Solid Rock Greek New Testament - Another Wrinkled Prepub

https://www.logos.com/product/154611/solid-rock-greek-new-testament-scholars-edition

If you have an abiding interest in the majority text (or why you don't), this one is interesting. Instead of looking at the mss's, it works off the major sources, to include RP, 3 of the NA's, etc plus the greek base for the NIV.

And it includes a lot of discussion of the choices involved. The Logos page has samples.

The Amazon page shows a scholar's edition. I'm pretty sure they're the same. The expanded one really looks interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Solid-Greek-Testament-Scholars-Ancient/dp/0999532200

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Michael S.

Hey Denise,

a side question for you. Have you looked into CBGM? Thoughts?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/982253#Comment_982253

a side question for you. Have you looked into CBGM? Thoughts?

Not really. A lot of the comments expressed seem somewhere between 'well, ok, sort of' and 'gee, I don't know'. In my corporate days of high-end computing, if the users don't understand, the users won't trust/use. Unless they can evaluate in the real world ($ in our case).

My understanding is the word 'fits' as you move from mss to mss (using automation). My neural net designs ignored mss's, instead being fed a chunk of syntax to learn in a writing, moving the chunk slightly, then learn again, and so forth. Until the writing is learned. Then going back, to see what doesn't match the writing style. And which other authors do. Thense, sorting by approximate date. And computing layers of redaction.

So, there's a similarity, but different base. My results suggested an eclectic byzantine produced far better results than the NA series. And if you then ran the early syriac, it was really good.

If you read the Amazon copy for this resource (his bio, etc), he seems to be going the same road I did.

RHC

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/982267#Comment_982267

I'd like to see this resource in Logos. It looks good for research purposes. For example, it has a "Collated digest of the textual decisions of other editions of the New Testament."

Scott Sanjay Hayes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/982253#Comment_982253

The Coherence Based Genealogical Method is based on solid scholarship. It's also NOT a method where the computer automatically picks the answers. The computer simply tracks the earlier selections of the editors and reinforces consistency (coherence) based on those editorial choices. At least that's my understanding.

For more information, please read the book on the topic, also available on Logos.
https://www.logos.com/product/175128/a-new-approach-to-textual-criticism-an-introduction-to-the-coherence-based-genealogical-method

Here's a review of the book on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog where it receives high recommendations.
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-new-approach-to-textual-criticism.html

Happy reading!

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1183467#Comment_1183467

So, Scott ... did you read the book? And conclude confidently, that ...

I still advocate a neural greying function of choice selection. Using scholars just muddies the waters, since by human nature, they have to operate within their profession (echo chamber).

Interestingly it was supposed to be one of the sources for the NRSV-UE coming out just days away (or weeks).

Scott Sanjay Hayes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1183472#Comment_1183472

Academics is hardly an echo chamber. I've been to a number of scholarly meetings myself and they are quite lively discussions where people seldom agree 100% on anything, even if there is a general consensus on some important points.

Yes, I've read the book. I can say that it's a scholarly approach with confidence. The CBGM doesn't make decisions for you, it just tracks the decisions you made and helps you to determine if they are consistent decisions. Here are links to the English CGBM presentation and to the software itself.

CBGM Presentation: https://www.uni-muenster.de/INTF/cbgm_presentation/download.html

CBGM Software: https://ntg.uni-muenster.de/

The CBGM doesn't account for the changes in the NRSV-UE. So please don't confuse a theoretical construct of the earliest text of the New Testament (which CBGM can "assist" you in doing but doesn't "determine" for you) -- please don't confuse that with the translations decisions of any particular translation committee. The National Council of Churches and the translation committee assigned to update the NRSV are responsible for their own decisions, not the CBGM.

Could you describe the process of "neural greying function of choice selection"? Thanks!

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1183963#Comment_1183963

Entering comments/answers amonst yours:

Academics is hardly an echo chamber. I've been to a number of scholarly meetings myself and they are quite lively discussions where people seldom agree 100% on anything, even if there is a general consensus on some important points.

Oh, no doubt. They have to disagree, or they'd been done maybe 1,500 years ago. The question is whether they deal with why they're arguing, after 1,500 years. And how valid, given so little data. It's a group-think on bits and pieces here and there. Think this, think that.

Yes, I've read the book. I can say that it's a scholarly approach with confidence. The CBGM doesn't make decisions for you, it just tracks the decisions you made and helps you to determine if they are consistent decisions. Here are links to the English CGBM presentation and to the software itself.

Yes, that's true. Consistency. Consistency of text centuries after the fact. A decade from now, they'll find some more consistency.

The CBGM doesn't account for the changes in the NRSV-UE. So please don't confuse a theoretical construct of the earliest text of the New Testament (which CBGM can "assist" you in doing but doesn't "determine" for you) -- please don't confuse that with the translations decisions of any particular translation committee. The National Council of Churches and the translation committee assigned to update the NRSV are responsible for their own decisions, not the CBGM.

I wasn't confusing ... that was a quote from committee materials 4 years ago. Any subsequent committee decision sources are anyone's guess. But any amalgamation tool (CGBM) must at some point recognize the vulgar (common language) must eventually be arrived at. The echo-scholars know the routine.

Could you describe the process of "neural greying function of choice selection"? Thanks!

Refers to neural networks. Over-simplifying, you train relative to pieces of a mss, and then re-train for the full mss to create mss signatures. Then re-process the mss signatures to arrive at most likely sequences (families, etc). The result produces 'shades of grey' at each point in each mss, and its possible sources. Clues.