KJV Only Debate Blog Interviews Dr. Maurice Robinson, pt. 2

This is the second installment of our three part interview with Dr. Maurice Robinson, co-editor of the The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 1991, 2005). Continuing from part 1….

———————————

6. Getting back to the Majority Text, opponents of the Majority Text point out the relative lateness of Byzantine readings compared to older readings in the Alexandrian or other text types. How would you respond to the idea that older readings, all things considered, are necessarily better?

Were this really a true principle, then we should be preferring Western readings over Alexandrian (as even Westcott and Hort acknowledged), since the Western readings clearly have a documented earlier pedigree than the Alexandrian, whether from Old Latin MSS or patristic quotations. Obviously neither Westcott and Hort nor even most eclectically based modern critical texts follow that particular route (a few textual critics mostly in France in fact do advocate Western authenticity). In addition, it is generally recognized among all schools of thought that at least some later MSS in fact do preserve earlier texts. This principle usually is limited by critical text partisans to include only those later MSS that tend to agree with their favored earlier MSS, but the principle should apply equally; and if so, there is no reason why the later Byzantine MSS (or those of even the late 4th and early 5th centuries) should not similarly be considered to have preserved a much earlier form of text with (at least) second-century roots. This becomes a greater issue, given that many non-Byzantine partisans have allowed that virtually all significant readings were in existence during the second century — this in effect reflecting what Sturz and Colwell have claimed. Also — as Sturz has shown — numerous Byzantine readings that were dismissed by Westcott and Hort as “distinctively” Byzantine (maintaining W-H’s definition of such in light of material then available to them) do appear in early papyri that were unknown to W-H. Further, as Burgon and Miller had claimed (confirmed by more precise recent research), a large number of Byzantine readings exist among early fathers in a proportion that does approach 2:1 (cf. Hannah’s tabulation of quotations by Origen in 1 Corinthians). So a case can be made regarding the likely early character of the Byzantine Textform; the desired missing piece yet to be discovered (should such ever occur) is merely an early papyrus with a clearly Byzantine text.

7. On a somewhat related note, would you say a respect for the history of church usage, plays heavily into your decision to opt for a Byzantine priority?

Not that I would give great credence to the particular doctrinal views of the Greek Orthodox Church any more than I would those of the Roman Catholic Church — but I do recognize that it was primarily through each of these channels that the Greek and Latin Vulgate texts of the NT were preserved. Accepting that historical factor, I would suggest that a healthy respect for church-based preservation and transmission of the sacred texts should weigh heavily in relation to text-critical theories and praxis.

8a. Some of us have read a bit of the writings of men like Dean John Burgon, Frederick Scrivener and even Edward Freer Hills. Would you claim such men as forebears of the Majority Text position?

I would not consider anyone whose primary agenda was the defense of KJV exclusivity or primacy to be in any manner a forerunner of the Byzantine-priority or majority text position, but rather to reflect a more recent and less-than-scholarly development. This is the situation with Hills, who — regardless of all his former training and apparently favorable comments regarding the Byzantine or majority text — is never willing absolutely to reject any KJV reading derived from a minority of Greek manuscripts (or even no Greek manuscripts whatever!). Through scholastic sophistry similar to that applied by most other KJVOs, Hills ultimately defends every aspect of the KJV and its underlying text, regardless of where the factual data might point. Like most other KJVOs, Hills also ignores the methodological dichotomy whereby he on the one hand claims Byzantine superiority while on the other hand he denies such in favor of minority or unsupported readings — this demonstrates a KJVO mentality quite clearly. Burgon and Miller, on the other hand, freely critiqued certain translational and textual aspects of the KJV, even while urging its retention for Anglican Church use until such time as various textual and translational matters were more firmly decided (conservative textual criticism in the 19th century was very much undetermined and in flux). Scrivener was even more bold, openly departing much more from the KJV and its underlying text, but not always in the Byzantine direction. Scrivener basically allowed for the originality of various non-Byzantine minority readings taken from other texttypes; such was not the case with Burgon or Miller. Similarly, S. W. Whitney in the 19th century also defended the Byzantine reading in most cases (more so than Scrivener), but here and there even Whitney chose to abandon the Byzantine reading for one found in minority texttypes. In this light, the real forerunners of the current majority text or Byzantine-priority position remain Burgon and Miller and (in his earliest work) J. A. Scholz.

8b. If the Greek text you helped edit were available to these men, would you think they would support your efforts?

I think that for the most part Burgon and Miller would agree heartily, given the evidence from their own writings, especially Burgon’s comments as to places where the TR/KJV text was deficient or erroneous. Such appears not only in his major works, but also as shown in his Textual Commentary on Mt 1-14, where he anticipated both the H-F and R-P texts regarding places of variation away from the TR in more than 95% of the actual cases. Scholz similarly would likely fall into the same category. Scrivener and Whitney, on the other hand, would today continue to hold a differing opinion in some cases.

9. Could you speak to how modern scholarship in general, and evangelical scholarship particularly, has received the Majority Text? Is it helping to further productive debate?

For the most part modern text-critical scholarship remains content with the predominantly Alexandrian-based reasoned eclectic method and its resultant UBS or Nestle text (even though those texts are determined more on external than internal principles). Here and there, of course, eclectic-based journal articles and commentaries occasionally defend some Byzantine as well as other non-Alexandrian readings, but not to a degree that would significantly alter the Alexandrian character of the critical text favored overall. The scholars who have accepted the Byzantine-priority or majority text position remain few, and many of these do not primarily teach or practice in the text-critical arena. In contrast, far more laypeople seem to favor the Byzantine or majority text position than those in academia, although their support continually is clouded by the overly vocal KJVO partisans, who tend to drown out the various voices of reason on this issue.

The very fact that the Byzantine Textform has been published (electronically and in hard copy) helps to spur further inquiry and debate (see, for example, Dan Wallace regarding the likely originality of the Byzantine “shorter readings” as well as the acceptance of some previously rejected Byzantine readings by the INTF in Münster). Overall, however, the Byzantine-priority position remains unconvincing to most scholarly readers (through no fault of my own, I trust). Yet, had the H-F or R-P editions never been published, I wonder whether the greater credence now assigned to some Byzantine readings by eclectic critics really would have occurred.

This interview will conclude tomorrow with part 3.