Evangelical Textual Criticism

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Holmes' SBLGNT on Facebook!

Logos Bible Software has just started a Facebook comment thread here to invite questions about the new SBL Greek New Testament edition that Michael Holmes announced on the ETC blog recently (don't forget to read the comments). A few days later, Stephen Carlson shared his initial impression of the edition here. And of course Rick Brannan working for Logos shared his thoughts.

Now you have the chance of discussing it again with Mike. He will be watching the Facebook thread for questions all week and post detailed replies on Tuesday the 16th at 10 a.m. PT. So go ahead and post your questions, to make sure that there is room and time for Mike to give thorough replies (I hope Mike has done all his SBL preparations...)


  1. Umm.. anyone know if Joh 7:53-8:11 is found in the SBLGNT. The Sword file does not seems to have it (running Mac), but LEH has it with a footnote..

  2. John 7:53-8:11 is not in the text of the SBL GNT. It is, however, in the apparatus in full. Various applications--such as Sword, or LEH--appear to have adapted the SBL text and apparatus to their particular presentations in various ways, which would explain the differing presentations described in the question/comment from Anonymous.

  3. Thank you for the info. I was in a hurry to write, so it went in as Anynomous :)

    I am writing a review of the SBL GNT for Finnish Journal of Theology (Teologinen Aikakauskirja = Theologische Zeitschrift in Finnish)


  4. We have produced a sample page for John 7:52-8:12 on our site for review purposes, reproducing the "apparatus" (footnotes), which are distributed in a separate file online.


    We have also added a collation of Dr. Holmes' text with that of W/H and UBS for Matthew for the main homoioteleuton errors discovered in the Alexandrian text here:


    The SBL text is the third column for Greek GNTs. We will be adding a collation of the SBL text for the rest of the 70 known probable h.t./h.a. Variation Units shortly.

    At the moment, at least for Matthew, Holmes seems to have simply followed the WH/UBS text for these significant omissions in the Alexandrian text, thus essentially duplicating the Ancestor of Aleph/B including all its errors.

    This is a shame, since we can expect naive translators to use the SBL text along with the UBS/NA to produce yet more 'modern versions' duplicating these 70 serious boners.

    Again this highlights one of the main flaws in current "eclectic" methodology: Not cleaning up intermediary texts before applying them to 'correct' the working text for Christian usage.


  5. You might also want to have a look at the reconstructions of the probable lost archetype of Aleph/B, which we are putting together variant by variant.

    We have duplicated the layout and writing style of various 3rd and 4th century copies to show how homoioteleuton could have arisen from the copy prior to the actual ancestor of Aleph/B: