For those who like to talk about textual stuff....here is something interesting.

I have not listened to this yet but it seems relevant to Logos as the SBLGNT just got released.

This is the Podcast of James White. In PART of this show he's going to discuss the following:

Quoting Dr. White:

I felt it would be helpful to many to comment on
the inclusion of very minority readings in the new SBLGNT that was
released recently. Specifically, I addressed Bart Ehrman's two favorite
texts, Mark 1:41 and the "angry Jesus," and Hebrews 2:9, "apart from
God." The SBLGNT includes both barely supported variants in the main
text, going against pretty much all previous printed editions. I
discussed the growing disconnection between modern scholarship and the
text itself, and then took calls on a variety of subjects.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4277

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Daniel Bender

Thanks for the link Robert

Jerry M

Bart Ehrman's two favorite
texts, Mark 1:41 and the "angry Jesus," and Hebrews 2:9, "apart from
God."

This is clearly seen by comparing The Lexham English Bible with other translations in these two verses, for those less fluent in Greek and are curious.

Todd Phillips

Thanks, Robert!

Graham Owen

I have not listened to this yet but it seems relevant to Logos as the SBLGNT just got released.

It's an interesting listen... The quote below from the SBLGNT foreword is also interesting.

The new text may have other benefits as well. The standard text is viewed by some of those who use it as a “final” text to be passively accepted rather than a “working” text subject to verification and improvement. For example, the exegetical habits of some scholars and students seem to reflect a belief that all the important text-critical work has already been completed, that one can more or less equate the standard Greek New Testament with the “original” text. With a mindset such as this, it is not surprising that entire commentaries have been written that simply take the standard text as printed and scarcely discuss textual matters.

In circumstances such as these, the existence of an alternative critically edited text—the SBLGNT differs from the standard text in more than 540 variation units—will help to remind readers of the Greek New Testament that the text-critical task is not finished. Moreover, by reminding readers of the continuing need to pay attention to the variant readings preserved in the textual tradition, it may also serve to draw attention to a fuller understanding of the goal of New Testament textual criticism: both indentifying the earliest text and also studying all the variant readings for the light they shed on how particular individuals and faith communities adopted, used, and sometimes altered the texts that they read, studied, and transmitted.

Harris, W. H., III. (2010; 2010). The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Research Systems, Inc.

To me this implies that one of the objectives of the text was to be "different" but this leads to the obvious question of how the desire to be "different" informed the selection process for the variants.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

Hi Graham

To me this implies that one of the objectives of the text was to be "different" but this leads to the obvious question of how the desire to be "different" informed the selection process for the variants.

There was no "be different" purpose for SBLGNT. If there was, well, there would be no end to the readings one could take.

Instead, the SBLGNT is another look at the text of the Greek New Testament. Informed by manuscripts, editions, apparatuses, commentaries, articles and the like. The two areas singled out (at least as they appear, I've only looked at the initial post on this forum) are areas of difference among scholars today. If you look at any commentary that deals with establishing the text (e.g. WBC, ICC, NIGTC, to some degree Pillar) they'll note the same issues. In these cases, the editor (Michael W. Holmes) gets to go with his preferred reading based on his read of the internal and external textual evidence.

But I can say there was no desire to be different. No desire to take a contrary reading just to stir things up. That's reading too much into the words of the preface. The preface is about encouraging folks to actually look at the text of the GNT, and consider the tough spots again, instead of just going with whatever one edition has gone with.

Graham Owen

But I can say there was no desire to be different. No desire to take a contrary reading just to stir things up. That's reading too much into the words of the preface.

Thanks Rick, that's good to know.

Pat Flanakin

full disclosure: I am not a Greek scholar and have no seminary training.

I have been under the teaching of a pastor I respect because he does not shy away from mentioning textual criticism from the pulpit; 99.9% of pastors will not touch that "third rail" in America (I cannot vouch for foreign country churches) due to their selling out to the church-growth movement.

That being the case, he is a proponent of the Majority Text, which I do own. My point is, I find it quite interesting that amongst all those here in the Logos forum who argue, technically, concerning textual variants rarely mention the Majority text, which, in its instruction, states the NA27, and other accepted texts, is eclectic at best.

Just some thoughts.

Pat Flanakin

With all due respect Mr. Brannan, this (see quoted text from your post) being the basis for the SBL Greek Text sounds rather lukewarm to me and a bit on the post-modern side vs. the preface to the Majority text which states clearly that it has a sound basis for preferring its rendering of the original vs. popular texts such as Wescot and Hort, etc....

With this preface you refer to, I can understand the question above about concerning whether the SBL project was undertaken to just "give another option" for option's sake.

The preface is about encouraging folks to actually look at the text of the GNT, and consider the tough spots again, instead of just going with whatever one edition has gone with.

Pat Flanakin

The quote from the foreword is less interesting and more concerning.

This is why it is harder for me (not hard, but harder than perhaps others) to find reliable resources for Bible study within Logos.com products.

I begin to wonder at what point Logos.com says something is too liberal and unorthodox to Christian fundamentals (not that the SBL Greek NT is, but hear me out) to not take it on as a project vs. the money. It all really depends on Logos.com's President and his advisory staff as to what they will consider to make electronic and sell. Some of the post-modern resources that actually have that term in their name are introduced in their description in a very non-judgmental, ecumenical sense which sickens me personally. I wonder when the Book of Mormon will show up frankly.

One thing is certain and that is that where man is involved, there is a bias toward one thought process or the other and it is always incumbent and the responsibility of a few to stand up for truth and argue against liberal inaccuracies and philosophies.

I have not listened to this yet but it seems relevant to Logos as the SBLGNT just got released.

It's an interesting listen... The quote below from the SBLGNT foreword is also interesting.

The new text may have other benefits as well. The standard text is viewed by some of those who use it as a “final” text to be passively accepted rather than a “working” text subject to verification and improvement. For example, the exegetical habits of some scholars and students seem to reflect a belief that all the important text-critical work has already been completed, that one can more or less equate the standard Greek New Testament with the “original” text. With a mindset such as this, it is not surprising that entire commentaries have been written that simply take the standard text as printed and scarcely discuss textual matters.

In circumstances such as these, the existence of an alternative critically edited text—the SBLGNT differs from the standard text in more than 540 variation units—will help to remind readers of the Greek New Testament that the text-critical task is not finished. Moreover, by reminding readers of the continuing need to pay attention to the variant readings preserved in the textual tradition, it may also serve to draw attention to a fuller understanding of the goal of New Testament textual criticism: both indentifying the earliest text and also studying all the variant readings for the light they shed on how particular individuals and faith communities adopted, used, and sometimes altered the texts that they read, studied, and transmitted.

Harris, W. H., III. (2010; 2010). The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Research Systems, Inc.

To me this implies that one of the objectives of the text was to be "different" but this leads to the obvious question of how the desire to be "different" informed the selection process for the variants.

MJ. Smith

I begin to wonder at what point Logos.com says something is too liberal and unorthodox to Christian fundamentals

The problem with this line of reasoning is that there is no agreement as to what the Christian fundamentals are. For the vast majority of Christianity this would be the Nicene and Apostle's creed - which I don't think is the majority view of Logos customers. I don't care at all about resources published by Logos that are not of interest to me. Sometimes there are items that I would call extreme - conservative or liberal - that I have reason to access. I absolutely hate trying to talk about a topic in which I have to presume rather than know the logic behind a position.

Paul N

I wonder when the Book of Mormon will show up frankly.

Well there has just been made available in Pre-Pub much to the contrary of the BoM by Zondervan in Logos.

Pat Flanakin

In terms of fundamentals, I was referring to this:

http://www.logos.com/product/7857/the-fundamentals

No, I would not agree with all of it, yet this was the tour de force refuting liberalism at the turn of the 20th century.

Dave Hooton

But I can say there was no desire to be different. No desire to take a contrary reading just to stir things up. That's reading too much into the words of the preface.

If we analyze the apparatus we see that Holmes only inserted his personal preference 18 times. On 28 other occasions Holmes was supported by alternative/marginal readings (WH or Treg) - I didn't consider support only from NA as being an alternative reading.

White took Holmes to task for his reading of Mk 1.41 - "angry" instead of "pity" - because it has support only from a dubious ("not overly reliable") manuscript - Codex D. The Apparatus implies marginal support from WH, but it's not found in my Logos version of WH1881MR; which is the same as NA27.

But I see a similar lack of support for Mk 1:21, Jn 1:34. Is this because of the WH1881 I have?

Also see that manuscript ἐστι is used in many passages in place of ἐστιν eg. Matt 6:25, Jn 6:55, Act 18:10?

Also as I search in SBLGNT for ἐστι i'm getting hits on ἐστιν (Mk 7:27). If I right click to search this resource there is no result for ἐστιν at that passage! Is it because of the note marker ἐστιν⸃, even though ἐστιν appears to be selected in the context menu?

Tom Reynolds

White took Holmes to task for his reading of Mk 1.41 - "angry" instead of "pity" - because it has support only from a dubious ("not overly reliable") manuscript - Codex D. The Apparatus implies marginal support from WH, but it's not found in my Logos version of WH1881MR; which is the same as NA27.

But I see a similar lack of support for Mk 1:21, Jn 1:34. Is this because of the WH1881 I have?

I had a quick look at the SBL Greek NT with regard to Mk 1:41 and really don't seen how it fulfils its goal of "both indentifying the earliest text and also studying all the variant readings"

Like you, my Logos WH only includes the main text, not the margin notes which Holmes says supports his variant reading. Why did W-H accept pity and reject angry? What did their margin note say? I have no idea. Without the critical apparatus or even better ALL the VARIANT READINGS with their MANUSCRIPT SUPPORT we are still shooting in the dark. I studied textual criticism with Gordon Fee so I know all the strategy employed and don't really see how comparing Holmes' text with two editions 130+ years old really helps. I'm more familiar with W-H than Tregelles and know that a certain method was employed, likewise with the more recent Robinson and Pierpont. Quite frankly, knowing a compiler's presuppositions/method is a lot more helpful than comparison to other editions.

Thankfully I have Metzger's Textual Commentery on the GNT in Logos so I know why the committee picked "pity" and rejected "angry." I suspect that Holmes chose "angry" because it is the "harder" reading. i.e. it seems harder to explain why a scribe would change pity to angry than vice versa.

It would be nice if Logos could provide an actual critical apparatus (e.g. the one with NA27 with additions) along with popups or something that explain why certain manuscripts are more/less important and what issues are involved in deciding the correct reading in a particular passage. Perhaps they could have a separate section for internal and external evidence. This would be much more helpful when using textual criticism to decide which version of Mk 1:41 to accept.

Tom

Josh

I wonder when the Book of Mormon will show up frankly.

I would love to own an electronic version of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, the Quran, Science and Health with key to the Scriptures, and other cult literature.

Of course, I'd want them labeled as cult literature and only available to search when specified. It would be nice to go to the "passage/verse in question" an apologetic book is discussing.

Tom Reynolds

The Qur'an is available in both English and Arabic although the English translation is older and leaves something to be desired. Still, it is a well used translation.

Dave Hooton

But I see a similar lack of support for Mk 1:21, Jn 1:34. Is this because of the WH1881 I have?

Rick,

In starting with the text of the WH1881 was all text enclosed in [ ] adopted as SBL text? For instance:-

the apparatus note for Mk 1:40 claims support for γονυπετῶν from WH [και γονυπετων]; but
there is no note for Mk 1:25 [λεγων] where SBL agrees with NA & RP; and
there is no note for Mk 1:35 [και απηλθεν] which agrees with NA & RP, but RP uses ἔννυχον instead of ἔννυχα?

I decided to examine more obvious cases of claiming support from WH:-

Luke 19:38 βασιλεὺς WH NIV ] ὁ βασιλεὺς Treg RP ==> SBL reads "ὁ ἐρχόμενος βασιλεὺς", WH & NA read "ο ερχομενος ο βασιλευς"
Luke 21:19 κτήσασθε WH NIV RP ] ==> SBL reads "κτήσασθε", WH reads "κτησεσθε"
Luke 23:45 τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος WH NIV ] ==> SBL reads "... ἐκλιπόντος", WH reads "... εκλειποντος"