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

Dr. Don Wilkins drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net
Fri Apr 30 16:51:03 EDT 2004


My apologies in advance for extending this discussion; I don't intend to 
offer anything new, but just to respond below within Rod Decker's 
original post.

On Friday, April 30, 2004, at 05:06 AM, bgreek at ntresources.com wrote:

> Here's a sample of some of the data that some have inquired about. This 
> is a
> quick check, and I've not double-checked, recounted, etc., but I think
> accurate enough to indicate what's involved. I don't intend for this to
> become a text-critical discussion, but I think it's relevant to indicate
> what sort of text you would be reading if you used the RGNT.
>
> I used the first half of Mark (chs 1-8) for this (had it mostly finished
> yesterday before I left my study when Don's last post using Matt. 
> arrived or
> I might have used Matt.). I wish I had time to do the entire NT, but 
> that's
> not feasible.
>
> In these 8 chapters there are 21 textual notes in RGNT. Of them, only 17
> differ from UBS/NA. (The other 3 represent textual notes in NIV that the
> editors apparently thought worth mentioning--the intro mentions this; 
> there
> are 3 additional textual notes in NIV in this portion that are not 
> mentioned
> in RGNT.)

Thanks for clarifying the note system; as you indicate, one can only 
guess why the RGNT editors chose to include certain textual notes from 
the NIV, and perhaps this is a "who cares?" matter.
>
> 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.
>
> *"Alex" here is often aleph alone, so tech. not pure Alex.; I've made
> generalizations here and identified the groupings by the major uncial
> representatives of each text-type. I understand that this is not a
> full-fledged, technical classification. And I've only noted the major
> external Gk evidence; no consideration of internal factors or of 
> versions,
> patristics, etc. have been made.
>
> This quick survey suggests that this is, indeed, an eclectic text. The 
> f.
> figures, I would suggest, support my claim that this text is within the
> parameters of a modern critical text. These 17 differences from UBS/NA
> constitute only about .036 of the variant units listed in NA27 (17 of 
> 468 in
> Mk 1-8, not counting pure conjectures [e.g., @ 4:29] or variants which
> affect only punctuation [e.g. @ 7:18].) If we added the minor variants 
> (NA27
> appendix 2, pp. 721-24), this figure drops to .027 (17 of 626). In the 
> same
> portion, based on the data in NA27 appendix 3 (pp. 751-52), NA25 differs
> from NA27 59 times (.126).

Agreed that it is an eclectic text; from the figures you show of the 
various text-types one could conclude that the weight of the mss has 
less to do with those editorial decisions than matters of interpretation 
(i.e. internal factors). I don't know what parameters you define for a 
"modern critical" text. For me, that would mean that it has a working 
apparatus (given the word "critical") for decision making. It is true 
that NA25 differs more from NA27 than RGNT does (most of RGNT's choices 
also differ from NA25). As for the percentages, I expressed my concern 
as a matter of the quality of the decisions, not the quantity, and of 
the fact that inadequate ms information was given. Say what you will 
about NA25 vs. NA27, at least the apparati are provided. And since it 
would take relatively little space, why not include in RGNT at least 
some reference to the mss behind the decisions? Even something like you 
provided above would be helpful. Sometimes the choice of variant reading 
has a major effect on the meaning of a passage, and many RGNT readers 
may never consult a UBS or NA text. They will most likely assume that 
the RGNT choice is as good or better than that of UBS/NA (or any other 
alternative readings, including NA25), and that might not be true.
>
> 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. That does not suggest that RGNT 
> is
> the preferred text for exegesis and certainly not for text. crit.--but 
> then
> it doesn't profess to be intended for that purpose. Nor do I necessarily
> agree with the individual textual choices made--but that's true of the
> UBS/NA text as well.) The textual apparatus in RGNT is only provided to 
> clue
> the reader to where this text differs from UBS/NA. (Phil's comments last
> evening re. the purpose of RGNT are on target and relevant here as 
> well--as
> are Brent's that just arrived as I was about to post this message.)
>
In terms of gross percentages, one can say that the Byzantine text is 
essentially the same as UBS/NA; it depends on what one considers 
significant numbers, and it's hard to know where to draw the line. But I 
do appreciate your comment as to the intent and purpose of the RGNT, and 
perhaps that comment is all that is needed as a word to the wise. Anyone 
who does exegesis--that being inseparably connected to text. 
crit.--should plan on moving up to UBS or (preferably) NA.

> And since someone else speculated on this last evening also, let me add 
> an
> "official" word from Zondervan regarding why this text was used. I have
> permission from Zondervan to post the following statement/explanation 
> (and
> no, I have no connection with Zondervan, and am not receiving any 
> benefits
> from my comments re. the RGNT here):
>
> "If you think it is appropriate, you may post the following comments on 
> the
> B-Greek Bulletin Board. You can say it comes from the Zondervan editor 
> who
> worked on the GRNT.
> "
> "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. 
> Finally,
> we decided, if the project was to move ahead (it was already under
> contract), to go with a text that we could get rights to, namely, the
> reconstructed text behind the NIV.
> "
> "Just for the record, the translators of the NIV began with the UBS 3 
> text
> and made a number of modifications as they went along."
>
I appreciate Zondervan's situation, and it will be interesting to see 
how, if at all, UBS responds. But ditto on the need for mss notes, which 
could certainly be included if the text itself can be published.
>
Don Wilkins




More information about the B-Greek mailing list