What is the value of SBLGNT
I'd like to know (from those in the know) what the value of the SBL Greek New Testament is. Do you recommend it as a valuable resource? And why? Thanks in advance. Steve
Comments
-
In brief: it is valuable inasmuch that it contains a critically edited text with an apparatus that pinpoints areas of divergence. Having an additional text to compare to NA27/UBS4, WH, BYZ, et al is a valuable tool for seeing variant readings.
Other's will no doubt be more comprehensive in their responses.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
Thomas Black said:
In brief: it is valuable inasmuch that it contains a critically edited text with an apparatus that pinpoints areas of divergence. Having an additional text to compare to NA27/UBS4, WH, BYZ, et al is a valuable tool for seeing variant readings.
The problem with this translation is its apparatus. It is not as detailed as NA27's or UBS4's apparatus so there's no an effecttive means to fully evaluate the rendering of the text. I'm not trying to be critical (no pun intended) just making an observation.
0 -
I wonder (and maybe this would make a good WIKI or video too) if someone could offer a brief example of using SBLGNT to research something simple, showing usage of the apparatus, and maybe tying it into NA27 or UBS4?
0 -
Hi folks.
James Thompson said:Thomas Black said:In brief: it is valuable inasmuch that it contains a critically edited text with an apparatus that pinpoints areas of divergence. Having an additional text to compare to NA27/UBS4, WH, BYZ, et al is a valuable tool for seeing variant readings.
The problem with this translation is its apparatus. It is not as detailed as NA27's or UBS4's apparatus so there's no an effecttive means to fully evaluate the rendering of the text. I'm not trying to be critical (no pun intended) just making an observation.
There has been a lot of discussion about the apparatus and its value.
One thing we distinctly didn't try to do with the apparatus was replace the already excellent NA27 apparatus. So to say of the apparatus that it is a problem because it doesn't fully replace how you use the NA27 apparatus, that's criticizing it for doing something it wasn't intended to do.
I'm guessing that if you polled 100 random users of the print NA27, you'd find that a large percentage of them (likely well over 50%) pay little to no attention to the apparatus because it is intimidating. It is a metalanguage, and it takes time and effort to master. Then it takes time to understand exactly what it is telling you about sources. And it takes time to understand why a given source (or corrector) may or may not be valuable in a particular context. In short, it is a specialist's tool. It does an incredible job of densely packing a large amount of information into a small portion of the page. It is incredibly valuable for the specialist.
The apparatus for the SBLGNT is different. It is not intended to give information to a specialist to use in the task of establishing the text. Instead, it is intended to make the reader aware of the other options that other editions (the consulted editions, WH, Tregelles, Robinson-Pierpont, and the NIV Greek text) have where there are divergences. It tells you where well respected textual critics of the past (Tregelles, Westcott-Hort) and present (Robinson-Pierpont, the text behind the NIV, and Michael W. Holmes) don't agree on the reading, and who says what. In other words, you get to see where the experts disagree on readings.
Also, if you consider the consulted editions, they form a rough spectrum from Robinson-Pierpont as a representative of the Byzantine text, to Tregelles which, while pre-papyri, was one of the first to break from the Byzantine, to WH (great uncials, but little papyri) to the NIV Greek text which also has the benefit of available papyri. The sorts of differences that end up in the SBLGNT apparatus, then, are:
1. Likely to be represented in some other translation. The KJV, of course, uses a more Byzantine Greek source. The NIV doesn't. Several other NT translations (ESV, NLT, NET, etc.) actually have their own underlying Greek text with some degree of difference from NA27, most of the divergences in those would also be accounted for with the set of edition witnesses given in the SBLGNT. It will get the person preaching/teaching/exegeting the text easily familiar with other options their pupils/parishioners may have represented in their translations.
2. Given the loose "spectrum" of the editions, the variant info might quickly point out some more interesting variants. If the SBLGNT agrees with WH Treg and NIV but disagrees with RP, that's pretty standard difference with the Byzantine text. But if the SBLGNT's chosen reading is only present in RP, or is in NIV and RP but not WH, then it might be more interesting and worth a deeper look into the specialist-oriented materials (NA27 apparatus, technical commentaries, Editio Critica Maior, Tischendorf, Comfort & Barrett, etc.).
Anyway, those are some of the reasons why we thought the apparatus, even though it doesn't (and isn't intended to) replace the NA27 apparatus is still valuable, and valuable to consult — particularly if you're not an expert in using the metalanguage of the NA27 apparatus.
Hope it helps.
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Dominick Sela said:
I wonder (and maybe this would make a good WIKI or video too) if someone could offer a brief example of using SBLGNT to research something simple, showing usage of the apparatus, and maybe tying it into NA27 or UBS4?
This might give you an impression of what I meant when I said the SBLGNT's apparatus is not as detailed at NA27's: the first image below is the NA27 text and apparatus at Mark 2:1ff; the second image is the SBLGNT text and apparatus at the same location:
NA27
SBLGNT
Notice in the NA27's apparatus there are specific references to the Greek manuscripts, which allows you to evaluate rendering of the Greek text in the NA27. The SBLGNT references its four major sources (WH, Treg, NIV and MP). The assumption, as I understand it, is that the NIV and the NA27 are substantially identical. It's only where these two differ that a more specific reference is provided. Still there are no specific references to specific Greek manuscripts within the SBLGNT which is the basis for real text criticism. For more information on this you might check: http://sblgnt.com/.
Hope that helps some....
0 -
Rick Brannan said:
I'm guessing that if you polled 100 random users of the print NA27, you'd find that a large percentage of them (likely well over 50%) pay little to no attention to the apparatus because it is intimidating. It is a metalanguage, and it takes time and effort to master. Then it takes time to understand exactly what it is telling you about sources. And it takes time to understand why a given source (or corrector) may or may not be valuable in a particular context. In short, it is a specialist's tool. It does an incredible job of densely packing a large amount of information into a small portion of the page. It is incredibly valuable for the specialist.
Anyway, those are some of the reasons why we thought the apparatus, even though it doesn't (and isn't intended to) replace the NA27 apparatus is still valuable, and valuable to consult — particularly if you're not an expert in using the metalanguage of the NA27 apparatus.
Rick,
Our replies must've crossed simultaneously. I agree with your comments and didn't intend my comments to be critical of the SBLGNT. I was just trying to explain the differences in the apparatus. Most people will appreciate the SBLGNT and its apparatus.
0 -
Thanks, Rick. I appreciate the time you took to give me greater understanding. Blessings to you, Steve
0 -
From a 'user' point of view, I have the whole series of apparati (NA27, Maj-Text, Tisch plus Metzger) in a tabbed window. The problem was I didn't have a quick summary of the main text differences that I could glance at, before digging in. My hardcopy NKJV had a quick-glance summary at the bottom of each page, which I really liked. So the SBLGNT really fills in a nice void that I had. Mucho thanks.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Hi James
James Thompson said:Rick,
Our replies must've crossed simultaneously. I agree with your comments and didn't intend my comments to be critical of the SBLGNT. I was just trying to explain the differences in the apparatus. Most people will appreciate the SBLGNT and its apparatus.
No worries, James. I've read (somewhat critical) feedback on the apparatus in a number of spots, and figured this was a good spot to show some good uses of the SBLGNT apparatus.
Thanks!
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Rick Brannan said:
Hi James
James Thompson said:Rick,
Our replies must've crossed simultaneously. I agree with your comments and didn't intend my comments to be critical of the SBLGNT. I was just trying to explain the differences in the apparatus. Most people will appreciate the SBLGNT and its apparatus.
No worries, James. I've read (somewhat critical) feedback on the apparatus in a number of spots, and figured this was a good spot to show some good uses of the SBLGNT apparatus.
Thanks!
Let me add my name to the list of people who appreciate the concept behind the SBLGNT. Why recreate something that already exists. Your text gives me at a quick glance some of the more important differences so that I can narrow down what I need to research more. Thanks!
0 -
Honestly, to me not a lot, Just as well I am a collector of translations, but its another one to add to my stack of have but likely never use translations.. like my arabic, and finnish bibles.
I pray the Lord will bless you richly as you use it, am sure I will find a use for it.. someday.. somewhere, somehow, but until I finish "Nunns: Elements" and can translate more its my new virtual desk ornament [:P]
Never Deprive Anyone of Hope.. It Might Be ALL They Have
0 -
Rick Brannan said:
No worries, James. I've read (somewhat critical) feedback on the apparatus in a number of spots, and figured this was a good spot to show some good uses of the SBLGNT apparatus.
I appreciate the Apparatus and the examples in the Brief Guide greatly aid my use. In conjunction with Metzger's Textual Commentary it can be fascinating to understand the Committee approach to UBS4/NA27 eg. Matt 8:18, 21.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Rick Brannan said:
Hi James
James Thompson said:Rick,
Our replies must've crossed simultaneously. I agree with your comments and didn't intend my comments to be critical of the SBLGNT. I was just trying to explain the differences in the apparatus. Most people will appreciate the SBLGNT and its apparatus.
No worries, James. I've read (somewhat critical) feedback on the apparatus in a number of spots, and figured this was a good spot to show some good uses of the SBLGNT apparatus.
Thanks!
Rick,
I'm sure it's in the works, but this is the sort of specific FAQ that ought to be addressed here: http://www.logos.com/sblgnt
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0
