S.C.Carlson

It's not his website, but it is his Byzantine text. Many years ago he allowed the Online Bible to distributed his Greek text with their programs and that's what being used. Because of the popularity of the Online Bible, Robinson's views on the Greek text have garnered a much greater influence than the quantity of his scholarly publications would ordinarily indicate.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Sorry, dost, but this is nonsense.

Actually, the Byzantine text is far more reliable than anything else available today.

These are just unproven theories.

You bet!

No, this is not true.

There are huge differences between KJV/Byzantine text and anything else based on the Westcott & Hort nonsensical innovations.

Since you don't know Greek, this is a good site for you,

Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge 1/2
http://www.eaec.org/bibleversions/westcott_hort_1.htm

Check out some of the differences for yourself.

For those who know Greek, this site,

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index.htm

has all the differences highlighted for every NT verse.

Westcott & Hort text was an utter and complete failure and a fraud.

Westcott & Hort fraud ~ Yuri Kuchinsky
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/whfraud.htm

Best regards,

Yuri.

Haran

Thanks. I wasn't sure.

Some scholars are using the Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text as a collating base (especially when collating miniscule manuscripts). I believe Dr. Daniel Wallace wrote an article encouraging its use. If I can find the reference to the article again (big if...), I'll post it.

S.C.Carlson

Wallace certainly advocated it, but, as far as I can tell, the 1873 Oxford Edition of the Textus Receptus is still the dominating choice. Nevertheless, a majority text edition would be a very good choice for a collation base for two reasons, one theoretical and one practical.

First, almost by definition, the majority text is one form of the text that minimizes the aggregate number of variants, which reduces the size of the collations.

Second, the type of text that the artificially constructed majority text most resembles, the Byzantine text-type, also happens be the fullest. As a result, the collator tends to record omissions from the collation base more frequently than additions, which is easier to do.

Both these reasons lessen the amount of effort a collator has to do, and reducing the amount of human effort helps a lot to reduce human error. In collating, accuracy is paramount (which is one reason why von Soden's edition of the NT is looked down upon).

The major disadvantage of switching the collation base to the R-P Majority Text is inertia: the old collations with the TR would need to be recollated against the MT and textual critics are extremely reluctant to do anything that could increase the opportunity for human error. Perhaps computerization of the collations can eliminate the dangers associated with recollation.

Stephen

Haran

I think using the MT would be better, but would it really be necessary to re-collate all manuscripts previously collated against the TR? Perhaps it would...

I actually found the reference for which I was looking. It happened to be in the new 4th edition of Metzger's The Test of the New Testament, which I finished reading a short while back:

Note 33 on page 221
"Daniel B. Wallace makes a case for using this edition in place of the Textus Receptus as a collating base in his article 'The Majority Text: A New Collating Base?' New Testament Studies, xxxv (1989), pp. 609-18."

Yuri Kuchinsky

The differences between MT and TR are really quite few, especially in the gospels. There are almost no substantial differences, so re-collation shouldn't be a problem.

Maurice Robinson is a fine scholar. He used to be a Hortian, but switched to the Byz side because he saw the weakness of the mainstream position.

And also, Pickering is a fine scholar...

Yuri.

"The distressing realization is forced upon us that
the "progress" of the past hundred years has been
precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions
and critical texts are several times farther removed
from the original than are the Authorised Version
(KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have
come upon us?!" -- Wilbur Pickering