Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Analysis of the SBL GNT in the Gospels

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    I have checked Mike Holmes SBL text in the Gospels now. This is the shortest GNT ever! It is 465 words shorter than NA. Even 126 words shorter than WH! - Good
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 5, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      I have checked Mike Holmes' SBL text in the Gospels now.

      This is the shortest GNT ever!

      It is 465 words shorter than NA. Even 126 words shorter than WH!

      - Good to see he is getting rid of (almost) all those single brackets.

      - Holmes is accepting 6 Western non-interpolations.

      - There are about 230 differences to NA in the Gospels. Of these, Holmes follows WH about 48% of the time and the Byzantine text about 44%.

       

      Read my full review here:

      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/SBL-GNT-Analysis.pdf

       

       

      Best wishes

          Wieland

          <><

      --------------------------

      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

      Textcritical commentary:

      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

       

    • David Robert Palmer
      Yes, I agree Wieland that people are most interested in how the SBL text differs from the NA27. I found one tonight in Revelation where SBL departs NA and goes
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 5, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, I agree Wieland that people are most interested in how the SBL text differs from the NA27.
         
        I found one tonight in Revelation where SBL departs NA and goes back to Treg and WH:
         
        Rev. 1:19
        GENESQAI – p98 01* C P 046 94 141 1828 2019 2050 2070 2074 Pickering NA27
         
        GINESQAI – (01c A GEIN-) f052 (=1678, 1778, 2080) 792 922 1006 1611 1841 2040 2053 2060 2062 2065 2329 TG WH vn Soden Charles HF RP SBL
         
        Hoskier says f052 has a text type that is older than Codex Sinaiticus, and I agree with that.  The combination of Codex A with f052 is a very strong one in Revelation.  But, so also is p98, 01*, C.  I would give this variant a C or D rating of certainty but go with SBL, because I like the A f052 combo in Revelation.
         
        What you said about SBL removing single brackets I found in Revelation also (not a complete list):
         
        1:6 NA27 AIWNAS [TWN AIWNWN] but SBL no brackets.  SBL follows f052, but Codex A with p18 P 2050 omit TWN AIWNWN.  I already had same as SBL, no brackets.
        2:15 NA27 [TWN] NIKOLAITWN, but SBL NIKOLAITWN, following A C.  Including TWN are 01 P f052 1611 2050.
        2:25 NA27 ACRI[S] OU but SBL ACRI OU, following 01 C.  Here f052 is both unique and divided.  Codex A has something else yet.  This is all a change in Greek phonology over time.
        5:6 NA27 TA [EPTA], but SBL no brackets.  Omitting EPTA is a strong combo of A P f052 1611 1841 2050 eth, so I leave EPTA in brackets.
        6:8 NA27 [O] QANATOS, but SBL no brackets, following f052.  Codex A is erroneous and alone here.  And article is omitted by 01 C.
        9:13 NA27 [TESSARWN] KERATWN, but SBL KERATWN.  (I agree with SBL; I already had this change prior, because omitting TESSARWN are p47 01c A f052 0207!!  Including TESSARWN are p115 P 046, very weak.  01* is erroneous.
        12:12 NA27 [OI] OURANOI, but SBL no brackets.  I had already done the same as SBL, following A f052.  Omitting the article are 01 C P.
        13:1 NA27 ONOMA[TA}, but SBL ONOMATA.  SBL goes with the A f052 combo v. the p47 01 C combo.
        19:5 NA27 [KAI], but SBL no brackets.  I had already done the same as SBL.  Again the A f052 combo, plus 0229, v. 01 C.
        19:6 NA27 [HMWN], but SBL omits HMWN, going with Codex A and TR, v. 01c P 046.  f052 is split into 3, one with 01*, another with Ethiopic, another alone, as far as the whole phrase, but 2 of them omitting HMWN, 1 including it.  So on balance, SBL goes with A f052 combo again.
        19:11 NA27 [KALOUMENOS] PISTOS K. ALHQINOS but SBL PISTOS KALOUMENOS K. ALHQINOS.  Here SBL goes with 01 Treg WH.  Charles has exactly same as NA27; f052 has NA27 reading without brackets, Cod. A has PISTOS KAI ALHQINOS without KALOUMENOS.
        19:12 NA27 [WS], but SBL omits WS.  Here NA27 is with A f052, and SBL with 01 P 046 & Treg.
        19:14 NA27 [TA], but SBL has TA with no brackets.  Omitting TA are 01 A and 2/3 of f052.  I leave TA in brackets.
        19:17 NA27 [EN], but SBL omits EN, which I had already done, following A f052 P 051 TR Treg Charles RP.  The uncials including EN are 01 046.  Very weak.
        20:6 NA27 [TA] CILIA, but SBL omits TA, following Codex A 051 1841 2050.  Including TA are 01 046 f052 1611 2053 2329.  Hiant are C P 1828.  I have TA in brackets in my text.  This article may be anaphoric to the CILIA in the previous verse.
        21:16 NA27 OSON [KAI], but SBL OSON only.  I had already done the same as SBL, on the basis of f052, 01 P 046 2053.  versus Codex A 1611 1841 2050 TR Charles.
         

        I have checked Mike Holmes' SBL text in the Gospels now.

        This is the shortest GNT ever!

        It is 465 words shorter than NA. Even 126 words shorter than WH!

      • TeunisV
        It is amusing to read: Because two days ago I wrote on the 1904 NT:
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 5, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          It is amusing to read:
          <Good to see he (Holmes) is getting rid of (almost) all those single brackets.>
          Because two days ago I wrote on the 1904 NT:
          <Antoniades c.s. are in the good company of Aland c.s. who in NA27/TGNT-UBS4 also could not decide about the text and used [...]. Compare Mk 16:1; John 6:66; 1Cor. 6:16; 11:32; Gal. 2:16; Philip. 1:23; Col. 2:13; 1 Thes. 4,8; Tit. 1:10; Hebr. 9:1; Apoc. 19:17; 21:12; 21:27.>

          It is correct that abundant use of [_] is a sign of unfinished editorial work. The problems are left to the users: translators and bible readers. See the fine remarks on this theme by H.J. de Jonge in his exhaustive review of the NA26, "De nieuwe Nestle: N26", NTT, vol. 34, p. 310-311 ( https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/985/1/279_025.pdf ).
          But on the other hand: the use of brackets (or with Antoniades small printed words) alert the innocent readers to uncertainties in the NT text.
          Who is wise?

          Teunis van Lopik


          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
          >
          > I have checked Mike Holmes' SBL text in the Gospels now.
          >
          > This is the shortest GNT ever!
          >
          > It is 465 words shorter than NA. Even 126 words shorter than WH!
          >
          > - Good to see he is getting rid of (almost) all those single brackets.
          >
          > - Holmes is accepting 6 Western non-interpolations.
          >
          > - There are about 230 differences to NA in the Gospels. Of these, Holmes
          > follows WH about 48% of the time and the Byzantine text about 44%.
          >
          >
          >
          > Read my full review here:
          >
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/SBL-GNT-Analysis.pdf
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Best wishes
          >
          > Wieland
          >
          > <><
          >
          > --------------------------
          >
          > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          >
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          >
          > Textcritical commentary:
          >
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
          >
        • Mike Holmes
          Our colleague asks a good question ( who is wise? ). Yes, the use of brackets (or with Antoniades small printed words) alert the innocent readers to
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 5, 2010
          • 0 Attachment

            Our colleague asks a good question (“who is wise?”). Yes, “the use of brackets (or with Antoniades small printed words) alert the innocent readers to uncertainties in the NT text”; I trust it will be recognized that the use of the superscript single square corner bracket (on single words) and the paired angle brackets (for multiple word variants) in the SBLGNT also alerts readers to places where the text is uncertain (and the brief apparatus will give them some idea as to how other editors have handled the matter, and, one hopes, encourage them to consult a fuller apparatus, such as that in NA27, for further information).

             

            Thanks,

            Mike Holmes

             

            From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TeunisV
            Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:01 AM
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [textualcriticism] [brackets]

             

             

            It is amusing to read:
            <Good to see he (Holmes) is getting rid of (almost) all those single brackets.>
            Because two days ago I wrote on the 1904 NT:
            <Antoniades c.s. are in the good company of Aland c.s. who in NA27/TGNT-UBS4 also could not decide about the text and used [...]. Compare Mk 16:1; John 6:66; 1Cor. 6:16; 11:32; Gal. 2:16; Philip. 1:23; Col. 2:13; 1 Thes. 4,8; Tit. 1:10; Hebr. 9:1; Apoc. 19:17; 21:12; 21:27.>

            It is correct that abundant use of [_] is a sign of unfinished editorial work. The problems are left to the users: translators and bible readers. See the fine remarks on this theme by H.J. de Jonge in his exhaustive review of the NA26, "De nieuwe Nestle: N26", NTT, vol. 34, p. 310-311 ( https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/985/1/279_025.pdf ).
            But on the other hand: the use of brackets (or with Antoniades small printed words) alert the innocent readers to uncertainties in the NT text.
            Who is wise?

            Teunis van Lopik

            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:

            >
            > I have checked Mike Holmes' SBL text in the Gospels now.
            >
            > This is the shortest GNT ever!
            >
            > It is 465 words shorter than NA. Even 126 words shorter than WH!
            >
            > - Good to see he is getting rid of (almost) all those single brackets.
            >
            > - Holmes is accepting 6 Western non-interpolations.
            >
            > - There are about 230 differences to NA in the Gospels. Of these, Holmes
            > follows WH about 48% of the time and the Byzantine text about 44%.
            >
            >
            >
            > Read my full review here:
            >
            > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/SBL-GNT-Analysis.pdf
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Best wishes
            >
            > Wieland
            >
            > <><
            >
            > --------------------------
            >
            > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            >
            > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            >
            > Textcritical commentary:
            >
            > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
            >

          • Wieland Willker
            ... Yes. I think that brackets for minor variations should be avoided. Is it really needed to alert a reader that this DE or that hO is considered unsecure by
            Message 5 of 5 , Nov 6, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              > "who is wise?"

              Yes.
              I think that brackets for minor variations should be
              avoided. Is it really needed to alert a reader that this DE
              or that hO is considered unsecure by the editor? There is
              already the diacritical sign alerting the reader, as Mike
              already noted.

              On the other hand it might be useful to set the really
              important, top variants, like "Father, forgive them ..."
              etc. in brackets, if you feel the need. This may be
              justified.


              Best wishes
              Wieland
              <><
              --------------------------
              Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
              Textcritical commentary:
              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.