Critical Apparatuses, Etc.

[ISalzman]

I believe Adelphos is correct. At one point in time the texts were different, but now they are the same. "The Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition (UBS4) is designed for translators and students. It contains the same Greek text as Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27, differing only in some details of punctuation and paragraphing." The differences in the apparati are hard to explain briefly, but I'll try. NA27 has more textual variants noted than UBS4, but when UBS4 has a variant listed, it will usually list more witnesses and it will give a letter grade as to the committee's belief on the strength of what the text has written. So really the two apparati have different strengths and weaknesses and are not the same. Both are held by German Bible Society. A gander at the UBS4 says that the first few editions were copyright United Bible Society, but from 1993 on, they seem to indicate German Bible Society.

First, thanks to both of you guys for responding. A couple of followup questions for Michael. You mention that the UBS edition "is designed for translators and students." Would you say more so than the NA27 edition? And how specifically would you say that it is oriented toward translators and students? Is there anything about NA27 that would make it any less suitable for translators and students?

Next, I have appreciated the letter grade rating that UBS provides in the past. But how valuable is that really? For example, while NA27 may not assign a letter grading to the reading or variant they have chosen, if they've gone with that reading, they must still have deemed it to be the "best of all the rest," per se. So what practical difference would it make if the grade were "B," "C," or anything else? They (UBS) still made the editorial decision to go with that particular reading. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well, but I hope you get my drift.

And, lastly, it seems like electronic versions of the critical apparati only include the apparatus of NA27 and NOT UBS4. Am I correct on this? Do you know if both apparati, NA27 and UBS4, are available electronically? Sorry for all the questions, but I so appreciate your time and patience and would be very grateful for your response.

Incidentally, one thing I would say that favors the NA27 edition is the fabulous cross references provided in the side margins. They are particularly adept at picking up OT quotes and allusions in the NT. This, IMHO, is a fantastic strength.

[Michael Hanel]

First, thanks to both of you guys for responding. A couple of followup questions for Michael. You mention that the UBS edition "is designed for translators and students." Would you say more so than the NA27 edition? And how specifically would you say that it is oriented toward translators and students? Is there anything about NA27 that would make it any less suitable for translators and students?

I believe the reason why it is pegged more for translators is because the variant choices that are listed are more valuable for their effect on translation. For instance, NA27 may list a variant involving a missing definite article, but UBS4 will not include that because it's not really going to affect one's translation. I think on average the UBS4 has one to two textual variants per page. NA27 has many many more than that.

Next, I have appreciated the letter grade rating that UBS provides in the past. But how valuable is that really? For example, while NA27 may not assign a letter grading to the reading or variant they have chosen, if they've gone with that reading, they must still have deemed it to be the "best of all the rest," per se. So what practical difference would it make if the grade were "B," "C," or anything else? They (UBS) still made the editorial decision to go with that particular reading. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well, but I hope you get my drift.

This is all purely personal opinion. It is as valuable as much as you value the committee's opinion. I believe others on the blogosphere have talked about a desire to see a different kind of system in later versions, i.e. an objective one. This kind of reminds me of the Jesus Project. If 5 people voted for a variant and one against it, it might be ranked an "A". But that rank will not tell you WHY each person decided how they did. For this, your best bet is Metzger's Textual Commentary.

And, lastly, it seems like electronic versions of the critical apparati only include the apparatus of NA27 and NOT UBS4. Am I correct on this? Do you know if both apparati, NA27 and UBS4, are available electronically? Sorry for all the questions, but I so appreciate your time and patience and would be very grateful for your response.

I do not believe this is correct. In other words I believe both of them are available together. But since I personally do not own any of the packages, I can't say this with absolute certainty.

Incidentally, one thing I would say that favors the NA27 edition is the fabulous cross references provided in the side margins. They are particularly adept at picking up OT quotes and allusions in the NT. This, IMHO, is a fantastic strength.

The sad part is I've heard from others who are much older than I am that earlier versions of NA texts actually had better textual cross references than the current version. I don't know specifically which version it was that had more before they started trimming them out, but at least this was this person's reason for owning older copies of the NA text.

[wie]

The sad part is I've heard from others who are much older than I am that earlier versions of NA texts actually had better textual cross references than the current version. I don't know specifically which version it was that had more before they started trimming them out, but at least this was this person's reason for owning older copies of the NA text.

I own a lot of NA versions but I cannot say that this is true. There are slight variations, addig a reference here, deleting one there, but no dramatic changes. Same for the UBS versions.

[ISalzman]

Thanks to both of you for responding. Michael, I especially appreciate your painstaking point-by-point response to my post.

[Adelphos]

For anyone who wants a fairly balanced perspective, while still realizing that the author is pro TR, the following link should be very informative for an overall understanding of many aspects of textual criticism...

http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm

I should also state that I don't agree with some of the assertions or conclusions in that article, but as I said, it should be informative to many who are not really familiar with textual criticism today.

[ISalzman]

For anyone who wants a fairly balanced perspective, while still realizing that the author is pro TR, the following link should be very informative for an overall understanding of many aspects of textual criticism...

http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm

I should also state that I don't agree with some of the assertions or conclusions in that article, but as I said, it should be informative to many who are not really familiar with textual criticism today.

Thanks Scott, but that is an extremely long article. If I ever get that kind of time, I will endeavor to read through it. But who is this Ronald Gordon? Is he generally recognized as an authority in the field of text criticism? And I assume you meant that Gordon is pro TR. That sort of makes me a little wary already. It is usually TR people who call the articles written by those who favor the TR "fairly balanced." In the same way, most critical text people think that articles written by authors favoring the critical text are "fairly balanced." We generally tend to find our own views the most "fairly balanced." That's just human nature. At any rate, when and if I get a major block of time, I will try to peruse Gordon's article.

[Adelphos]

The first two or three paragrahs in that article answer all the questions you just asked.

And if you want to understand textual criticism, you won't get it in a jack-in-the-box enterprise. Textual criticism is a serious and complicated subject. To expect to understand it and at the same time avoid reading long articles is an oxymoron extraordinaire.

[ISalzman]

And if you want to understand textual criticism, you won't get it in a jack-in-the-box enterprise. Textual criticism is a serious and complicated subject. To expect to understand it and at the same time avoid reading long articles is an oxymoron extraordinaire.

I understand that. I have read several books on the subject (Ellis Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism, etc.). I am about to read Ernst Wurthwein, Text of the Old Testament. But I don't know anything of or about this Ronald Gordon. I'm not quick to read extremely long articles by people without any sort of a reputation. A lot of people post articles on the internet. It's one of the easiest things to do. All you need is for a server willing to host your page. There are a lot of articles posted on the internet about a variety of subjects. Not all of them are worthy of being read however. But I will take your advice and read through the first three paragraphs of the article to which you linked. Thanks.

[Adelphos]

I didn't point you to every article on the internet. I didn't even point you to one of my own articles on the subject.

When someone on this forum points me to an article I assume that they are pointing me to an article that they themselves have vetted, and I've found that to be true with most of the posters on this forum.

So I'll say it one last time... if you want a good overall view of NT textual criticism, while recognizing that the author is pro TR, as I said before, the article I pointed you to gives a fairly good account of the matter.

I don't agree with the author on a number of points, and I still recommend the article.

You're the one who has been asking the questions. You live in a dream world if you think you can post questions in a public forum and get only the answers you want to those questions. Some people get helped in spite of themselves.

[ISalzman]

I didn't point you to every article on the internet. I didn't even point you to one of my own articles on the subject.

When someone on this forum points me to an article I assume that they are pointing me to an article that they themselves have vetted, and I've found that to be true with most of the posters on this forum.

So I'll say it one last time... if you want a good overall view of NT textual criticism, while recognizing that the author is pro TR, as I said before, the article I pointed you to gives a fairly good account of the matter.

I don't agree with the author on a number of points, and I still recommend the article.

You're the one who has been asking the questions. You live in a dream world if you think you can post questions in a public forum and get only the answers you want to those questions. Some people get helped in spite of themselves.

I detect a slightly adversarial tone in your last post, Scott, and that has not been my intent here. So I thank you for your recommendation and I'll leave it at that. Thanks.