The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge

[sdbertrand]

I am excited about the soon coming release of the new critical edition of the Greek New Testament produced by a team centered at Tyndale House, Cambridge, and published jointly with Crossway.

 

Announcement: https://www.crossway.org/bibles/the-greek-new-testament-produced-at-tyndal-hconly/.

 

This would be a wonderful resource to add to Accordance. And at the end of the FAQs at the above site, it indicates that they intend to make this easily available electronically (which I would hope would include licensing to Accordance). 

 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

It would be really nice to know what "free for many uses" actually translates into. I couldn't find anything on what license they might offer the electronic text under.

 

Thx

D

Edited September 19, 2017 by דָנִיאֶל

[Rev. Dr. Timothy M. Hall]

This would be excellent!!

[mhenderson]

I am looking forward to this being available soon. 

[ukfraser]

Off topic but will this result in yet more (english) translations based on this rather than na27, 28, 29, 30, 31, nn?

 

I looked at the esv introduction (crossway) and saw this

 

Textual Basis and Resources

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland. The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions. In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition. Throughout, the translation team has benefited greatly from the massive textual resources that have become readily available recently, from new insights into biblical laws and culture, and from current advances in Hebrew and Greek lexicography and grammatical understanding

 

;o)

Edited November 10, 2017 by ukfraser

[Guest]

Off topic but will this result in yet more (english) translations based on this rather than na27, 28, 29, 30, 31, nn?

 

You never know. I thought that maybe the SBL Greek NT would result in this, but to my knowledge, it has not so far. The Zondervan Reader's Greek New Testament reflects the current NIV, but it was kind of "retro-created" from the NIV, based on instances where the translators disagreed with the decisions made in the UBS/NA text. 

 

We're starting to see a number of these "new" releases of Greek NT texts, so it will be interesting to see what comes from it in the decades to come.

[Jonathan C. Borland]

+1 for Tyndale's GNT in Accordance.

[Guest]

From what I understand, we will be getting it, but no release date or official announcement yet. 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

This would be really welcome. I quite enjoy reading the EPT. It's different from the NA in minor ways with some frequency and more substantially more rarely. You'll be reading along and then look at a commentary or Acc syntax and realize they are describing different text. And then out comes the NA and CNTTS. Gives a different perspective on the language and the passage. Sometime the EPT seems preferrable, other times the NA. This would give another perspective also.

 

Will it affect translations ? I expect in time, if it's well thought of some translations might be based on it, and others might use it to cross-check things. I agree with Rick it will be interesting.

 

Thx

D

[Guest]

This would be really welcome. I quite enjoy reading the EPT. It's different from the NA in minor ways with some frequency and more substantially more rarely. You'll be reading along and then look at a commentary or Acc syntax and realize they are describing different text. And then out comes the NA and CNTTS. Gives a different perspective on the language and the passage. Sometime the EPT seems preferrable, other times the NA. This would give another perspective also.

 

Making absolutely no personal statement on which mss tradition is the original, I enjoy the GNT-EPT, too. As I've grown older, I've come to appreciate some of the "traditional" readings in a different light. I can't remember where I read it years ago, but I seem to remember Metzger calling the Byzantine mss tradition "the Bible of the Church" meaning that it was the standard reading for church use and liturgies for centuries. 

 

Daniel, do you have the GNT-F35? It's another good text for comparison, a bit more recent than the GNT-EPT.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I have the F35 and a bunch of others. I've compared with it on occasion but not so often. Mostly that is because most supporting material is geared towards the NA lineage and I need to cross check stuff that way more often. But on occasion I've certainly found it useful. I think I'd really like to get into some papyri actually.

 

And next year I think may have to be a Philo or Josephus year.

 

Thx
D

[sdbertrand]

This GNT has been released this week and has already been made available in full digitally at esv.org for free.

 

Does this help Accordance get licensing to make this available as a module? Even though I can have it for free there, I would rather pay a reasonable fee and be able to access and search the THGNT through Accordance.

[Guest]

This GNT has been released this week and has already been made available in full digitally at esv.org for free.

 

Does this help Accordance get licensing to make this available as a module? Even though I can have it for free there, I would rather pay a reasonable fee and be able to access and search the THGNT through Accordance.

No, it makes no difference. We're in discussions to license it, and ours will presumably be morphologically tagged.

[Brian.Mann]

Looking forward to this being available.

[Rick Bennett]

This GNT has been released this week and has already been made available in full digitally at esv.org for free.

 

Does this help Accordance get licensing to make this available as a module? Even though I can have it for free there, I would rather pay a reasonable fee and be able to access and search the THGNT through Accordance.

 

It was the publisher's intention to release in print and online first. We've been in discussions with them for a while. But, as Rick said, no word on an release date yet.

[DGill]

I, too, am excited to have this is Accordance!

[billman]

Looking forward to this too. I wish Peter Williams would have gone through with restoring the nomina sacra as intended. Perhaps with a revision we will not see the plene forms where the NS were. 

Edited January 5, 2018 by billman

[ukfraser]

The wait is over

 

https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=THGNT-T

[Brian.Mann]

Wow, thanks for following through on this! 

[Jonathan C. Borland]

Nice intro pricing. I just purchased it.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Brian Davidson's review of this, noted on the product page in his review, is worth a look, particularly for how the browser links to the INTF work for the witnesses. Thanx Brian.

 

This looks like a really nicely put together module, though I've had little time with it yet. Definitely shows potential for combined local and remote resources using the browser.

 

Many thanx.

 

Thx

D

[Julia Falling]

I purchased yesterday.  Beautifully executed by Accordance.  Thank you!

 

I found Brian Davidson's review helpful, also.

 

I think we have all observed that a translation committee may not be happy with a textual choice made by the NA27th/28th committee.  I must admit that I'm not thrilled with the textual emendation @ 2Pet 3:10.  I actually thought that the ESV did a pretty good job translating the NA27th at this point (and I am not an ESV fan).  I question the choice made by the NA28th committee and am happy to see that the THGNT stayed with the NA27th reading.  The addition of οὐχ has no support in any Gk mss found to date.  Granted, this verse, and how the scholars think it should read, has been debated for centuries.  Some decision must be made by the editors.  But why go with something that has never been seen in any Gk manuscript?  I don't get it.  But then, I'm not a scholar.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Julia Falling

[Brian.Mann]

Just bought mine! The above review by Brian Davidson was extremely helpful. Thank you! And thank you Accordance for making this available!

[Solly]

Brian Davidson's review of this, noted on the product page in his review, is worth a look, particularly for how the browser links to the INTF work for the witnesses. Thanx Brian.

 

This looks like a really nicely put together module, though I've had little time with it yet. Definitely shows potential for combined local and remote resources using the browser.

 

Many thanx.

 

Thx

D

The combined local and remote resource interaction was alone, for me, worth the cost of the product. I am really spoiled by the click, click way of getting to resources and the Accordance THGNT implementation  really shines in this area. I do wonder if this product provided some of the motivation to provide an inline tool browser. What a wonderful combination, and a showcase for what is possible in the future.

 

Thanks Accordance,

Joseph

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I did have problems bringing up the papyri images in the Accordance browser exactly as you do in an external browser but opening a new tab with another session worked fine. Just double clicking on the images didn't actually work inside the Acc browser for me.

 

Thx

D