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

Robert Pavich said:

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.

Robert Pavich said:

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 said:

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. 

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.

Rick Brannan said:

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.

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 said:

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

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.

Robert Pavich said:

Pat Flanakin said:

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

I also wish that the Doctrine and Covenants were available...and the Pearl of Great Price for that matter.

Has any one contacted the Mormon church?  They had a CD of all of their works [ten years ago or so and real cheep].  Maybe they have it in Logos format by now.