davidmedina Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I am learning little by little to use Greek translations into my study and it is great that in Accordance I have access to several Greek (as well as Hebrew) translations: GNT-28T, NA-28T, GNT-TRS, GNT-TIS, GNT-TR, and GNT-WH. But I have no idea which one is preferable or which one should I be using. Can someone help me understand the key difference between them and which I may use as preferred reference when looking at the Greek? I am assuming I should be using either the GNT-28T, NA-28T because they are tagged, but other than that I don't know why I should be using one over the other. Really appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanHuber Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) Since you posted in the other thread on "missing verses", I'll assume that you saw my comments about textual criticism. (Once again, I'm not a scholar, but here it goes...) Most of the differences between the Greek texts you mentioned are related to textual criticism and the work done by various scholars over time to determine the most accurate text of the Greet new testament. The oldest here is the GNT-TR, which is the Textus Receptus. This edition is most commonly associated with Erasmus and underlies the KJV. This GNT-TRS is simply a version tagged with Strongs numbers instead of full morphological tagging. Three other men who did a lot of work in textual criticism are Westcott/Hort and Tischendorf, from whom we get the editions referred to here as GNT-WH and GNT-TIS. The standard edition of the modern GNT is updated periodically by a committee based at the German Bible Society and referred to as the Nestle-Aland text, which is now in a 28th edition, thus NA-28T. This edition includes an apparatus that records variants between different manuscripts. The GNT-28T is the same text but lacks the apparatus and has gained syntactical tags. If you care about textual variants, use NA-28T; otherwise use the GNT-28T. Edited July 18, 2014 by JonathanHuber 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Weaks Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 David, Given what you've indicated, yes, you should be using the GNT28 for standard references to the Greek text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Jenney Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I agree and suggest you also consider purchasing the Comfort Text commentary, if you have not already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmedina Posted July 18, 2014 Author Share Posted July 18, 2014 Thanks Jonathan and Joe. I haven't Dr. J. I'll look into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmedina Posted July 18, 2014 Author Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) A followup question. I am looking at Comfort Text commentary recommended by Dr. J. And most definitively I am going to purchase it. It definitively looks like a most have. But I have a question. Reading some of the reviews at Best Commentaries. Some one stated: "Like Metzger, he lands on the side of the "documentary" position against the "reasoned eclecticism" that has become popular in recent years." I have no idea of what are the "documentary position" and the "reasoned eclecticism". I am just curious. Can any one share some light? (it reminded me the I first time I heard the terms calvinism and Armenianism after I became a Christian.) lol Edited July 18, 2014 by davidmedina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 A followup question. I am looking at Comfort Text commentary recommended by Dr. J. And most definitively I am going to purchase it. It definitively looks like a most have. But I have a question. Reading some of the reviews at Best Commentaries. Some one stated: "Like Metzger, he lands on the side of the "documentary" position against the "reasoned eclecticism" that has become popular in recent years." I have no idea of what are the "documentary position" and the "reasoned eclecticism". I am just curious. Can any one share some light? (it reminded me the I first time I heard the terms calvinism and Armenianism after I became a Christian.) lol Do you have Anchor Bible Dictionary? If so, check out Eldon Epp's article in the entry for Textual Criticism (main article), "New Testament Textual Criticism, Contemporary Theory in NT Textual Criticism" (vol. 6, p. 430ff). It's a bit dense if you've never read up on textual criticism but he gives an overview of the methods that review is talking about. Also, in Appendix B-D Comfort includes a couple essays that discuss these methods / theories as well. But, regardless of the method Comfort adopts, that doesn't really affect the quality of that resource. It's designed for English readers to help them see how the various translations have come to the text that they have. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmedina Posted July 18, 2014 Author Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) Thanks Rick. Don't have Anchor yet, but it is in my wish list. The consensus looks like everyone think this resource is a must have. Edited July 18, 2014 by davidmedina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmedina Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) When ahead and bought the Comfort Text commentary. Thanks Dr. J for the recommendation. Would you consider Comfort Text commentary sort of footnotes about translation? I also noticed that it reference to the WBC. Wish I had it. Edited July 19, 2014 by davidmedina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmedina Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 One quick question. Whats's the difference between the GNT-28T and NA28T? When I click in the info for each book they seem to be the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 The NA28T has the detailed "critical apparatus" (which you can access via Instant Details or as a separate pane) that explains the choices for the Greek text chosen. The Greek text itself (i.e., of the New Testament) is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Congrats on getting Comfort, by the way. I think you'll enjoy it. Particularly nice is the fact that the introductory essays/chapters in Accordance have hyperlinked definitions of terms like "variant readings," "critical editions," etc. Seems like a good place to start. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Simpson Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) I know I am being overly picky, but they are not (as far as we *know*) Greek translations but Greek texts. That is, there may have been original aramaic or even possibly Hebrew documents predating them, but the Greek texts we have are some sort of copy of an original Greek text, that was written by the NT author in Koiné Greek. So it's rightly a text not a translation per se. Now that I have that personal piece of obsession out, we all knew immediately what you meant David, there was no ambiguity whatsoever, so I will keep my mouth shut from here.... Edited July 19, 2014 by Ken Simpson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmedina Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 Ken, I really appreciate it. I like, specially in Biblical matters, to be as accurate as possible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now