The Hodges & Farsted text used a limited number of mss.

Similarly with the Wilbur Pickering text, based on Family 35. On conceptual argumentation, Pickering is often considered the follow-up to Hodges.

The Greek New Testament According to Family 35 (2015)
Wilbur Pickering
https://www.amazon.com/Greek-New-Tes.../dp/0989827372

The Sovereign Creator has Spoken -- New Testament Translation with Commentary: Objective Authority for Living
https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Cre.../dp/0989827305

WM 86: Review: Pickering's Greek NT and English Translation (2017)
Jeffrey Riddle
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2017/12/wm...ek-nt-and.html

Quote:
Preface (pp. i-iii): Pickering begins by noting his doubts about the reliability of Hermann von Soden’s Greek NT (1911-1913), which underlies the Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont editions of the Majority (Byzantine) Text.

...

The apparatus also includes comparison to six published editions:

RP: Robinson-Pierpont (2005)
HF: Hodges-Farstad
OC: text of the Orthodox Church
TR: Textus Receptus
CP: Complutension Polyglot
NU: Nestle-Aland 26/UBS 3

He notes that this new edition of the Majority/Byzantine text justifies its existence, since it holds over a thousand differences from either the HF or RP editions. He affirms his belief in inerrancy and states in a footnote: “I venture to affirm to the reader that all original wording of the NT is preserved in this edition, if not in the Text, at least in the apparatus” (ii, n. 4).

...

The translation style allows for dynamic equivalence. The prose is awkward, sometimes overly colloquial, and stiff.
The colophon notations are interesting for New Testament dating.

Quote:
Notes on the ending of Mark (16:20):
It cites the colophon note on the date as “published ten years after the ascension of Christ.”

Notes on the ending of Luke (24:53):
It cites the colophon note on the date of Luke as “published fifteen years after the ascension of Christ.”

Notes on the ending of John (21:25):
It cites the colophons on the date of John as “published thirty-two years after the ascension of Christ.”

Notes on ending of Matthew (28:20):
Note 7, p. 87 observes that 50% of the colophons for the f35 mss. read “published eight years after the ascension of Christ.” Pickering suggests, “this probably means that the tradition is ancient.” He adds:

If this information is correct, then Matthew was “published” in 38/39 AD. The same sources have Mark published two years later (40/41) and Luke another five years later (45/46), while John was “published” thirty-two years after the ascension, or 61/62 AD. Not only were the authors eyewitnesses of the events, but many others were still alive when the Gospels appeared. They could attest to the veracity of the accounts, but could also be the source of textual variants, adding tidbits here and there, or ‘correcting’ something that they remembered differently.
In the comments, in addition to the concern about the quirkiness of the F35 dogma, a concern is raised about his 'Days of Noah' doctrines.

Days of Noah
http://somehelpful.info/Christian/Days-of-Noah.pdf

========================

Still checking a bit.
Here are a few resources.

========================

Pure Bible Forum
Received Text and Majority Text
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index...ority-text.78/

========================

John S. Holland points out some other aspects, such as in how Revelation is handled.

Majority Texts
http://biblekjv.com/cmt/nttxt/nttext03.htm

========================

What is the Authentic New Testament Text
Steve Rafalsky
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads...nt-text.15134/

========================

Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-10-2021 at 05:55 AM.
Reply With Quote