Featured How Many Here Go for NASO?

I'm not in favor of any English translation ONLY. Nonsense.

 

Zondervan will be publishing NAS95 as well.

 

I like it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

The biggest is book order... which is annoying at first. I have noticed several punctuation difference and the the THGNT will not use anything not found in a Greek manuscript before 500 AD. (I believe. My book by Dirk Jongkind is at the church right now). When the punction is different than the NA28, I usually perfer the THGNT

An example of the THGNT dependency on the Greek is found in 2 Peter 3:10 the NA28 reads "ἔργα ⸂οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται"(works will not be found). This reading is not found in a single greek manuscript. But Mink, who started the CBGM project, loved the Syriac manuscript tradition. I believe this has caused him to unjustifiably place this Syriac reading in the text. No other language version read like the NA28 does...other than the Syriac.

The THGNT reads ἔργα εὑρεθήσεται(works will be found).

The THGNT holds to traditional textual criticism methods and maybe a push back against CBGM. I am not against CBGM, but they did make an error here in 2 Peter in my opinion. How someone can adopt a read not found in any Greek manuscript is illogical. I have read their justification to the reading....I just don't buy it.

CBGM makes me excited and nervous all at the same time.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

It's a bit confusing when you duplicate negatives in the sentence. To state it positively :The THGNT will only make use of Greek manuscripts dated before 500 AD.

And that is a generally good idea. But what about minuscule 1739? Even though it is from the 10th century, it often agrees with P46. And the latter is dated around 200 AD. [see James R. Royce The Early Text Of Paul (and Hebrews. p.178 from the book The Early Text Of The New Testament by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger]

 

There is one other. The Sahidic (Coptic) version does.

The Coptic version of the New Testament in the Southern dialect : otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic ; with critical apparatus, literal English translation, register of fragments and estimate of the version

 

They will use latter manuscripts in the apparatus and to make textual decisions as long as the reading is found in atleast 1 early manuscript.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

To answer your question more accurately. It does not look like 1739 is used.

This image is from Jongkind's book on the THGNT




Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

In other words, they are using an even more limited apparatus. A backwards leap instead of forwards.

Well I missed the non highlighted part, "; for the text itself we took many more manuscripts into account."

Thank God for that.

 

Or rather limited. If they used more manuscripts to make the decision of what goes into the Text, but then show only the early partial evidence, they do not reveal the whole decision making process.

 

Yes....if the reading is found in the above it is in the apparatus and may or may not be included in the text. Other manuscripts support the readings...they are not the source of the reading in the text per se.

So Rippon's question of 1739 is....
1739 is not used to qualify the text as much as it may be used to support an earlier reading.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk