Last year (Oct.) the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) published a new Greek text of the New Testament, called the SBL edition. Its editor is Michael Holmes, a prof. of biblical studies at Bethel College in St. Paul, MN. He had previously published a number of Greek editions with English translations of the apostolic fathers (AF, basically the church fathers who most immediately followed the apostles, usu. in the 2nd cent.). Holmes’ AF 3rd and final ed. came out in 2007. He is well qualified to do the new SBL Greek NT as he studied the subject under the late Bruce Metzer at Princeton and has published many studies on the NT’s text.
For the last few decades the main text(s) that scholars have used are the Nestle-Aland (NA, in many editions, lately the 27th) and the United Bible Societies Greek NT (UBS) now in its fourth ed. In 1975 for the appearance of the 3rd ed., the UBS committee and Aland decided to both print the same Greek text. In other words, previous disagreements about what the Greek NT should read were worked out and both the NA and the UBS have read the same since 1975.The only differences remaining are things like punctuation, headings, etc. and most importantly, the notes at each page’s bottom explaining what the manuscripts and other testimony are for the problem passages. This identical reading has come to be called “the standard text.”
The SBL ed. is available in a bound copy ($$/££/€€) but is also available for FREE on line at http://sblgnt.com in an electronic version. Since this has been out electronically now for nearly a year, and since Holmes states in the preface “the SBLGNT differs from the standard text in more than 540 variation units” (p. viii), I was wondering if anybody knows if someone has put out some list of these differences.
Can anybody help out here?
Of course, I have already done searches and plenty is on now on line about this text, but I could not find any list of the 540 differences. I thought that with BibleWorks and Accordance, someone might have easily compiled a list.
One further point: this is just a GREEK text. There is no English, nor does the textual apparatus (notes at the bottom) give individual manuscript readings. Rather the apparatus just reports on other Greek texts’ readings. The apparatus is explained in the introduction.
Anyone know of a list of the 540+ variants?
by aristeas 5 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
aristeas
-
moggy lover
Sorry can't help you there. I was intrigued enough by your post to download the SBL text and have compared it with several examples of the UBS and have found no differences in reading. Holmes' major concern in his apparatus is to point to differences between the WH Tregellis and Byzantine texts and the SBL, of which there are several such, although he used WH as his base text. It appears that he has major agreement with UBS/NA in all the major textual differences between this text and the other three.
For instance, whereas WH has "me" in the text at Jo 14:14 in brackets, and Treg and By leave it out, SBL accepts the UBS/NA reading and has incorporated the word as a natural reading of the text itself.
Also at Rom 5:1 WH and the others have "ekWmen" as a subjunctive "let us have", SBL has accepted the UBS/NA reading of "ekOmen" which is an indicative. The difference is not without significance. The Watchtower would like Paul to say "Let us have peace with God" as the WH says, so that they can point out how this future possibility may be achieved.
But when Paul says "we have peace with God" he is indicating that this is not merely a possibility but is a current theological possession of the believer and is not contingent on any leadership to provide. That SBL agrees with NA/UBS is therefore significant. I personally think that the 540 variables Holmes mentions are more in the way of grammatical intrusions such as the use of "de" or "kai".
Unfortunately, failing the publication of these variants between SBL-UBS/NA in a categorized form, the only other way to detect these is to read through the entire Greek text itself and compare the two!!
-
aristeas
ML,
Thx for the input. Others have done what you have (at least those I found on the google search), look at some differences. I was hoping s.o. will have seen or know of a complete list. One thing I've found is that Holmes brackets nothing. He doesn't even note other texts (which he reports) that do! That's very unusual for a NT Greek text. One might even argue that he's misrepresenting the sources he cites. He does read differently from UBS/NA at Acts 13.33, which is a pretty interesting textual problem, at least according to Metzger. I think his choice of sources cited in the apparatus was largely determined by copyright — they are all in the public domain or have given him permission. That's why it looks so dated on his sources.
-
aristeas
I have had some more time to spend with the SBLGNT. Here are some of my observations. The on-line version may be a little more difficult to use than the hardbound copy b/c it’s easier to flip pages perhaps than open up several pdf documents at once due to desktop space. On the issue of brackets, let me correct my last post. On p. xiv, note 16, Holmes states that they ‘have been employed in this edition sparingly’ and goes on to list only 6 instances at the end of the long note. Sparingly indeed! Below are some links to non-professional reviews. There is one professional review I found on line, but one must get to a university library that subscribes ($/£/€) to DL those. I will try to do this soon. If anyone wants a copy, you’ll have to PM me as I tried to post a link to Zoe Knox’s article after I DLed that, but it would not take at two hosts. I suspect these electronically ULed scholarly articles are somehow coded so that someone who has DLed one cannot then UL it and link it. Otherwise, I would just UL it and post the link here.
I found a partial list of the 540+ passages in the text itself. The last pdf document is labelled ‘back’. When you open it up, it’s called an appendix. Here it gives a list of where the SBLGNT differs from the ECM. Although ECM is not defined, I think it’s the Editio Critica Maior, a huge project of producing a NA sort of text with ALL the variants listed. Evidently, so far only the Catholic letters have been done. Hence that’s all Holmes has listed. If I’m wrong here, someone can correct me. Anyway, there is a list of 39 differences between Holmes and the ‘standard text’. Now we need the other 501+! I’m still looking for that info. Surely some computer geek has already done this, so if you run into it, please share the link. -
moggy lover
Prior to reading your post I had never heard of either the SBLNT or the ECM texts. On downloading the text itself, and going into its introduction and method of preparation, my initial conclusion was that the editor, Michael Holmes was preparing an updated version of the WH text since he based his own text on that original. While still holding to that conclusion I am prepared to acknowledge that he also has some original conclusions to contribute.
I neglected to see the appendix and I agree that we do see here some variations in the SBL and UBS/NA. In James for instance, SBL agrees with UBS/NA at 2:4, but not at 2:14,16; 4:12, 5:4. While most of these are grammatical minutiae, [such as the use of the definite article at three of these texts] the last one does have significance.
The point at 5:4 is to determine what James is accusing his readers of:
1. Is is of "holding back" [aPHU-sterew] their wages or
2. Is it of "defrauding" [aPE-sterew] them of their wages?
Originally WH concluded that the better reading, attested to by the Sinaitic and the Vatican texts [both 4th century] was the former. But the UBS/NA committee, realizing that both preserve a single text type, preferred the latter reading because of its wider attestation of several text types. [Alexandrian, 5th century, PS044 8th century, TR, and other minuscules from the 4th century onward].
ECM has agreed with UBS/NA against WH/SBL.
Also one thing I did not know was that the text behind the NIV is an individualistic, eclectic one made up of several variants of other texts. I always assumed that the NIV was based on UBS4/NA.
If you are waiting for the publication of the completed ECM text to compare the two, I am afraid you will have a long wait. It is slated for release in 2085 in 19 comprehensive volumes involving thousands of pages of text!! I am glad that I won't be around, not only because of a lack of bookshelf space, but also, at 70, I won't have opportunity to plow through all that voluminous material.
-
aristeas
I think we are both having more time to spend with the text. Here are those links wiht non-professional review that I was going to post, but I got interrupted:
http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2010/10/initial-impressions-of-the-sbl-greek-new-testament.html
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2011/06/review-of-sbl-greek-new-testament.html
If you want to try to DL Elliott's scholarly review, here's the link (it's in the JTS), but you have to access it at a library that subscribes or shell out the money yourself:
http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/06/jts.flr014.extract
Jas. 5:4 isn't the only substantial variant; 2 Jo 12: 'you' vs. 'us' is an important difference too!
What happened with the NIV was the same as the NEB. Originally a group of scholars worked indepently on translating different books, each probably using and comparing the available texts. Then editorial committees had their say. What resulted was a translation based on no one single text, but a variety. Like RGV Tasker did with the Greek text 'behind' the NEB, that is, put together the ecclectic Greek text as a retroversion from the English long after the NEB was published, so these chaps Goodrich and Lukaszewski, via Goodrick and Kohlenberger, have done the same with the NIV. Verstehen Sie?