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

Joseph Weaks j.weaks at tcu.edu
Fri Apr 30 13:47:04 EDT 2004


On Apr 30, 2004, at 7:06 AM, bgreek at ntresources.com wrote:
> Here's a sample of some of the data that some have inquired about. ...
> Using somewhat dated text. crit. terminology (but perhaps widely enough
> known to be a useful frame of reference--and I fully understand that
> "Western" and "Caesarean" are highly debatable, etc.; I don't consider
> either valid categories for Gk NT), here's where RGNT textual choices 
> align;
> with:
> Byz, 3; West, 1; Caes, 1; Alex,* 4; or with multiple text-types: Alex* 
> &
> Byz, 1; Caes & West, 2; Byz, West, Caes, 2.
> ...
> This quick survey suggests that this is, indeed, an eclectic text.

Thanks to Don and Rodney for doing some example work for us that gets 
to the heart of the issue. But the comparisons on variants really only 
have significance as a test for "What were the NIV folks thinking when 
they made their choice?" when we look at the verbal choices in each 
case as Don has done. Let's be blunt. It's theological bias on this 
non-ecumenically produced text that has some folks worried.

> So unless we want to argue that a student should never read NA25, I 
> think
> that for reading purposes, the RGNT is (at least in my test portion)
> "essentially the same text" as UBS/NA.

Of course I would argue that. They should never read NA25 as general 
reading, since NA27 is available.

> "I have read with interest the comments about the RGNT. Our original 
> goal
> was to go with the UBS 4 text. For six months I attempted through phone
> calls and emails to get the rights from the Bible Society to use the 
> text,
> but no one at their office would respond to me. I am not sure why..."

I know why. Because the Bible Society has a horrible track record in 
this regard. However, to their defense, the desire to prevent the 
printing of the UBS/NA text in formats that don't include the the 
apparatus is really a testimony to the notion that the "standard text" 
should not be canonized. But all this was as expected. The RGNT is not 
an inferior text because anyone is accusing Zondervan of wanting to use 
an inferior text. They knew it'd sell more if it used the academic 
standard text. It's simply that because of logistics and cost factors, 
they used this reconstructed text, and so now the project is less than 
it could have been.

I think we really need to be careful of staying clear of sectarian 
arguments at this point (myself included).

Joe Weaks




More information about the B-Greek mailing list