ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ

Dirk Jongkind was kind enough to come back and leave a comment letting me know that Tyndale House has now made available Tregelles Greek New Testament under a Creative Commons license.

The website has a lot of great information about the text and the Dirk has already posted at the Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog about the announcement.

Two different texts have been made available. The first “TNT” is the original Tregelles text with no corrections all of its printing errors still intact. The second, “TNT2″ is a text where they have worked to remove all the obvious printing errors in the text. Both texts are available for download.

I’ll be putting the text in to FLEx later this week.

Enjoy!

Here are the four books I picked up with the $70 gift certificate that you, my readers, made possible:

Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse by Stephen Smalley

I know what you’re thinking. Why not Beale, or Osborne, or Aune? Well, that’s easy. I have all three of those digitally. This is my first and only physical commentary on Revelation and from what I’ve read in its introduction, perusing it at the library and from book reviews, its a quality commentary. More than that its font size is small and its margins are tiny. For a 650 page book, its probably more along the lines of 800 pages of content. The book is quite dense. Its text critical notes are detailed and helpful and his exegesis is quite stimulating.

Esther – NIV Application Commentary by Karen Jobes

Exodus – NIV Application Commentary by Peter Enns

You’re also probably wondering why I picked up two very non-technical commentaries. Well, I’ve found that NIVAC, particularly in its Old Testament incarnation, is theologically rich. Both Enns and Jobes wrote their dissertations on these books and, I think, make excellent guides both theologically and exegetically through this two books.

Biblical Greek and Reformed Textual Criticism by Moises Silva

Finally, Silva shouldn’t need to be explained. He continues to be one of my very favorite scholars and I’m willing to read pretty much anything that comes from his pen. These are 40 pages of class notes from Westminster Theological seminary back when he taught there: 20 pages on Greek and 20 pages on textual criticism. I’ve already began reading them, and let me tell you, they are a rich feast, a delight for the eyes and mind. And at $8, its not a bad deal.

All this to say: Thank you. And I do hope that you make it possible again in another 6 months or so.

Is Tregelles’ GNT available online anywhere? It seems like it should be. And I’m surprised that nobody has produced a digital edition of some kind.

I read somewhere that the Munster’s major critical edition was actually closer to Tregelles than any other text.

So, anyone know where to find it?

Hard copies are scarce and expensive.

Logos is publishing a digital version of the Göttingen Septuagint: HERE.

The Septuagint is essential for studying and understanding both the Old and New Testaments and this is a very, very exciting development.

You can read more about this critical edition at Logos’ page as well as at the The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies website.

If you can, definitely consider supporting this project so it gets from pre-pub to publication.

I don’t have much time this week for analysis, but I will post the textual evidence for this verse taken from a variety of sources:

Tischendorf:

τοις ιδι. ανδρασιν sine additam cum B cdd ap Hier Clem⁵⁹² (citat vv. 21–25). Sic autem Hier ad h. l. “Hoc quod in Latinis exemplaribus additum est: subditae sint, in Graecis codd. non habetur, siquidem ad superiora refertur et subauditur: subiecti invicem in timore Christi, ut απο κοινου resonet subiectae, et mulieres viris suis sicut domino. Sed hoc magis in Graeco intelligitur quam in Latino.” … ϛ (Gb) add υποτασσεσθε cum KL al plu syr^utr Chr al, item post γυναικες DEFG d e g 19^lect … Ln add υποτασσεσθωσαν cum אAP al fere¹⁰ (et. cat^txt) f vg go cop arm aeth Clem³⁰⁸ (sed ibi tantum v. 22 affert) Bas^{eth 309} (sed incipit locus a versus 22) Euthal^cod Thdrt Dam^{parall 406} et Dam^paris Or^{int 3,61} Victorin Ambrst al (2:693)

Metzger’s Textual Commentary:

Comfort & Barrett’s Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (P46):

NET Note:

Now there are a couple of issues to deal with first here. For one, I don’t really feel like typing out the NA27 evidence, nor is it terribly necessary. Our bases are relatively well covered here.

Secondly, there is some variation regarding how Origen is cited: this post and especially the comments, clear up that issue.

So here are my questions for my readers today:

#1. What do you think of the NET’s proposed chronology? Why?

∅ ->ὑποτασσέσθωσαν -> ὑποτάσσεσθε

#2. What do you think of the NET’s explanation for the textual development (i.e. the addition originated in the lectionaries)? Why?

There are very few textually transparent translations of Ephesians 5:22. In fact, there are only three truly transparent ones of the 12 shown below – four if you include the NET, which though providing a text critical discussion is not actually transparent to the text it reads. What we need are translations that accurately represent their textual decisions either by a footnote or in the translation.

These first eight give no indication in either direction as to what text is read – the imperative or the ellipsis.

1. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ESV
2. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. GNB
3. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. NIV
4. Wives, yield to your husbands, as you do to the Lord. NCV
5. For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. NLT
6. Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. NRSV
7. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. RSV
8. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. TNIV

The next three either give a note or italicize the words not in the original text:

1. Wives, submit ⁱ to your own husbands as to the Lord. HCSB
   ⁱ Other mss omit submit
2. Wives, submit yourselvesⁱ to your husbands as to the Lord. ISV
   ⁱ Other mss. lack submit yourselves

3. Wives, be subject to your own husbands, NASB95

Finally, the NET provides a lengthy note, but reads an imperative in the translation anyway. So much for accuracy.

1. Wives, submit³² to your husbands as to the Lord, NET

   ---

   ³² tc The witnesses for the shorter reading (in which the verb “submit” is only implied) are minimal (P⁴⁶ B Cl Hier^mss), but significant and early. The rest of the witnesses add one of two verb forms as required by the sense of the passage (picking up the verb from v. 21). Several of these witnesses have ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (hupotassesthōsan), the third person imperative (so א A I P Ψ 0278 33 81 1175 1739 1881 al lat co), while other witnesses, especially the later Byzantine cursives, read ὑποτάσσεσθε (hupotassesthe), the second person imperative (D F G M sy). The text virtually begs for one of these two verb forms, but the often cryptic style of Paul’s letters argues for the shorter reading. The chronology of development seems to have been no verb – third person imperative – second person imperative. It is not insignificant that early lectionaries began a new day’s reading with v. 22; these most likely caused copyists to add the verb at this juncture.

Most the translations are disappointing, providing no note at all. Two of the translations that do, well, follow the more difficult reading to defend text critically. One translation makes the translated source text some what clear by using italics, but provides no explanation or note, not to mention the fact that the use of italics in a translation is itself a dubious procedure. Finally, the last translation provides an extremely helpful and length note, but then creates the same textual reading in English that it says in the note is not original.

Thus, just as John Hobbins has discussed for the Old Testament, translations generally do an extremely poor job on textual criticism and explanation in the New Testament.

It struck me this evening as I was perusing various articles about the Greek language and editions of the New Testament & Septuagint.

Many KJV/TR only people often make the fallicious and ad hominem charge that Westcott and Hort were either closet Catholics or just pro-Catholic. What’s striking about this claim is that this is part of the argument for why the Textus Receptus should be the preferred edition of the Greek New Testament. Does it not occur to them that the Textus Receptus was first edited by a Catholic. Erasmus ever joined the Reformation. He stayed with the Catholic Church the whole way though.

If being Catholic nullifies ones scholarship, then the Textus Receptus should be rejected on the same grounds that KJV/TR people reject modern editions.

Very, very strange.

This is probably one of the most amazing text critical decisions I have seen in an quite a long time. I checked the ESV against the ASV, NASB95, KJV, RSV, NRSV, TNIV, NIV, HCSB, and NLT on this one. The ESV follow the RSV alone in this one. Its really striking:

46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”

Note: Some manuscripts insert verse 47: Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak to you”

Matthew 12:46-48.

I don’t think following the RSV here was the best course of action. The verse may be lacking in א^*B and a few others, but it seems to be too clearly of an error of the same kind we see P46 at Ephesians 1:3 where the first half the verse is missing. Both Matt 12:47 and Ephesians 1:3 definitely falls under the heading of  exceptions where the preference for the shorter reading should be rejected. I’ve sent my suggestion for the verse’s addition to the ESV committee.

I just came across this one – just published:

New Testament Text and Translation Commentary

“This commentary is especially useful for pastors and teachers who know that the members of their audiences use a variety of different English versions. It is also a helpful tool for serious students of the Bible, including laypeople and seminary students. In addition to this passage-by-passage commentary, the reader is introduced to the art of textual criticism, its importance for studying the New Testament, and the challenges translators of English versions face.

Presented in a clear, easy to read manner. All major English translations are surveyed & tabulated.”

A Reader’s Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition