A Little TC Help Needed

Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Tue Mar 21 13:25:47 EST 2000


To: Harold R. Holmyard III,

<< The UBS4 did not feel that it was necessary to include information about 
variant readings at 1 Cor 2:14. Since the discussion originally had 
centered around which was the original text, it seems likely that the 
opinion of the editors grew stronger in favor of the majority of the 
witnesses. They did not include variant readings because they felt that the 
text was sufficiently established to bypass the issue in UBS4. At least, 
since we are not certain of the editors' thinking, this is a reasonable 
conclusion to draw from the available information. >>

IMO, your inference is not justified. The UBS4 dropped 300 variants: 23 had 
been rated A; 99 had been rated B; 162 had been rated C; and 16 had been 
rated D. At the same time UBS4 added 285 new variants: 168 were given an A 
rating; 62 were given a B rating; and 55 were given a C rating. IMO there 
is no justification (at least none to my knowledge) for assuming that the 
Committee of the UBS4 now hold that all of those 300 variants dropped from 
the UBS4 edition should now be rated at the A or even B level. Furthermore, 
the variant at 1 Cor 2:14 was originally given a B rating in UBS1 and then 
in the second edition it was lowered to a C! Merely because it has now 
dropped out of the UBS apparatus, that is no justification for assuming 
that the Committee would now rate it back up as a B or higher.

Kent D. Clarke, in his "Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible 
Societies' Greek New Testament" (1997) quotes H. P. Scanlin as having written:

<< After decades of use by those engaged in Bible translation, it was 
decided that the Fourth Edition should incorporate changes in the apparatus 
to enhance its usefulness for translators. About 15 translations in several 
major languages were carefully checked to see where these translations made 
text-critical decisions that affected their translation. The Editorial 
Committee then carefully reviewed both the existing items in the apparatus 
and the additional items that could be useful to translators to determine 
which items could be removed from the textual apparatus and which should be 
added >> (94-95; citing Scanlin [1994] BT 45:349).

And so my statement seems correct, namely: << The omission of this variant 
reading [at 2 Cor 2:14] in UBS4 does not necessarily mean that the 
Committee was no longer bothered by the possibility that the shorter 
reading might be "the original text," rather the omission means that the 
Committee didn't feel that this variant reading was important for 
translators. ... Although the omission does not necessarily imply that they 
had raised their evaluation of this reading, they could have done that too. >>

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller at www.plantnet.com
FWIW: I'm neither a clergy-person, nor an academic (and I have no post-grad 
degrees).




More information about the B-Greek mailing list