tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post6892443291565107920..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: "Some Manuscripts Say . . ." - The Problem with FootnotesJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-59925975199325540522017-11-01T13:15:14.937-04:002017-11-01T13:15:14.937-04:00Ken Ganskie,
I suppose one option might be to jus...Ken Ganskie, <br />I suppose one option might be to just make a fresh translation. If the folks in charge of the NIV/ESV/NRSV/CSB were going to pay attention and address the imprecision-problem in their footnotes, they would have done so by now.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-21350723957117316962017-01-17T22:32:58.413-05:002017-01-17T22:32:58.413-05:00Thanks, James. Your insights on this much neglect...Thanks, James. Your insights on this much neglected topic are spot on. I wish others in the field of textual criticism would stand up and make their voice be heard on this travesty. I have been amazed at how little folks in the evangelical community even give a couple of minutes to this topic. Shame on the publishers of our modern day versions for their unscholarly treatment of the textual footnotes. <br /><br />What can we do to stop this? Boycott these versions and encourage others to do likewise until/unless they act more responsibly?<br /><br />Your thoughts?Ken Ganskiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040919525390779050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-40468769747125868682017-01-16T20:27:53.391-05:002017-01-16T20:27:53.391-05:00Snapp: "...not something that Byzantine Prior...Snapp: "...not something that Byzantine Priority advocates believe."<br /><br />Definitely so; but no need to go into the wherefore and why regarding transmissional theory and our relative concerns regarding consistency.<br /><br />As for the revision of the HCSB, I see that for the new CSB the textual basis for the NT supposedly will be standardized to NA28/UBS5. While this will not resolve the problems involved with their "Other mss read" footnotes, at least one will have a specific base of comparison as opposed to the unspecified jumble of disparate readings from various source MSS. <br /><br />Just too bad the HCSB/CSB editors didn't see fit after Farstad's death to honor the original purpose he envisioned of presenting a Byzantine/majority based translation. Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-89079104990946905792017-01-16T19:43:46.857-05:002017-01-16T19:43:46.857-05:00Timothy Joseph,
TJ: " As to your conclusion...Timothy Joseph, <br />TJ: " As to your conclusions on the variants themselves, just stop, admit you are a majority text advocate" -- <br /><br />No I am not. I believe that on balance, the Byzantine Text conveys the meaning of the original text better than the Alexandrian Text. But I insist that the Byzantine Text has many non-original readings in it (see my compilations of Mark, Philemon, James, and Jude for examples) -- which, I am fairly sure, is not something that Byzantine Priority advocates believe.<br /> James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-44380514976632826512017-01-16T17:29:02.048-05:002017-01-16T17:29:02.048-05:00James,
I agree with the main point of your post, t...James,<br />I agree with the main point of your post, the footnotes in most bibles are nonsense. They do not convey sufficient information to make any determination! As to your conclusions on the variants themselves, just stop, admit you are a majority text advocate, there is nothing wrong with that, see Dr Robinson!<br /><br />Tim<br />Timothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-6387950044381716232017-01-16T16:00:58.373-05:002017-01-16T16:00:58.373-05:00Interestingly, one of the promotional boasts regar...Interestingly, one of the promotional boasts regarding the HCSB (now CSB) New Testament has been that it includes far more textual variant footnotes than any other English translation on the market. <br /><br />While that claim appears to be accurate, the footnotes themselves are relatively useless for readership text-critical comprehension: their "Other MSS read" notations utterly fail to identify the types of text supporting such variants, or to state whether the reading has only minimal and nonrepresentative support from any texttype.<br /><br />A few examples should make the point clear: <br /><br />Jn 1.18 "Other mss read <i>God</i>" -- a Byzantine reading; main text non-Byzantine.<br />Jn 1.28 "Other mss read <i>in Bethabara</i> -- a nearly even split among all MSS.<br />Jn 1.34 "Other mss read <i>is the chosen One of God"</i> -- Only Sinaiticus and some Old Latin MSS; main text all other MSS of all types. <br />Jn 5.2 "Other mss read <i>Bethzatha</i>; others read <i>Bethsaida</i> -- the first is the NA/UBS main text reading, supported by Aleph (L) 33 it; the second is an alternate Alexandrian reading, supported by (p66) p75 B T Ws (Psi) pc; main text is Byzantine.<br /><br />... and the list could go on and on. <br /> Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.com