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

Dr. Don Wilkins drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net
Thu Apr 29 16:58:17 EDT 2004


I'm replying here both to Rod and to Joe Weaks, who IMO raised sound 
criticism of the RGNT. I just received a copy of the RGNT and looked at 
the textual variants in some places. Joe would like someone to collate 
the variants, and I would have at first just seconded that request, but 
after looking at a handful of them I realize that evaluation would be 
essential, and as he says, who has the time?

Anyway, after looking in Matthew at just a handful of the "231" places 
where RGNT differs from UBS/NA, I was somewhat startled. Naturally I 
expected disagreements where the manuscript evidence was evenly 
balanced, or other factors would dictate a 'C' or 'D' level of 
confidence by UBS editors, and one would assume that those were 
included. But what I found instead, at the very beginning, were 
disagreements where the confidence level is a strong 'B' or even an 'A', 
i.e., no-brainers from the viewpoint of textual criticism. Now I know 
I'm skating on very thin ice in terms of subject matter, and I can only 
beg Carl's indulgence and be brief; so for now, let me call attention to 
just three examples:

Matt. 4:10-- RGNT/NIV has hUPAGE OPISW MOU vs. UBS's UPAGE: "Get behind 
me" vs. "Go away". This is an 'A' decision according to UBS4. The ms 
evidence is overwhelming, unless one wants to argue for the 
Byzantine/Majority Text as the inspired original, which has the reading 
with OPISW MOU. Even then, I'm not sure that the KJV and NKJV accept the 
B/MT reading because they have "Get thee hence" and "Away with you" 
respectively, seemingly ignoring "behind me".

Matt. 5:22-- ironically, this variant is used as an example in the RGNT 
introduction, and it perhaps indicates how ill-conceived the RGNT system 
is. The note is "AUTOU::AUTOU EIKHi (Some Mss)" ("...angry with his 
brother..." vs. "...angry with his brother without reason..."). The 
choice is a 'B' decision in UBS4, granting (in my judgment) widespread 
distribution (including B/MT) of AUTOU EIKHi but acknowledging better ms 
support and contextual probability for AUTOU as the harder reading. So 
this is another easy decision. But what is almost laughable about this 
one, given that it is used as an example in the RGNT intro, is that NIV 
wisely does not use the AUTOU EIKHi reading. In other words, this is not 
a place where the RGNT/NIV differs from UBS, so why the note? Does that 
mean there are only 230 differences from UBS/NA, or did I misread 
something?

Matt. 23:5-- the reason for the jump from chap. 5 to 23 is that when I 
first looked at the RGNT notes I happened to turn randomly to this page. 
I have no idea how many notes in between these chapters are problematic. 
The issue in 23:5 is whether the phrase TWN hIMATIWN AUTWN should follow 
KRASPEDA ("...lengthen the tassels" vs. "...lengthen the tassels of 
their garments"). Now to be fair, the NASB includes "of their garments," 
but the phrase is put in italic to show that it is not in the original 
but added for clarification. Textually, the decision is another easy 
one, probably an 'A' by UBS standards, but unfortunately the variant is 
not mentioned in the UBS apparatus. (BTW, this is an example of the 
superiority of NA, which notes the variant, over UBS for textual 
information.) It could be that the UBS editors considered it unworthy of 
mention because the decision was obvious, and/or the subject matter was 
judged to be of too little significance.

Now I think Rod feels that textual criticism is too advanced for 
beginning Greek, and I would agree with him. I would also agree that 
many seminary grads who have taken Greek probably don't know enough to 
handle the textual apparatus, and if that is so, I wonder what they will 
do when their parishioners or students ask them to explain the 
differences between the translations. I'm not sure whether this has been 
an issue before the advent of RGNT, but RGNT has made it an issue now by 
calling attention to variations between the NIV and UBS/NA without 
adequate explanation (cf. Joe Weaks' comments in his post), especially 
when an RGNT/NIV choice is questionable as can be seen in the examples 
above. And from what I've observed in our discussions, the suggestion in 
the RGNT intro, "Those readers interested in the manuscript tradition 
behind the textual variants should consult the critical appariti found 
in the UBS4 or the NA27" (p. 13) will have few takers. In the first 
place, it has been established that the difference in cost is leading 
folks to buy RGNT instead of UBS or NA, and the attractive binding and 
gilded pages of RGNT makes it look like something other than a novice 
GNT to be set aside later. In the second place, if RGNT users now find 
definition footnotes too convenient to bother with looking up meanings 
in a lexicon, or even in the short dictionary at the end of certain UBS 
editions, what are the odds that they are ever going to bother looking 
up the textual notes in UBS or NA? Won't they simply stick with what 
they find in RGNT, especially if they are told that they can accept it 
as an "equivalent text"?

Enough for now, and my thanks to Carl for tolerating this discussion.

Don Wilkins

On Thursday, April 29, 2004, at 05:29 AM, bgreek at ntresources.com wrote:

> Come on Don, let's not over-state the issues.
>
> Is any level of Greek invalid that doesn't do textual criticism? Of 
> course
> that's a very important matter--one which I dearly wish more people 
> would
> study and *do.* I own, as you probably do also, not only UBS texts 
> (eds. 1,
> 2, 3, & 4), but NA (21, 23, 25, 26, 27), Swanson, IGNTP, Tischendorf, 
> W&H,
> Souter, H&F, several TRs, and even some of the Bodmer and repros of 
> aleph
> and B. But I, at least, teach in a seminary training pastors. Text. 
> crit. is
> an elective course for which I'm delighted this semester to have 10
> students. (I'd require it of all our students if I had a choice.) Does 
> that
> mean that our other students can do nothing of value with a Greek NT? 
> Sure,
> they get bits and pieces of text. crit. along the way in our other 
> required
> Greek courses, but I'd venture to guess that *most* seminary grads in 
> most
> seminaries don't know enough to handle the textual apparatus in UBS, let
> alone NA. Should they? Of course. Does it mean their Greek is useless? 
> No.
>
> I'd even venture to guess that *most* people who have learned Greek and 
> are
> in ministry of some sort where one might expect them to deal with the 
> text
> on a regular basis don't know enough about text. crit. to make any
> *legitimate* use of the UBS apparatus other than to notice that there 
> are
> variants. I'm very glad that there are some who do know what to do with 
> it.
> I don't say this to denigrate text. crit. and certainly not to condone 
> such
> a lack. I do everything I can to increase the number of people who can
> decipher and use the apparatus. But I will not write off those who 
> can't.
> But if most can't or don't use the apparatus (and I'd be thrilled if I 
> were
> wrong in that judgment!), then I'm not sure that a testament with a 
> critical
> apparatus should be deemed the only acceptable text. (As a summum bonum?
> Sure.)
>
> Most will accept the "standard text" (as Kurt Aland liked to call it; 
> the
> "new TR" as other less enthusiastic users have been known to say! :) and
> work with it "as is." Whether that's good or bad might be debatable. 
> But at
> that point, so long as we have a modern critical text, the differences 
> are
> not all that great. Unless we insist that *only* the UBS4/NA27 text is
> valid, then there are a collection of texts that have so few differences
> that they should all be judged acceptable (even though we grant none the
> status of perfection). At that point, the differences between RGNT and, 
> say,
> NA27 are minuscule--far fewer than between NA25 and NA26/27. (See the 3d
> appendix in NA27: 20+ densely packed pages of differences between a half
> dozen modern critical texts, or appendix 2 in NA26 with also 20+ pgs. of
> differences between NA26 and NA25 & Tischendorf.) At that point, we 
> either
> say that all earlier editions of UBS & NA are invalid, or I think we're
> forced to acknowledge that RGNT, with something like 200 variants, is
> essentially an equivalent text.
>
> Would I tell students that a RGNT is all they will ever need? No, but I
> never assume that they will only ever own one Greek testament. They may
> think that my collection is overkill (and it might be for the average
> pastor). They ought to have at least a UBS text in their study, but for
> "carrying purposes" or to keep by their reading chair at home, a RGNT 
> might
> serve a very useful function. For a first introduction to such a book 
> (i.e.,
> the first few semesters of Greek), I also think that something like the 
> RGNT
> is useful. I'd much rather they had a RGNT than an interlinear! (or some
> electronic equivalent of such a pony). For many of those who don't use a
> Greek NT on a "professional" level (by which I mean those in ministry 
> or the
> classroom), and who have never had the opportunity to learn text. crit.,
> then they will more likely have just one Greek testament--but in that
> situation, the RGNT is certainly adequate, at least IMHO.
>
> Can anyone learn Greek? Perhaps, but it might depend on one's ministry
> context as to how realistic a dream that is. If you move in an academic
> environment or in well-educated, middle/upper class circles, that sounds
> feasible. But that's not where most of the world is. As one example, I 
> spend
> much of my weekends working with a new church plant project--in an inner
> city context. I can't assume that the people to whom our team ministers 
> can
> even read (whether English or another language). What would it 
> accomplish
> for me to carry a Greek testament as my Bible in that context? (I do 
> carry
> the smallest Gk NT I can find--it's on my Palm, and if I do use it, it 
> is
> somewhat "covertly.") But even in a "normal" church context (at least 
> as we
> Americans think of it), I encourage my students not to flaunt their 
> Greek.
> One of the last things I want to see happen in ministry is to undermine 
> the
> confidence that people have in their English Bible (or Spanish, etc.). 
> But
> that raises other philosophical questions that perhaps go beyond the 
> typical
> bgreek parameters, so I'll leave it at that.
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> Rodney J. Decker, Th.D., Assoc. Professor/NT
> Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, PA, USA
> URL: www.NTResources.com
> PURL: purl.oclc.org/NT_Resources/
> Email: <rdecker> at <NTResources.com>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> ---
> 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
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list