READ https:\/\/www.thetextofthegospels.com\/2017\/03\/news-early-text-of-pericope-adulterae_31.html<\/p>\n\n\n\n
READ https:\/\/www.thetextofthegospels.com\/2017\/03\/defending-inerrancy-and-mark-169-20.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n REVIEW https:\/\/books.google.com.co\/books?id=CNmOa7HaS6EC&pg=RA2-PT3&hl=el&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maurice Arthur Robinson<\/strong> (born October 13, 1947) is an American professor of New Testament<\/a> and Greek<\/a> (retired) and a proponent of the Byzantine-priority method of New Testament textual criticism<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thesis “Scribal Habits among Manuscripts of the Apocalypse”<\/em> (1982)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/New-Testament-Original-Greek\/dp\/0759800774\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Robinson was born in Quincy, Massachusetts, to Arthur and Olga Robinson, but grew up in Bradenton, Florida. He earned his B.A. (1969) in English and secondary education from the University of South Florida<\/a>, M.Div. (1973) and Th.M. (1975) from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary<\/a>, and Ph.D. (1982) from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary<\/a> (dissertation: “Scribal Habits among Manuscripts of the Apocalypse”). Robinson married Renee Guscott in 1970.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Robinson’s move away from reasoned eclecticism<\/a>, to which he still held in writing as late as 1975,[3]<\/a><\/sup> is traced directly to the influence of noted New Testament textual critic Kenneth W. Clark<\/a>, who guided Robinson in a mentored program of study from 1971 to 1977 and was guest-supervisor for his Th.M. thesis.[4]<\/a><\/sup> Clark<\/a>‘s influence on Robinson focused on a skepticism[5]<\/a><\/sup> of the necessarily “subjective and tendentious” nature of reasoned eclecticism<\/a>, the need for a “critical history of transmission,”[6]<\/a><\/sup> and the proposition that reasoned eclectic procedure should accept “a stronger role for the Byzantine Textform coupled with a strong transmissional historical view.”[7]<\/a><\/sup> At least the first two of these come out clearly in Robinson’s Th.M. thesis, where he opined, “Eclecticism<\/a> reigns, and it has left textual criticism in a state of fluidity. … [O]ur objectivity has been surrendered to the whims of individual critics. … Our feet have become mired and mudbound in the trenches of subjectivity.”[8]<\/a><\/sup> He advocated that critics must determine the “history of the transmission of the New Testament text viewed in its total chronological perspective,” and that the “primary value of texttypes is their utilization in reconstructing the history of textual transmission.”[9]<\/a><\/sup> In contrast to his current Byzantine-priority stance, Robinson stated at the time that “it is more likely that the original text itself was what we today would term ‘mixed,'” that “[a]ll known texttypes<\/a> proceeded from this original ‘mixed’ [form], coming into existence as types<\/em> primarily from local-text situations,” and even that “the uncontrolled, popular text of the second century … corrupted the original [Textform] with its own scraps of oral tradition and theologically motivated alterations.”[10]<\/a><\/sup> Even then Robinson expressed that “the Alexandrian text<\/a> [could] have arisen as the first attempt to produce an alternative controlled text against the multiplicity of wild texts which characterized the Western<\/a> groups,”[11]<\/a><\/sup> a view to which he still holds more than 40 years later.[12]<\/a><\/sup> Robinson’s obsession with constantly evaluating “all pertinent transmissional and transcriptional factors … in relation to the various aspects of external<\/a> and internal<\/a> criteria” before making any final decisions regarding the text to be established may be summarized in how he describes his method: “reasoned transmissionalism.”[13]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n As mentioned above, the genesis of Robinson’s career dedication to “reasoned transmissionalism” essentially goes back to Clark<\/a> and is best expressed in Robinson’s own words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clark<\/a>\u2019s views, written and oral, laid the basis for my shift away from reasoned eclecticism<\/a> to a transmission-based hypothesis; this ultimately led to my Byzantine-priority position. Clark<\/a>\u2019s hints and allegations in his published material were enhanced by his private tutelage, where he lamented over much of his previous career, having focused on reasonable internal<\/a> and external<\/a> principles that nevertheless led to faulty conclusions. As he expressed to me in the mid-1970s, had he been 30 years younger, he would chart a new course, predicated on transmissional probabilities, including the strong view that the autograph text of any New Testament<\/a> book would more likely be preserved within a single<\/em> existing texttype<\/a> rather than amid an eclectic conglomeration drawn from multiple sources. Clark<\/a> suggested that the question of which<\/em> texttype<\/a> should be dually established from (1) the likelihood of its archetypal reconstructability, and (2) the quantitative and qualitative evidence relating to the transmission and perpetuation of that archetype. Clark<\/a>\u2019s final conclusion shocked my reasoned eclectic<\/a> viewpoint: he suggested that the Byzantine Textform<\/a> \u2014 to the extent that such could be established in its archetypal form \u2014 was the most likely candidate for autograph originality against all rival claimants, whether favored Greek<\/a> manuscripts, other texttypes<\/a> or subjective internal<\/a> factors. As Clark<\/a> told me then, “I am now too old to explore and delineate this position; but you are young, and should pursue it.” That has been my endeavor since approximately 1975.[14]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Robinson’s single largest project is the text of the\u00a0Pericope adulterae<\/a><\/em>\u00a0(PA; also\u00a0Pericope de adultera<\/em>), or the passage of the adulteress (John 7:53-8:11). Having examined more than 1750\u00a0continuous-text manuscripts<\/a>\u00a0related to the passage or its perimeter, he completely collated the nearly 1500 manuscripts and 500 lectionaries which contain the passage. This was done at the\u00a0Institut f\u00fcr Neutestamentliche Textforschung<\/a>\u00a0in M\u00fcnster, Germany, primarily during a 1997\u20131998 sabbatical leave, with briefer visits in the years 1999, 2000, and 2005. The computerized data entry of 15 years’ worth of primary collation material was completed in 2012, as was the volume, “The Greek Manuscript Witnesses to the\u00a0Pericope Adulterae<\/em>: A Comprehensive Collation of All Accessible and Readable Continuous-text and Lectionary Manuscripts according to the Various Locations in which the Passage is Present.”[15]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Another volume appeared in 2014, “A Comprehensive Bibliography of Material relating to the\u00a0Pericope Adulterae<\/em>\u00a0(John 7:53-8:11): Various Entries Annotated, generally by Direct Quotation from the Source Cited.”[16]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Both volumes, including Robinson’s original collation documents and handwritten notes, may be accessed at the\u00a0SEBTS<\/a>\u00a0library and are preparatory for the final work, still in progress:\u00a0The Text of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11)<\/em>, 3 vols. Vol. 1:\u00a0Text and Apparatus<\/em>; Vol. 2:\u00a0The Textual Interrelationships among the Manuscripts which contain the Pericope Adulterae<\/em>; Vol. 3:\u00a0The Archetype of the\u00a0<\/em>Pericope Adulterae\u00a0and its Relationship to the Gospel of John<\/em>. Until these volumes appear, two articles by Robinson remain of primary interest in relation to his\u00a0magnum opus<\/a>: “Preliminary Observations Regarding the\u00a0Pericope Adulterae<\/em>\u00a0based upon Fresh Collations of nearly all Continuous-Text Manuscripts and all Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage”;[17]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and, “The\u00a0Pericope Adulterae<\/em>: A Johannine Tapestry with Double Interlock.”[18]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Maurice A. Robinson, “Fifty Years behind the Text: Post-Retirement Reflections on a Career in NT Textual Criticism” (paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Antonio, Tex., 15 November 2016), 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Robinson (with William Pierpont) is most recognized for editing a Greek New Testament based on Byzantine-priority principles which previously had been explored, formulated, and expressed in various papers and publications.[19]<\/a><\/sup> The Greek text, although prepared by Robinson in digital form several years earlier, appeared in 1991 in an initial softback edition without accents or breathing marks and was titled, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine\/Majority Textform<\/em> (Atlanta: The Original Word). Fourteen years later a more elegant edition appeared, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005<\/em> (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing), a fully accented edition with an apparatus showing every variation of the text from that of the standard Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> (27th ed.), marginal readings indicating major splits in the Greek manuscript tradition, and a 53-page appendix explaining “The Case for Byzantine Priority.” This was followed in 2010 by a corrected Reader’s Edition, produced in cooperation with Jeffrey Dodson (who was responsible for the formatting).[20]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Some titles of Robinson’s other publications include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n