[B-Greek] Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament_

Dr. Don Wilkins drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net
Tue Apr 27 15:48:41 EDT 2004


I think the matter of "the text behind the NIV" is a real issue, and I'm 
surprised that there has been so little reference to it among all the 
recent e-notes regarding the RGNT. Now listers Narkinsky and Regalado 
have both made interesting points. Probably a discussion about Greek 
texts is more appropriate for the tc-list (which has been down of late), 
but I really don't see how any discussion about the merits and 
shortcomings of the RGNT can be justified without it. Besides, the 
tc-list is principally concerned with individual passages and 
traditional text-types, so perhaps this issue is fair game here. In any 
case, I would like to summarize the issue as I see it, and then pose a 
question.

Traditionally, we have recognized certain text-types behind the GNT, 
primarily the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine/Majority Text (which 
tc critics tend to either love or hate). Raymond is quite right to argue 
that the UBS (and Nestle-Aland) editors have made choices which are not 
necessarily better than those made by the NIV folks. I could say the 
same for the NASB; there, too, we have chosen to depart from UBS/NA 
readings in a number of places because we considered the choices made to 
be flawed or invalid. Indeed, most second-year Greek students have had a 
good look at Metzger's Textual Commentary on the GNT, and there are a 
number of passages there where a split decision was made, and a minority 
opinion is included, not unlike Supreme Court decisions except that the 
textual committee cannot claim equal authority and prestige. Moreover, 
the traditional text-types themselves are not supported throughout by 
any one manuscript, but are considered to represent the source-texts 
behind the extant manuscripts. Despite all that, the value and 
reliability of any translation depends entirely on the original text(s) 
upon which it is based. Now I have not yet seen the RGNT (I have it on 
order), but the impression I get so far is that its raison d' etre is 
the NIV, or as others have put it, the RGNT is a reverse-engineered text 
from the NIV. In reality, the RGNT can only be as good as the 
manuscripts upon which it is based and the choices made among variant 
readings by the NIV translators. That in turn means that in every 
passage which deviates from the UBS/NA (231 cited, as I understand), the 
chosen readings must be from other ancient manuscripts, and the choices 
must be consistent with the guidelines of textual criticism. I would 
assume that this is what the NIV folk have done. That is what we who 
translate the NASB have done, and I would not be surprised if the NIV 
translators made some of the same choices that we have made (or 
vice-versa). It needs to be said that such choices are not arbitrary, 
nor are the choices of the UBS/NA editors arbitrary. Disagreements are 
due to differences in weight given to arguments pro and con for a 
reading.

Now to get to my question. It is not the translation that gives 
credibility to the Greek text behind it, but the reverse. If the RGNT 
were a back-translation, i.e. a translation into koine Greek of the NIV, 
it would have no value at all. I could say the same for a 
back-translation of the NASB or any other translation. In places the 
Greek would undoubtedly coincide with the text of an ancient ms; but 
without having the latter, one would not know, rendering the 
back-translation itself useless. I have to assume that the RGNT is the 
product of legitimate textual choices made by the NIV translators, 
rather than a back-translation in whole or in part, and I'm sure the 
textual notes in the RGNT will establish that. But even so, is it really 
a good idea to consider this a Greek text on par with the UBS/NA (if 
that is the direction we are heading)? Zondervan seems to be marketing 
it that way, and I can see how they might benefit if students and 
teachers chucked the UBS and switched to the RGNT. It would follow that 
whenever the NIV changed as the result of a textual reevaluation, the 
RGNT would have to change as well. Moreover, we might have to change the 
way we think of the GNT: it would no longer be the UBS/NA (with which we 
disagree in places) but the NIV Greek, the NASB Greek, the NRSV Greek, 
and so forth. If such an idea took over in the classroom, I shudder to 
imagine the confusion that could result in the pews. It is bad enough to 
have to deal with the debate between the Alexandrian and Byzantine/MT 
text-types. Some may think I'm over-reacting, and I sincerely hope that 
is the case. If it is, I would be deeply grateful for anyone to tell me 
why, off-list if you prefer.

Don Wilkins
(Translator, the Lockman Foundation)

On Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 04:17 AM, Raymond Regalado wrote:

> On 2004.4.27, at 12:17  PM, Patrick Narkinsky wrote:
>
>> [1] I really wish they used the UBS4 text instead of "the text behind 
>> the NIV".   I would feel more comfortable with a text that was not 
>> quite so arbitrary.
>
> Is the UBS4 text any less "arbitrary" than the "text behind the NIV"?  
> It's a matter of choosing among the variants, and the NIV translators 
> had their own reasons for their choices, which I don't know if they're 
> any less valid reasons than the UBS4 editors'.  But I guess that is a 
> topic for the text criticism list...



More information about the B-Greek mailing list