From: Eric Weiss (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 21 1995 - 05:05:49 EDT
In one of his books on the NT Text, Philip Comfort gives several pages of
suggested changes to the N-A 26/UBS 3 text, based on what he argues are
earlier and better readings from the papyri. Obviously, none of his
suggested changes were made in N-A 27/UBS 4, since they use the same text as
the previous editions.
Does anyone have an opinion on Comfort's suggested changes, or what the
outlook is for changes to the N-A/UBS text? Are there any well-argued
critiques--other than by defenders of the Textus Receptus--of the N-A text,
or, conversely, good supporting arguments? I have the earlier edition of the
Aland's book on the text of the New Testament, as well as Metzger's book on
the NT text, but I'd like to read what those who were not on the N-A text
committee have to say about the text.
On another note, I think I'm in the minority, but I don't find the thinner
italicized font of UBS 4 that bad when compared to UBS 3, although I wouldn't
mind a return to the older, easier-to-read font. Has UBS received or
responded to this often-heard criticism? I noticed that the interlinears and
parallel bibles published with the UBS 4 text use the new font as well. Does
anyone know why they chose this new font which so many have criticized, or
whether UBS 5 will revert to the earlier font?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:27 EDT