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

Dr. Don Wilkins drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net
Wed Apr 28 15:43:51 EDT 2004


On Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 07:23 PM, bgreek at ntresources.com wrote:

>> Plus, I would have already endorsed the RGNT as a whole,
>
> Is that any different than "endorsing UBS4 as a whole"? And that when
> you don't (obviously) agree with all the textual decisions of the UBS
> text (since you made your own choices in NASB)? *Would it be any
> different if the RGNT reflected your decisions in & the text underlying
> NASB???*
>
> For that matter, how many of us (i.e., profs, at least) ever endorse
> *any* text (Greek or translation) "as a whole"? I've not seen a perfect
> one yet--though there are some good ones. That I use an NIV (or NASB, or
> ESV, or...) in class isn't a carte blanche endorsement--and students
> know that. I've taught my students for years the advantages of UBS vs.
> NA texts, which to use for which, and why they might want to buy one or
> the other. And the same for translations. I'm not sure I seen the reason
> for concern now that we add another option to the mix of Greek texts
> available.
>
> Rodney J. Decker, Th.D.
> Baptist Bible Seminary
>

Quite right, it is no different from endorsing UBS4 as a whole, and I 
would hope that the comments you and others have made about the RGNT on 
the list would be more reserved and tempered if delivered to your 
students. My plea was that you be direct to your students about the 
RGNT's textual shortcomings. I doubt very much that you would say of 
UBS4 in class that your only gripes about it were cosmetic; and yet 
UBS4, you will agree, is incomparably superior to RGNT in textual 
information provided, and is obviously less biased toward any one 
English translation. Indeed, the evidence of textual differences from 
UBS reflected in the NIV, NASB, and probably others is proof of relative 
neutrality for UBS4, even if that neutrality is based on choices of 
readings that we would criticize. As to whether my viewpoint would be 
different if RGNT reflected the text underlying the NASB, well, that is 
a little like asking me whether I have stopped beating my wife, in that 
no answer exonerates me. If I say yes, then I am guilty of hypocrisy, 
and if no, then I am most likely seen as a liar or insincere jerk. But 
to be honest, given my feelings for the NASB, I can only say that I hope 
my viewpoint would be no different. I'm sure that I would at least say 
that the choice was a matter of substantial cost benefit for the 
students, and that they should acquire UBS or NA asap.

You confirmed my expectation that you've informed students about UBS vs. 
NA, and I take it that you don't explicitly endorse any translation. But 
again, I would argue that what you actually use is a powerful implicit 
endorsement, since you carry considerable weight as an excellent 
teacher. And I do realize that there are no perfect Greek texts or 
translations. But after comparing UBS to NA, how does one compare RGNT 
to either of them? So I am just suggesting, tell your students that RGNT 
is useful as an inexpensive tool for first-year Greek, but inadequate 
beyond that. I would also humbly suggest that you give them the option 
of spending the extra money for UBS or NA, and limit your tests to 
passages where RGNT and UBS agree, or specify that the RGNT students 
stick to the footnotes elsewhere so that they're on the same page with 
the UBS students. Otherwise, I would still maintain that if you simply 
say RGNT is a good Greek text, as good as any, it is quite possible that 
at least some students will graduate with it as their preferred and only 
text, and I can't believe you want that.

Don Wilkins




More information about the B-Greek mailing list