[B-Greek] Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament_
Kevin W. Woodruff
cierpke at prodigy.net
Tue Apr 27 16:37:26 EDT 2004
I just picked up a book that challenges some of the
"textual optimism" expressed by the editors of the UBS
fourth edition. The previous editions of the UBS had
had between 122 and 144 "D" readings where the fourth
editon has only 9 in the whole Greek New Testament.
It's a fascinating little volume
Clarke, Kent, D. Textual Optimism: A Critique of the
United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament.
Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
--- "Dr. Don Wilkins" <drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> 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...
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
=====
Prof. Kevin W. Woodruff, M. Div., M. S. I. S.
Library Director/Reference Librarian, Professor of Bible and Greek
Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary, 1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404, United States of America
423/493-4252 (office) 423/493-4423 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX)
Cierpke at prodigy.net http://pages.prodigy.net/cierpke/woodruff.htm
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list