Re: TR vs W-H, N-A/UBS
Carlton L. Winbery (email@example.com)
Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:17:36 +0400
Don Wilkins writes;
>Jim Fellure writes:
>" There appears to be at least two positions. I would assume that John
>W. Burgon/S. Franklin Logsdon(NASB) could represent the camp that holds
>the TR to be the best critical greek text, while Bruce Metzger/F.F.
>Bruce would support the N-A/UBS to be the best. How is a layman to know?"
>I don't know how the other listers feel about getting into this very thorny
>issue, but let me clear up one thing immediately: the NASB is firmly on the
>NA/UBS side. What work Frank Logsdon did for the Lockman Foundation in regard
>to the NASB, if he in fact did any, is unclear. Later, due to discussions he
>had with David O. Fuller, Logsdon disavowed the NASB. As to the bigger TR
>vs. NA issue, both sides have a lot to say (I'm on the NA side) and I don't
>know whether this is the best forum, but I'm willing to participate if it is.
>There is a textual criticism list where such matters are discussed in depth,
>but I don't think that is the place for general discussion about the basic
>issue. If you like I could e-mail you info produced by the Lockman Foundation,
>but it is of course written from a pro NASB (and hence NA/UBS) perspective.
There was a lengthy debate on tc-list not long ago in which the merits of
the majority text, the Byzantine text, and the text based more on the
Alexandrian traditions were discussed. I think these are archived
somewhere. That is certainly a more appropriate forum. TC enters into
this list where it makes a difference in how to understand the Greek. The
debate about the original text of the NT washes over badly into theology
and ideology. It has produced some extensive flames before.
Carlton L. Winbery
LA College, Pineville, La