![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"every textual variant . . . is meticulously noted in the apparatus"
This is simply incorrect. Major variants are noted, but it is not possible to note every divergent reading of a single manuscript. Willy Arnold 14:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
"the 'critical text'. That is, the oldest fragments of New Testament texts that have been found."
This is inaccurate as well. The critical text is not simply a collection of the oldest texts, but is an eclectic text decided upon by a translation committee. The age of a given text is only one of a number of factors that are considered. Willy Arnold 14:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The table under the heading "Accuracy of the New Testament" seems to have errors for 2 Corinthians and Jude; either the percentage or the verse counts are incorrect.
roarsk 13:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
"Other scholars claim that the minuscule texts more accurately reflect what was originally penned."
This is so weasely as to beg deletion. Any examples of real, published scholars and SBL members who hold this view? I'm sure they exist, but my impression is the TR position is a fringe one associated with fundie "King James only" types. Correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, I'm deleting those statements. Josh 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
See page 44 of NTG27, Introduction - the first date published was 1898 by Wurttemburg Bible Society. 1913 is the date of death for Eberhard Nestle. I will make the correction. Sean Mills.
The book The Comprehensive New Testament is listed as the primary source of the "Influence" section of the article. I have been unable to locate the book. It is not found on either Amazon or Barnes & Noble, even though it is listed with a 2007 publication date. It is not found with a Bookfinder search, and not listed anywhere in a Google search except in this article. So can anyone provide a clue to this source? -- Blainster 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. The forthcoming book looks to be very interesting. I do not question the information you present, but I urge you to consider the usefulness (not to mention consideration of Wikipedia guidelines) of using unpublished references that cannot be checked. I admit that it is enticing to use whatever you have in hand, but until it is generally available, it leaves the rest of us at a disadvantage. I tried to look up Cornerstone to see when the book might be expected, but there are a number of publishing concerns using that name. Could you be more specific about which one it is? -- Blainster 17:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Usually these questions arise over disputes between two editors, one of whom is challenging the reliability or veracity of a particular source, but that is not the case here. So I will leave it up to your judgment. Here are the Wikipedia policy and guideline resources which may help: WP guidelines on citation state one of the reasons for using them is to assist users not only in checking content but also in finding other information. There is also a policy page covering statements on future events which may enter into the equation. -- Blainster 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I made some big changes to the "editions" section. I separated it into "current" and "historic." Current includes the two editions mentioned previously as well as several diglots of interest to English-speaking readers. Historic editions includes a summary of the most important editions derived from the introduction to Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine 27 (probably identical to the introduction to NA27 proper).
Potential improvements: Do we really need both the ABS and Hendrickson "editions" listed? We could probably get away with mentioning that there are several NA publishers, there is some variety to ISBN numbers, but the text is the same. We could also mention the difference between editions and printings; i.e. more recent printings have been updated to reflect papyri that were not available for the first printing of NA27. (At least, that is what I'm getting from the copyright page.)-- VAcharon 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this article about Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece, or all printed/published editions of the Greek NT? I ask because if the answer is the latter, then we will need to add the history of other printed/published Greek NTs and not just the recent ones. Joshuajohnson555 ( talk) 02:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Kenyon's edition of the Greek text of the Chester Beatty Papyrus 45 gives in Acts 7:58, 9:24, 11:30 and 13:7 the indeclinable form of the apostle's name σαουλ' instead of forms of σαυλος, as in later manuscripts (e.g., σαουλ']σαυλου cett.). However, I cannot find these readings in the Novum Testamentum Graece apparatus. I would greatly appreciate if someone could advise me on this matter: whether the readings are actually given in NA27, or not considered valid anymore, or something else is the case?-- Constantine Sergeev ( talk) 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Constantine -- a thousand apologies for the delay. Yes, these variants are not in the NA27. There is no explanation given. My suspicion is that they will be in the Edito Critica Maior. The NA27 is about as compact as can be done in a single volume. Tim ( talk) 14:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! But you may have to wait a bit for Acts to come out. Right now they only have the Catholic Epistles published. NA28 and UBS5 will eventually incorporate the changes in the ECM. Also, I just realized that Codex Bezae may be crowding out P45 in Acts because of the volume of changes in the narrative. Even the Comprehensive New Testament translation -- with its 15,000 variant readings -- didn't cover every permutation in Acts. Metzger's commentary devotes a third of the entire text to that one book alone. Tim ( talk) 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
A quick question: in http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brenda.wilson99/rome.doc, Brian E Wilson states: "P75 represents the number twelve in cipher format in Lk 8:42, 8:43, 9:1m 9:12)..."
In consulting Nesle on this point, there is a reference to P75 at 8:42, but the words 'sine acc' are near it.
If this means 'without the accent' is that why the alphabetic numeral form wasn't listed in the apparatus - if "sine acc" was indeed referring to the number, not having the stroke above it? Do other verses have the 'sine acc' written as sa? Is this why P75 is listed with the absurd exclamation mark in sources? Finally, if this is all true, and it is true that nearly 50% of numbers in Luke of p75 are ciphers, is this the case with any other papyri?
Thanks Notpayingthepsychiatrist ( talk) 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think (in better light) that the apparatus don't refer to the number twelve, which makes it even more mysterious to me why p75 isn't cited? Does the 7,12! refer to the seventh word?
Notpayingthepsychiatrist ( talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, does the abbrevieate form of Kyros with the line above it, appear in any text in Luke 4:19?
Notpayingthepsychiatrist ( talk) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This link seems to say that Nestle spells out numbers, for ex 666, whereas they are numerals in the manuscripts. http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Mathematics.html
See par starting with 'it should be remembered'. Notpayingthepsychiatrist ( talk) 23:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The title is "Novum Testamentum Graece", what is described here though is the Nestle-Aland only! But the Novum Testamentum Graece has a very long history, starting with Erasmus! Either the title should be changed into Nestle-Aland, or the article has to be expanded considerably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnack ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The 1910 edition of Alexander Souter with this title is a good example. Not all Nova Testamenta Graece are N-A! 72.94.101.34 ( talk) 00:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The "Influence" section says that most modern translations differ from NA at 16-32% of 15000 readings. Specifically, it claims that the NRSV differs on 18%, or about 2400 places. However this is in contrast to the NRSV preface, which says, "Only in very rare instances have we replaced the text or the punctuation of the Bible Societies’ edition by an alternative that seemed to us to be superior.". [1]. Or have I misunderstood what that section is claiming? Peter Ballard ( talk) 11:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(I thought a section break would give us some room here; feel free to reindent if you don't approve my unindenting your note) EGMichaels ( talk) 13:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thomas (The Master's Seminary link) ranks "literalness" (or "formal equivalence"). I have no problem with that, though it doesn't belong in this particular article. But... aside from texts which didn't use NA at all (KJV and NKJV), how is the TCNT's "formal equivalence" measurement different from its "faithfulness to NA" measurement? Peter Ballard ( talk) 12:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Translations appearing in both studies | Master's Seminary relative rank | CNT relative rank |
---|---|---|
American Standard Version | 1 | 1 |
King James Version | 2 | 3 |
New King James Version | 3 | 4 |
New American Standard Bible | 4 | 2 (1995 update is slightly less literal) |
New American Bible | 5 | 6 |
Revised Standard Version | 6 | 5 |
New International Version | 7 | 7 |
Good News Bible | 8 | 8 |
The Living Bible | 9 | 9 |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There is an external link with a description completely in latin. It is not clear to me how it relates to the Novum Testamentum Graece. It might be a candidate for deletion. I wonder if someone latin knowledge can clarify the role of this specific link, or perhaps translate it to English?
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"every textual variant . . . is meticulously noted in the apparatus"
This is simply incorrect. Major variants are noted, but it is not possible to note every divergent reading of a single manuscript. Willy Arnold 14:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
"the 'critical text'. That is, the oldest fragments of New Testament texts that have been found."
This is inaccurate as well. The critical text is not simply a collection of the oldest texts, but is an eclectic text decided upon by a translation committee. The age of a given text is only one of a number of factors that are considered. Willy Arnold 14:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The table under the heading "Accuracy of the New Testament" seems to have errors for 2 Corinthians and Jude; either the percentage or the verse counts are incorrect.
roarsk 13:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
"Other scholars claim that the minuscule texts more accurately reflect what was originally penned."
This is so weasely as to beg deletion. Any examples of real, published scholars and SBL members who hold this view? I'm sure they exist, but my impression is the TR position is a fringe one associated with fundie "King James only" types. Correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, I'm deleting those statements. Josh 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
See page 44 of NTG27, Introduction - the first date published was 1898 by Wurttemburg Bible Society. 1913 is the date of death for Eberhard Nestle. I will make the correction. Sean Mills.
The book The Comprehensive New Testament is listed as the primary source of the "Influence" section of the article. I have been unable to locate the book. It is not found on either Amazon or Barnes & Noble, even though it is listed with a 2007 publication date. It is not found with a Bookfinder search, and not listed anywhere in a Google search except in this article. So can anyone provide a clue to this source? -- Blainster 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. The forthcoming book looks to be very interesting. I do not question the information you present, but I urge you to consider the usefulness (not to mention consideration of Wikipedia guidelines) of using unpublished references that cannot be checked. I admit that it is enticing to use whatever you have in hand, but until it is generally available, it leaves the rest of us at a disadvantage. I tried to look up Cornerstone to see when the book might be expected, but there are a number of publishing concerns using that name. Could you be more specific about which one it is? -- Blainster 17:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Usually these questions arise over disputes between two editors, one of whom is challenging the reliability or veracity of a particular source, but that is not the case here. So I will leave it up to your judgment. Here are the Wikipedia policy and guideline resources which may help: WP guidelines on citation state one of the reasons for using them is to assist users not only in checking content but also in finding other information. There is also a policy page covering statements on future events which may enter into the equation. -- Blainster 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I made some big changes to the "editions" section. I separated it into "current" and "historic." Current includes the two editions mentioned previously as well as several diglots of interest to English-speaking readers. Historic editions includes a summary of the most important editions derived from the introduction to Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine 27 (probably identical to the introduction to NA27 proper).
Potential improvements: Do we really need both the ABS and Hendrickson "editions" listed? We could probably get away with mentioning that there are several NA publishers, there is some variety to ISBN numbers, but the text is the same. We could also mention the difference between editions and printings; i.e. more recent printings have been updated to reflect papyri that were not available for the first printing of NA27. (At least, that is what I'm getting from the copyright page.)-- VAcharon 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this article about Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece, or all printed/published editions of the Greek NT? I ask because if the answer is the latter, then we will need to add the history of other printed/published Greek NTs and not just the recent ones. Joshuajohnson555 ( talk) 02:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Kenyon's edition of the Greek text of the Chester Beatty Papyrus 45 gives in Acts 7:58, 9:24, 11:30 and 13:7 the indeclinable form of the apostle's name σαουλ' instead of forms of σαυλος, as in later manuscripts (e.g., σαουλ']σαυλου cett.). However, I cannot find these readings in the Novum Testamentum Graece apparatus. I would greatly appreciate if someone could advise me on this matter: whether the readings are actually given in NA27, or not considered valid anymore, or something else is the case?-- Constantine Sergeev ( talk) 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Constantine -- a thousand apologies for the delay. Yes, these variants are not in the NA27. There is no explanation given. My suspicion is that they will be in the Edito Critica Maior. The NA27 is about as compact as can be done in a single volume. Tim ( talk) 14:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! But you may have to wait a bit for Acts to come out. Right now they only have the Catholic Epistles published. NA28 and UBS5 will eventually incorporate the changes in the ECM. Also, I just realized that Codex Bezae may be crowding out P45 in Acts because of the volume of changes in the narrative. Even the Comprehensive New Testament translation -- with its 15,000 variant readings -- didn't cover every permutation in Acts. Metzger's commentary devotes a third of the entire text to that one book alone. Tim ( talk) 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
A quick question: in http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brenda.wilson99/rome.doc, Brian E Wilson states: "P75 represents the number twelve in cipher format in Lk 8:42, 8:43, 9:1m 9:12)..."
In consulting Nesle on this point, there is a reference to P75 at 8:42, but the words 'sine acc' are near it.
If this means 'without the accent' is that why the alphabetic numeral form wasn't listed in the apparatus - if "sine acc" was indeed referring to the number, not having the stroke above it? Do other verses have the 'sine acc' written as sa? Is this why P75 is listed with the absurd exclamation mark in sources? Finally, if this is all true, and it is true that nearly 50% of numbers in Luke of p75 are ciphers, is this the case with any other papyri?
Thanks Notpayingthepsychiatrist ( talk) 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think (in better light) that the apparatus don't refer to the number twelve, which makes it even more mysterious to me why p75 isn't cited? Does the 7,12! refer to the seventh word?
Notpayingthepsychiatrist ( talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, does the abbrevieate form of Kyros with the line above it, appear in any text in Luke 4:19?
Notpayingthepsychiatrist ( talk) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This link seems to say that Nestle spells out numbers, for ex 666, whereas they are numerals in the manuscripts. http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Mathematics.html
See par starting with 'it should be remembered'. Notpayingthepsychiatrist ( talk) 23:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The title is "Novum Testamentum Graece", what is described here though is the Nestle-Aland only! But the Novum Testamentum Graece has a very long history, starting with Erasmus! Either the title should be changed into Nestle-Aland, or the article has to be expanded considerably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnack ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The 1910 edition of Alexander Souter with this title is a good example. Not all Nova Testamenta Graece are N-A! 72.94.101.34 ( talk) 00:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The "Influence" section says that most modern translations differ from NA at 16-32% of 15000 readings. Specifically, it claims that the NRSV differs on 18%, or about 2400 places. However this is in contrast to the NRSV preface, which says, "Only in very rare instances have we replaced the text or the punctuation of the Bible Societies’ edition by an alternative that seemed to us to be superior.". [1]. Or have I misunderstood what that section is claiming? Peter Ballard ( talk) 11:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(I thought a section break would give us some room here; feel free to reindent if you don't approve my unindenting your note) EGMichaels ( talk) 13:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thomas (The Master's Seminary link) ranks "literalness" (or "formal equivalence"). I have no problem with that, though it doesn't belong in this particular article. But... aside from texts which didn't use NA at all (KJV and NKJV), how is the TCNT's "formal equivalence" measurement different from its "faithfulness to NA" measurement? Peter Ballard ( talk) 12:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Translations appearing in both studies | Master's Seminary relative rank | CNT relative rank |
---|---|---|
American Standard Version | 1 | 1 |
King James Version | 2 | 3 |
New King James Version | 3 | 4 |
New American Standard Bible | 4 | 2 (1995 update is slightly less literal) |
New American Bible | 5 | 6 |
Revised Standard Version | 6 | 5 |
New International Version | 7 | 7 |
Good News Bible | 8 | 8 |
The Living Bible | 9 | 9 |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There is an external link with a description completely in latin. It is not clear to me how it relates to the Novum Testamentum Graece. It might be a candidate for deletion. I wonder if someone latin knowledge can clarify the role of this specific link, or perhaps translate it to English?