Thank you. I didn't know that.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Books on Textual Criticism
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
There are several Byzantine/Majority Greek NTs around nowadays. I think I've already mentioned The Greek New Testament According to Family 35, ed. by Wilbur N. Pickering. This is not a Byz/Maj NT per se, since it concentrates on the family of mss Pickering thinks is closest to the original.
Zane C. Hodges/Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 2nd ed. Nashville: Nelson, 1985. I also have the 1st edition from 1982. Hodges and Farstad were profs at Dallas Theological Seminary, with Farstad starting out as Hodges student. Read his story here: https://deanbibleministries.org/dbm...-3-WhyIBecameAMajorityTextAdvocateFarstad.pdf
This edition has a 35 page Introduction that introduces the reader to their method, which I must confess is difficult for me to wrap my head around. There is a good apparatus that pits the Majority against the Alexandrian. All in all, this was a good contribution to the debate. I hope someone does a third edition someday, but it is already outdated by other Greek NTs, I believe.
It does exist as the Greek text for The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament, put out by Nelson in 1994, very helpful if you use interlinears. Nowadays I go to software much more often than to my interlinear.
Zane C. Hodges/Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 2nd ed. Nashville: Nelson, 1985. I also have the 1st edition from 1982. Hodges and Farstad were profs at Dallas Theological Seminary, with Farstad starting out as Hodges student. Read his story here: https://deanbibleministries.org/dbm...-3-WhyIBecameAMajorityTextAdvocateFarstad.pdf
This edition has a 35 page Introduction that introduces the reader to their method, which I must confess is difficult for me to wrap my head around. There is a good apparatus that pits the Majority against the Alexandrian. All in all, this was a good contribution to the debate. I hope someone does a third edition someday, but it is already outdated by other Greek NTs, I believe.
It does exist as the Greek text for The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament, put out by Nelson in 1994, very helpful if you use interlinears. Nowadays I go to software much more often than to my interlinear.
Last edited:
Maurice Robinson and William G. Pierpont, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek, Byzantine Textform 2005, 2nd ed. Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005.
This is the nicest Greek NT I have, and I have many. It has a beautiful hardback burgundy and black cover with gold writing. It has a ribbon marker, which very few Greek NTs have. The font is very readable, unlike UBS 4 rev., which has the worst Greek font in existence. It also has a very readable apparatus compared to the Hodges-Farstad Majority text. One thing some may find confusing is that the order of the NT books is the Byzantine order rather than the one most are used to, with the general epistles coming together before the Pauline epistles.
The book starts out with a 23 page preface, which educates the reader on how the text was established, what Byzantine priority is, what the eclectic position is, etc. At the end of the book is an appendix with Dr. Robinson's more technical presentation of Byzantine priority, already mentioned above.
All in all, this is my favorite Greek NT in every way.
This is the nicest Greek NT I have, and I have many. It has a beautiful hardback burgundy and black cover with gold writing. It has a ribbon marker, which very few Greek NTs have. The font is very readable, unlike UBS 4 rev., which has the worst Greek font in existence. It also has a very readable apparatus compared to the Hodges-Farstad Majority text. One thing some may find confusing is that the order of the NT books is the Byzantine order rather than the one most are used to, with the general epistles coming together before the Pauline epistles.
The book starts out with a 23 page preface, which educates the reader on how the text was established, what Byzantine priority is, what the eclectic position is, etc. At the end of the book is an appendix with Dr. Robinson's more technical presentation of Byzantine priority, already mentioned above.
All in all, this is my favorite Greek NT in every way.
What about the Greek new testament, SBL edition?
or the one now put put by Tyndale. Greek new testament?
I don't have these. Feel free to comment on them.
The Greek new testament put out by Tyndale has a very impressive layout look, and is easy to read, and does have glosses down below the main text for words occurring believe 30 times or more in the text, but has no critical apparatus as of now
The Tyndale House Greek New Testament uses the New Testament text of Samuel Tregelles (1813–1875) as its base text.
"Since his time many early witnesses, especially on papyrus, have come to light. These in turn have allowed analyses of early scribal habits, which would not have been as possible in Tregelles’s day.
Our revision of Tregelles has ended up being more thoroughgoing than we had expected, such that this is now a completely new edition, rather than a light revision. In keeping with Tregelles’s documentary approach we have sought to reduce the likelihood that any reading adopted is a mere scribal aberration by insisting that our text be attested in two or more Greek manuscripts, at least one being from the fifth century or earlier.” p 505.
"… our aim has been to produce a text with a high degree of directly verified antiquity so that users of this edition will have the benefit of knowing that any reading printed in this text rests on early testimony.” p. 507.
"The limited apparatus is designed primarily to illustrate the decision-making process, which has focussed on Greek witnesses of the first millennium. We recognize, of course, that versional and patristic witnesses add significantly to our knowledge of the history of the transmission of the New Testament text. Nevertheless, we have not felt that at any point their witness was strong enough to change the decisions we made on the basis of the Greek manuscripts. p. 507.
Our revision of Tregelles has ended up being more thoroughgoing than we had expected, such that this is now a completely new edition, rather than a light revision. In keeping with Tregelles’s documentary approach we have sought to reduce the likelihood that any reading adopted is a mere scribal aberration by insisting that our text be attested in two or more Greek manuscripts, at least one being from the fifth century or earlier.” p 505.
"… our aim has been to produce a text with a high degree of directly verified antiquity so that users of this edition will have the benefit of knowing that any reading printed in this text rests on early testimony.” p. 507.
"The limited apparatus is designed primarily to illustrate the decision-making process, which has focussed on Greek witnesses of the first millennium. We recognize, of course, that versional and patristic witnesses add significantly to our knowledge of the history of the transmission of the New Testament text. Nevertheless, we have not felt that at any point their witness was strong enough to change the decisions we made on the basis of the Greek manuscripts. p. 507.
Rob
Last edited:
Society of Biblical Literature in conjunction with Logos Bible Software produced an edition of the GNT, the SBLGNT with a starting point of Westcott and Hort’s GNT.
The WH text was modified to match the standards of SBL … Then the modified version was compared to three other primary editions (Tregelles GNT (London: Bagster; Stewart, 1857–1879), "NIV, A Reader’s GNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), and “The NT in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform. 2005, (Southborough, Mass.: Chilton, 2005)
Rob
The WH text was modified to match the standards of SBL … Then the modified version was compared to three other primary editions (Tregelles GNT (London: Bagster; Stewart, 1857–1879), "NIV, A Reader’s GNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), and “The NT in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform. 2005, (Southborough, Mass.: Chilton, 2005)
“…in order to identify points of agreement and disagreement between them. Where all four editions agreed, the text was tentatively accepted as the text of the SBL edition; points of disagreement were marked for further consideration. The editor then worked systematically through the entire text, giving particular attention to the points of disagreement but examining as well the text where all four editions were in agreement. Where there was disagreement among the four editions, the editor determined which variant to print as the text; occasionally a reading not found in any of the four editions commended itself as the most probable representative of the text and therefore was adopted. Similarly, where all four texts were in agreement, the editor determined whether to accept that reading or to adopt an alternative variant as the text. In this manner, the text of the SBLGNT was established."
Rob
Last edited:
The Reader’s Greek New Testament, 2nd edition. Richard Goodrich and Albert Lukaszewski, Zondervan Press, 2003, 2007
The Greek text presented in A Reader’s Greek New Testament is the eclectic text that underpins the Today’s New International Version. The Greek text for its predecessor the New International Version (NIV), was compiled by Edward Goodrich and John Kohlenberger III. Since this eclectic text does differ from the “Standard Text,” a few words to clarify these differences are in order.
There are some points, … where are the manuscript traditions favor different readings. When these divergencies were encountered, the editorial committee responsible for compiling the standard text decided which variant did not always have the support of the entire committee, and that best represents a compromise solution. The critical apparatus included with the modern versions of the Greek New Testament alerts the reader to the possibility of other readers readings.
Since no accurate records were kept for the decisions in the mid 80s Edward Goodrich and John Kohlenberger decided to reverse engineer the Hebrew and Greek text that underlie the NIV translation they created a text the deviates from the standard text at the points where the NIV translators favored a different variant. The eclectic text created by this process represents an alternative view of the original text of the New Testament, and the consensus of a different team of New Testament scholars. When the committee on biblical Bible translation did the tea and IV in the 1990s, one of the members was Gordon fee, an expert in textual criticism. He has carefully gone over the text created by good rich and Kohlenberger and adjusted and authenticated The Greek text your decisions made by the committee. This is the text used in a readers Greek New Testament. In order to be as useful as possible, variations from the standard text are noted in the textual apparatus. The reader of a Greek New Testament of a readers Greek New Testament is able to compare the decisions of the two independent teams of biblical scholars, a process that will deepen the appreciation for the complex issues facing modern textual critics.
From the Introduction, p.9-10
Whenever a text only uses 2 Greek Manuscripts, it is most definitely not the Original Text. It is impossible.
Excellent review though. Thanks!
It’s interesting that the order the NT books is not a canonical issue.
In the 1st and 2nd Nestle editions (1898 and 1899) the book of Hebrews is found between 3 John and James (the "Catholic Epistles") so the order is:
1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Hebrews, James and Jude, Revelation in that order, which is the way Luther arranged his NT.
Rob
Let me post this before a beautiful weekend I hope to be spending outdoors.
A New Approach to Textual Criticism, an Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method
by Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry
SBL Press, Atlanta. 2017, 146 pp
The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) is a computer-assisted model developed for textual criticism that assesses relationships between variant readings. The method is new and needs to be critically evaluated but shows great potential.
Anyone interested in textual criticism of the Bible should become familiar with this model and recognize 1) that some basic text-critical assumptions may be out-of-date (e.g., traditional text-types, the value of Byzantine manuscripts) and 2) be aware of subtle word changes that they may observe in updated translations.
Rob
A New Approach to Textual Criticism, an Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method
by Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry
SBL Press, Atlanta. 2017, 146 pp
The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) is a computer-assisted model developed for textual criticism that assesses relationships between variant readings. The method is new and needs to be critically evaluated but shows great potential.
Anyone interested in textual criticism of the Bible should become familiar with this model and recognize 1) that some basic text-critical assumptions may be out-of-date (e.g., traditional text-types, the value of Byzantine manuscripts) and 2) be aware of subtle word changes that they may observe in updated translations.
For more than two centuries, New Testament scholars have spoken about the Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, (or Eastern or Syrian) and sometimes Caesarean texts. An early pioneer J. A. Bengel (1687-1752) took on the task of sorting out the wealth of source materials in order to reconstruct the earliest text of the New Testament. He divided the textual witnesses into groups that he called “nations” and “families.” J. S. Semler (1725-1791) and J. J. Griesbach (1745-1812) redefined Bengal’s schemes by connecting these textual groupings into geographic areas where the text might have been revised (apart from the normal copying). The divisions were as follows: Alexandrian (used by Origen); Western (Latin translations); and Eastern (used by Antiochan and Constantinopolitan churches). Greiesbach added the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, as well as additional Alexandrian church fathers, to the Alexandian group.
Scholars of largely followed this division into three major groups, or text-types, to use the term established through the work of E. C. Colwell in the second half of the 20th century. Although few scholars today associate these text-types with distinct locales, most still do associate them with distinct levels of importance. The Alexandian is typically considered the most reliable text-type, with the Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine generally following in that order.
If one reads Bruce Metzger’s well-known textual commentary that accompanies the UBS, the notion of text-types is absolutely essential to his explanation of the history of the New Testament text and, with it, to the practice of textual criticism itself. The UBS committee’s own explanation for its decisions are so regularly couched in these categories that is hard to imagine Metzger’s commentary without them. Their importance is well captured by Eldon Epp, who says that “to write the history of the New Testament text is to write the history of text-types, and concomitantly to write also the history of the criteria for the priority of readings.”
For many, the practice of New Testament textual criticism can hardly be conceived of without these comfortable categories. But this is precisely what the editors using the CBGM have done. They have replaced the relationships and value of text-types with the relationships and value of individual witnesses—well over one-hundred of them in the Catholic Letters. Because the computer can keep track of all these witnesses and their place in the transmission, there is no need to group them into a few text types and relate to these groups. More importantly, by focusing on individual witnesses, they completely bypassed the difficult problem of defining text-types and their boundaries.
One exception here is that the editors still recognize the Byzantine text as a distinct text form in its own right. This is due to the remarkable agreement that one finds in our late Byzantine manuscripts. Their agreement is such that it is hard to deny that they should be grouped. In fact, the editors using the CBGM do group them together, subsuming them in the apparatus under the symbol Byz. On the other hand, the editors want to avoid the term text-type to describe the Byzantine text because it brings with it the notion of a textual revision (or recension), a notion that persists in spite of the attempt to redefine text-types as a process. In other words, the Byzantine textual tradition should be regarded as the result of a long process, albeit one that produced a distinct text form preserved in a huge group of similar manuscripts. p 8-9
As just noted, the editors still accept a Byzantine group even if they do not view it as a traditional text-type. In fact, they do much more than merely accept it; they have reevaluated it and concluded that it should be given more weight than in the past. Particularly since the work of Westcott and Hort in the late nineteenth century, the Byzantine manuscripts have been disparaged by a majority of New Testament textual critics as the least valuable for recovering the “original text” when considered as a whole. But when the CBGM was first used on the Catholic letters, the editors found that a number of Byzantine witnesses were surprisingly similar to their own reconstructed text. This unexpected discovery encouraged a second look and lead to a renewed appreciation for these manuscripts and their shared text. This, in turn, led them to revise all the earlier decisions where they had chosen against this shared Byzantine text. As a result, ten of the twelve changes between their first use of the CBGM on the Catholic Letters and their second use are in favor of the Byzantine text, and they now consider it to be “an important witness to the early text” overall. p 10-11
Rob
Very interesting!
Thanks, and does seem to be a decent Greek NT for study use, but due to lack of a critical apparatus not for detail textual studies
Mark Billington and Peter Streitenberger, Digging for the Truth. Norden, Germany: Focus Your Mission KG, 2014. The subtitle is, “Collected Essays Regarding the Byzantine Text of the Greek New Testament.” A second subtitle is, “A Festschrift in Honor of Maurice A. Robinson.” For those unfamiliar with the term, a festschrift is a volume of essays in honor of a scholar by his scholarly friends, usually published in honor of his 65th birthday.
Contributors include Timothy Friberg, a noted missionary Bible translator and Greek lexicographer; John R. Himes, a missionary Bible translator and Greek teacher (writing on the usage in Mark of the Greek word for “immediately”; T. David Anderson, a missionary Bible translator, writing on the possibility of an Alexandrian recension; James A. Borland, a Liberty prof, writing on “The Textual Criticism of Luke 24:53 and its Implications”; Paul A. Himes, Petrine scholar and prof of ancient languages, writing on “’Burned Up’ or ‘Discovered’? The Peculiar Textual Problem of 2 Peter 3:10d”; etc.
This book had a very limited printing, so it is almost impossible to buy one even second hand nowadays. However, you may still read it, since one of the editors has put the PDF on the Internet at: Festschrift for Prof. Maurice Robinson on Textual issues of the New Testamant
All in all, I feel this is a good contribution to the debate by some well-known scholars and some not so known. I think it shows a growing and faithful following for Dr. Robinson and his method, and for the genuineness of the Byzantine Textform and its closeness to the autographs. I think the cover is beautiful, but it has been criticized for its format, since it varies from the standard American editing format for such books.
Contributors include Timothy Friberg, a noted missionary Bible translator and Greek lexicographer; John R. Himes, a missionary Bible translator and Greek teacher (writing on the usage in Mark of the Greek word for “immediately”; T. David Anderson, a missionary Bible translator, writing on the possibility of an Alexandrian recension; James A. Borland, a Liberty prof, writing on “The Textual Criticism of Luke 24:53 and its Implications”; Paul A. Himes, Petrine scholar and prof of ancient languages, writing on “’Burned Up’ or ‘Discovered’? The Peculiar Textual Problem of 2 Peter 3:10d”; etc.
This book had a very limited printing, so it is almost impossible to buy one even second hand nowadays. However, you may still read it, since one of the editors has put the PDF on the Internet at: Festschrift for Prof. Maurice Robinson on Textual issues of the New Testamant
All in all, I feel this is a good contribution to the debate by some well-known scholars and some not so known. I think it shows a growing and faithful following for Dr. Robinson and his method, and for the genuineness of the Byzantine Textform and its closeness to the autographs. I think the cover is beautiful, but it has been criticized for its format, since it varies from the standard American editing format for such books.
Last edited:
Are you bzt only, or do you think some places that the CT/MT did actually have it closer to the original texts?
Byzantine priority does not rule out such a possibility.
How could it possibly be? Anywhere in its text it could only be based on as little as 2 manuscripts? And you wouldn't even know because of its lack of an apparatus. Erasmus had more manuscripts than that!
MT (Majority Text) belongs with BYZ (Byzantine Text), not CT (Critical Text).
- Status