A Four-Dimensional Perspective on Bible Translations
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лип 2024
- In this video, I describe a method for characterizing translations of the New Testament based on the degree to which they agree with four different Greek New Testaments: Westcott & Hort, the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, and the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform. This video shows how twenty-six (26) English translations scored when compared to those four Greek New Testaments.
Detailed contents
00:00 Intro
00:50 The Greek New Testaments
01:59 The English New Testament translations
02:35 The scoring procedure
03:43 The verses containing variant readings scored
04:00 How distinct are the Greek New Testaments?
05:50 Percent agreement with Westcott & Hort
07:49 Percent agreement with the Nestle-Aland 28th edition
10:17 Percent agreement with the Tyndale House Greek New Testament
12:16 Percent agreement with the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform
14:47 Tabular scores, all 26 translations, all four Greek New Testaments
17:13 Nestle-Aland 28th edition versus Robinson-Pierpont scatter plots
21:55 Westcott & Hort versus Robinson-Pierpont scatter plots
23:47 Nestle-Aland 28th edition versus Westcott & Hort scatter plots
26:30 Concluding observations
28:41 Possible extensions of this effort
I admire your ability to gather and analyze data and your attention to detail. Thanks so much for your work and for sharing this with the public!
My pleasure! Thanks for viewing and for that encouraging comment.
To make their greek text, Wescott and Hort actually back-translated from English to Greek, using Judas Escariot's own copy of the NIV as a base text.
Finally, the truth comes to light!
Thank you for all the hard work you put.This is truly eye-opening.
Very interesting and useful video. I believe in sheds some light in a very cloudy topic nowadays. Thank you for your amazing work! Looking forward to upcoming videos. I’m also going to watch some of your previous ones on Bible translations. Blessings!
This is wonderful! Very useful. Thank you so much for putting the time and work into it.
It was my pleasure, Dan. Thanks for the view and comment!
Such a gem of a channel
Thank you!
Excellent. This has really given me perspective. Thanks so much and good work!
R. Grant Jones...Thank you so much for this comparison. We truly appreciate your efforts.
Very interesting. Your observations match what I have been reading about modern textual criticism. In particular, your observation regarding translators independence as textual critics matches information I gleaned talking with a translator of the ESV (he only added that any textual choices made by the translator had to be defended before the committee).
That makes sense. I've not had the chance to spake with any translators, so I appreciate your letting me know about that conversation.
A most excellent presentation. Thank you for the hard work you do.
Thank you, Steve M. It was a good bit of work, but I had fun doing it.
Brilliant piece of work! I'm going to share this video with some friends at work who are textual criticism junkies like myself. Thank you for your patient precision.
Thanks for viewing, and for those kind words! I hope your co-workers enjoy the video also.
What versions do textual criticism junkies use?
Great video. Thanks for all the hard work.
Wow, @R. Grant Jones, all I can say is wow. This is your best work yet!
Thank you!
@@RGrantJones It would also be cool to see a similar comparison of the OT translations with the Masoretic Text versus the Septuagint (maybe even with a few other OT texts thrown in, too, e.g., the DSS or the Aramaic Peshitta). It seems that more recent translations are more likely to follow the LXX reading in some places.
@@landonadams8122 - I've been thinking about that too. I suspect you're right that some of the more recent translations follow LXX readings more frequently. The RSV did so, and the EHV appears to follow the LXX even more often. Regarding the DSS, I have a copy of Scanlan's _The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament_ . It dates to 1993, so it's a bit old. But it includes a list of passages he examined, which would form a good base from which to build a larger set. Note that Scanlan observed that "most people would be surprised to learn that there are relatively few passages in modern English translations of the Old Testament that have been affected by this manuscript evidence [the DSS OT manuscripts]." Perhaps things have changed in the past 26 years.
I know I'm late to the game by now, but this is an incredible video! Thank you for all the hard work you put in. I agree that I'd love to see a translation based on the THGNT. I have some hopes that if the ESV ever updates again they will go with it, considering the partnership between Crossway and Tyndale House in publishing it.
Really impressive research. Thank you.
Thanks for that kind comment!
That was just absolutely awesome video. I've always wanted to see how the translations stack up against each other based on the Greek underlining text. I'm an NKJV person myself, but always wanted to see how much of WH or NA28 was in it. Great video and I really appreciate the time you took to do this and upload it.
PS.
Could you do a comparison of the ESV (which seems to be one the more, if not most popular translations) and the NKJV as you did with the ESV KJV comparison.
Thanks for the positive feedback! Yes, I certainly could do an NKJV vs ESV video, perhaps next year. But translation comparison videos take a lot of work, and I plan to do one contrasting the approaches to gender inclusive language in the NRSV and the NIV, as well as a NASB95 vs ESV video. So it could take me a while.
@@RGrantJones No problem. I really enjoy your videos and are always looking forward to them. God bless the work you have been doing. As a non native American, I'm from and live in Jamaica, I don't get exposed to this sort of scholarship and these Bible translations. So you videos are a source of inspiration and knowledge. When I can in try to find deals on good NKJV bibles, here our book stores are almost exclusively KJV and NIV. Because of Bible apps more people are exposed to other translations, but are not familiar with them. I scour amazon and eBay to find NKJV bibles, though I read most of the other translations, I only buy NKJV. So that's how highly I value and appreciate your videos and reviews.
Well done. It's a very interesting video.
Regarding the future work you mentioned, you may consider that a deeper analysis may be available to you if you look to decompose the data set according to its directions of most dominant variance via PCA (principal components analysis).
If you are willing to collaborate a bit on that, I would like to have a look at your data sets with you. For me this looks like a fun and interesting thing to try. I have over 25 years of experience working with data analysis and extracting information from data mostly in chemical engineering with tools such as PCA and many other methods as well.
The PCA approach may be able tell you why one cluster of data is different than the other along an axis (i.e a linear combination of each of the original measurement continuums) and how it is that you could make one cluster move toward another. This is a very common approach to looking at adjusting chemical plants for better operation.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to talk a bit about looking at your data together and to see if any of my data tools/codes or experience may provide some insight to you. What you are doing sounds quite interesting.
All the best to you from Canada.
After making this video, I scored Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, though I used only 140 verses, since the Peshitta did not originally include 2 Peter, 2 or 3 John, Jude, or Revelation. The scores are: WH, 24.3%; NA28, 43.6%; THGNT, 51.4%; and RP, 69.3%. Lamsa can be placed in a loose grouping with the Douay-Rheims and the Evangelical Heritage Version, somewhere between the Traditional Text translations (KJV, NKJV, EOB, and EMTV) and all the others.
I also scored the the Darby and Nicholas King translations, as well as the Lexham English Bible (LEB) and the New Living Translation (NLT):
Darby -- WH, 20.9%; NA28, 41.2%; THGNT, 58.2%; and RP, 85.6%. Darby has the 5th highest RP score, behind the EMTV, EOB NT, KJV, and NKJV.
King -- WH, 53.6%; NA28, 76.5%; THGNT, 45.8%; and RP, 35.9%. King has the 4th highest NA28 score, behind the NAB, CSB, and NRSV.
LEB -- WH, 64.1%; NA28, 67.3%; THGNT, 51%; and RP, 35.3%. The LEB has the 4th highest WH score, behind the NAS77, NAS95, and David Bentley Hart's translation.
NLT - WH, 58.2%; NA28, 71.9%; THGNT, 51.6%; and RP, 35.3%.
I made a supplementary video that presents these results, which you can view here: ua-cam.com/video/bGkAhdZoII0/v-deo.html .
I haven't yet finished the video, but I wish you had included the Darby Translation in your study. His is different because he did not use a printed edition, but based it off of his research of actual manuscripts. So I'm really curious how it lines up with the different editions. Plus, it's an incredibly literal and accurate translation as well. It's worth including imo.
@@eskimo289 - Darby's scores: WH, 20.9%; NA28, 41.2%; THGNT, 58.2%; and RP, 85.6%. Darby appears to have followed the Traditional Text most of the time.
Whoa, what an amazing video, it really puts various translations into perspective. It is a bit weird that the "catholic" NAB almost slavishly follows the NA28. As a fan of the Vulgate it was interesting seeing the DRB consistently in its own constellation, one might say that St Jerome was as eclectic as we are today.
St. Jerome had access to many manuscripts that are not available today to modern scholars and have been lost to history when he compiled the vulgate.
EXCELLENT VIDEO ANALYSIS
Thank you!
I thought this was incredibly interesting and such a visual way of plotting differences and agreements! Fabulous. I would be interested in seeing the NLT but agree with you that it might not be truly plottable with the translation liberties taken. I really enjoy the NLT but it’s not the most scholarly work. Still, it would be interesting to see where it falls on the different axes, just to get a visual. And how about the Knox version? Talk about liberties! Anyway, really excellent work here, thanks for your efforts.
Thanks for the comment, Winnie! I thought about including Knox, but since he translated from the Vulgate, it seemed likely that it would score with the Douay-Rheims. But perhaps the editions of the Vulgate the two were translated from differ somewhat. I haven't spent much time with Knox's translation, but I have read a few sections of it, and his essay "On Englishing the Bible." I believe the he and I are about 180 degrees out of phase when it comes to translation philosophy.
Fascinating. Thank you. I find it interesting, as a Catholic, that the NAB and CSB seem to coincide so much. I need to explore te DRC as i do not have a copy.
It seems likely to me that both translation committees decided to prioritize readings in the Nestle-Aland text. The NAB was probably based on UBS3/NA26, while the CSB was translated from UBS5/NA28. The Greek text in those editions is nearly the same.
Thanks. Yes, that’s correct about the NAB.
As always, great job on the video. I really appreciate your translation and bible reviews/comparisons. You do the most in-depth detailed study than any other channel. It's very much appreciated. I did have a question that you might be able to answer. As you mentioned, Westcott & Hort are often demonized and that all modern translations use their readings, which is clearly not the case at all. Why do you think W&H have fallen out of favor over time, even among Critical Text adherents? Does the demonization have an influence, or have modern textual discoveries shown them to be less accurate?
Thanks for the kind comments, Mike! I haven't studied the history of New Testament textual criticism, so I can only speculate. Most of the papyri have been discovered since W&H's time, so that may be one reason newer critical NT editions adopt different readings. I suspect the art of textual criticism has matured over time. There's also the natural human inclination to attempt something new -- to be creative -- and that may have been at work. In the last few years, the Coherence Based Genealogical Method has come into use.
Wow... that was so analytically appealing! It also makes me wonder Bro. Jones if it has changed your own thoughts and opinions on translations you once ranked high and ranked low before you conducted this study?
Thanks for that kind comment, Anthony, and for the question! No, it hasn't changed my view of the quality or value of the translations, but it has given me a better appreciation for the willingness of the different translation teams to go their own way.
Absolutely fascinating, thank you so much. There's a lot to absorb there, I'll watch the video again in the morning. The breadth of translations you've analysed is incredible, and much appreciated. The DBH translation is intriguing; do we know what textual basis Bentley-Hart worked from?
Thanks for the comment and question! Yes, on pages xxxiii-xxxv of his introduction, Hart talks about the Greek text. To summarize, he says he worked from "the so-called Critical Text" and "consulted editions going as far back as the edition of Hort and Westcott from 1881 and as far forward as the current editions of the Nestle-Aland" text. "The result is that my version agrees with no other scholarly or devotional version perfectly, and that it -- like every other, alas -- is an attempt at an approximation to an ideal version of the text that in actuality we shall never be able to identify entirely."
@@RGrantJones That's great, thank you. Out of interest, I don't suppose you have any information on the textual basis of the Nova Vulgata (the current version of the Vulgate approved for liturgical use in the Catholic Church, which vernacular translations are in theory supposed to adhere to). It's an obscure text that I can find nearly no information on, except that John Paul II promulgated it based on critical scholarship, and that the RSV2CE was revised to supposedly conform more closely to it. Given that the RSV2CE seems to conform more closely to the Tyndale House than other iterations of the RSV, I wonder if the Nova Vulgata itself has a New Testament text more closely aligned to Tyndale House than the other textual bases you've looked at? That would be fascinating as, if it is the case, it would mean that the official Biblical text of the Catholic Church agrees more frequently with Tyndale House's recent work than other textual bases.
Thank you so much for the time you spent in doing the actual study and making it presentable to us all. Your intellectual capacity and ability to communicate to the layperson astounds me. Truly incredible.
I am in the middle of reading a book called ‘Which Bible Is God’s Word?” By Gail Riplinger. I do not know anything about he author or the book besides what I have read. I was wondering if you know of this book and if so what are your thought on it. I felt I needed to ask someone I could trust having the intelligence to understand and verify the contents of the book.
Thank you always and God bless your activities!
Thank you for that very kind comment!
I use 4 translations in this order1- NASB95 2- KJV/ESV (is a tie) then 3-NKJV I feel pretty confident that that’s a well rounded group from the data that you gathered. Thank you sir for all the hard work you put into this, you certainly to have a colossal intellect. I like the NASB because it’s the easiest for me to understand I know people think it’s “wooden” but maybe that how my brain is to. They made some bad choices sure but so did the ESV. 1Cor. Is the only one that makes me cringe in the NASB when the say LAW COURT 🤭
Thank you for this very informative analysis. As you noted, Wescott & Hort is heavily demonized as being occult, new age, heretical, etc. Yet, the NAS77 and the NAS95 translations, which are both highly regarded by some evangelicals, show broad agreement with Westcott & Hort. Does this seem odd? I have no axe to grind on the subject, just a question. Thanks again for your hard work.
Thanks for the comment! I don't know why the New American Standard sides with Westcott & Hort more than the other translations do. It could be that the NAS translation committee has an especially high regard for Vaticanus, as Westcott & Hort did. Whatever the reason, I find it interesting that the WH agreement rate in these 153 verses is only 75.8% (NAS77) and 70% (NAS95). I've encountered people who push the notion that all modern translations are tainted because they derive from Westcott & Hort. Yet the truth of the matter seems to be that most modern translations depend heavily on readings in the earliest manuscripts, which often disagree with each other. So there are a variety of readings from which to chose; and since textual criticism is not an exact science, different translation committees come to different conclusions regarding the best reading.
Interesting
Do you have any intention of looking at the David Bentley Hart New Testament?
About to watch your review of Nicholas King’s Translation - I found his course on Mark ‘The Strangest Gospel’ to be of benefit in reading with a parish group in England.
Thanks for the question! Yes, I plan to review David Bentley Hart's translation, perhaps early next year.
R. Grant Jones thank you. Looking forward to it
Do you have a video regarding Septuagint vs Masoretic or any other Hebrew versions ??. blessings
No, nothing like this. The Septuagint is mentioned in a few of my videos, like the review of the Orthodox Study Bible. I also reviewed Hendrickson's two-volume Septuagint Reader's Edition. I may do a study like this one of Old Testament translations, to see how frequently they depart from the Masoretic Hebrew and follow a Dead Sea Scroll reading or an ancient translation.
@@RGrantJones PLEASE DO
@@RGrantJones Yes, please.
What passages did NKJV, EOB, EMTV disagree with RP?
Thanks for the question!
NKJV: Mk 3.32, Jn 14.14, Acts 3.22, Acts 12.25, Acts 20.28, Eph 4.32, Heb 2.7, Rev 13.2, Rev 14.3, Rev 19.12, and Rev 22.21.
EOB: Mt 11.23, Mt 12.15, Mt 18.26, Mk 3.32, Mk 6.22, Mk 6.41, Jn 14.14, Acts 12.25, 1 Thess 3.13, and Rev 19.12.
EMTV: Mt 12.4, Jn 14.14, 2 Peter 2.18, and Rev 19.12.
very interesting circumstance that the new Tyndale House GNT agrees so much with the Byzantine text... it is a more balanced Edition in that regard..... even more interesting is that this edition is based on the oldest uncial MSS....
I would love to get your perspective on the Jehovah Witnesses Bible “The new world translation “
Fascinating! Thanks for all the work you put into this study. Perhaps you can add the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) of 2010 to your future study.
How about NIV Greek, UBS5 greek, SBL greek, etc each of them highest & connected to the Bible translations?
How about OT Hebrew comparison to bibles, what do you have in your videos? Dotan Hebrew, koren Hebrew, Westminster Hebrew, etc in 4 dimension X Y diagram
Am I correct to assume your a believer? I understand that's personal, I just feel prompted to ask
Yes, you are correct. I am.
@@RGrantJones nice to have another brother.
I find myself having to watch this more than once to take it all in . No reflection on your channel it’s all on me . It’s just a lot to take in . Kind of like drinking from a fire hose. Side question witch Greek text do you prefer ? You may have said it somewhere . I probably did not pick it up .
Blessings
witch?
Jason Frost LoL I cant spell 😂
Blessings
thanks for this interesting study... however, though agreements and disagreements between Greek Editions measured in percentages is legitimate in itself, it does not tell the whole story as to the nature of these texts.... the WH is a text of the same nature as the NA28... as to the kinds of readings both retain or dismiss, they are essentially the same... they both reject John 7.53-8.11, they both reject Mark 16.9-10, etc... they both reject the vast majority of the TR readings which typically mean anything for believers, and which are found also in the RP... i am talking about the Alexandrian vs Byzantine readings which define the modern debate between texts... like the differences between the KJV and the NIV, ... the significant/larger readings casted doubt on in the footnotes in the NIV are in the main the same readings as are shared by both WH and NA, ..... from this perspective then, the WH and NA (any edition) is basically the same kind of text... at least from the perspective where most people live... but even the most strict KJO people have for decades recognized that the NA editions have increasingly been parting ways with the WH text, popularized by the category of "NA have accepted more and more Majority or TR readings" since the days of WH, or something to that effect... :-))
This is Excellent Research Material !! Thank You. I like the King James tradition of word usage, although not the modern loss of it's archaic wording. NKJV actually does not keep in the King James tradition a surprising amount of the time, and instead "re-translates" wording into the modern tradition. In fact, other translations like NRSV do a better job in certain situations. This is best explained by giving an example . . .
1 CORINTHIANS 6. [18] - - - - - - -
[18] Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. [NKJV]
- - -
[18] Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. [KJV]
- - -
[18] Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. [NRSV-1989] (NRSV stands as unique among Modern Bible Translations)
- - -
[18] Fugite fornicationem. Omne peccatum, quodcumque fecerit homo, extra corpus est : qui autem fornicatur, in corpus suum peccat. [VUC] (Vulgate-Clementina)
- - - - - - - - -
In fact, NKJV follows nearly all the modern bible translations in removing "fornication" as an archaic word in the verse above. I don't perceive "fornication" to be archaic, but rather that the translators changed the wording over theological reasons. ESV, NIV, NLT, CSB, TEV and other modern Bible translations completely censor the words "fornication" and "fornicators" from their Bibles. ZERO times are they mentioned in their Bibles, while the King James Version, and every popular Pre World War 2 bible translation, including ASV, keeps "fornication" in their Bible. However, World War 2 changes the translation method: The 1946 RSV New Testament removes "fornicator" in the verse above, clearly demarcating the translation shift was "Post World War 2"
- - -
[18] Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. [ASV-1901]
- - -
[18] Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. [RSV 1946-1970 & 1971-1988 editions]
- - - - - - - - -
[18] Flee immorality. Every [other] sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. [NASB]
Thanks for that comment, Mark!
Actually the NKJV does use the word fornication. 14 times to be exact. Just type in the word “fornication” in bible gateway’s search bar while using the NKJV as your translation and you’ll see it for yourself.
Here’s one of the many examples.
“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,”
Galatians 5:19 NKJV
@@justfollowjesus7216 yes NKJV does use Fornication, but that's more and more uncommon with each new modern translation that uses "sexual immorality" instead (copying one another without giving credit due). But even NKJV doesn't use it nearly as often as KJV did (over forty times) and the Latin Vulgate used it twice as often as KJV ("fornication" is Latin).
NRSV had used Fornication, now NRSVue has whittled Fornication usage away. not a single use of "Fornication" in ESV, NIV, NLT, CSB and many others. Also NKJV did remove fornication from single verse that seemed to emphasize it most of all:
1 COR 6.18 "Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. " [NRSV] / now the NRSVue reads: "18 Shun sexual immorality![e] Every sin that a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person[f] sins against the body itself. " [NRSVue]
and the NKJV reads: "18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. " [NKJV] (and it's almost exactly like that ESV, NIV and CSV, NRSVue etc, the really modern translations)
"sexual immorality" usage in the Bible (as a two word phrase) never existed within any English translation prior to WW2. It's an example of gross plagiarism among modern conservative Bible Translators who are all coordinated under a single dogmatic translation authority, which chooses not to be publicly identified since it's of an oligarchical nature as I imagine it to be.
@@markwiygul6356excellent comments Mark. I appreciate your perspective very much- it seems that you and I are fairly like-minded. Thank you for taking the time to type up these comments.
Another verse where I appreciate the NRSV for its breaking from the oligarchy's stranglehold on theologically-driven translations is Mat23:23
It, like the KJV, translates pistis consistently with the rest of the NT: namely, as faith. In most modern versions, their rendering the word differently in 23:23 than elsewhere in the NT keeps questions from the laity to a minimum...
Questions not all evangelical clerics might be prepared to answer. I'll leave it at that.
@@AnHebrewChild update: the latest domino to fall, NRSVue (2021), finally switches to follow the modern theological orthodoxy of removing "fornication" from the Bible . . .
1 CORINTHIANS 6.18 Shun sexual immorality! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against the body itself. [NRSVue 2021] thanks for the compliment!
as to the issue of WH, Nestle/NA and UBS Greek text editions being each one a distinct Greek text from each other, this needs to be qualified... even the Greek NT editions of the 16th and 17th centuries, regarded as the "received text", are each one a distinct Greek text, though not any two of them agreeing completely in places of various readings, i.e. Erasmus, Complutensian, Stephanus, Colinaeus, Beza, Elzevir and others.... there are some 250 differences between them, at least, though not all are translatable (not including typos, of course)... the stream of "critical" editions from Griesbach to Wordsworth (1870) certainly has numerous differences between them... but from WH1881 onward, everything changed, and the "critical" editions became much more "uniform"... because most scholars swallowed the theories of W&H hook, line & sinker...:) ... from Nestle (1898-1904) onward, the theories of textual criticism were gradually modified (moderately) and developed, but the "type" of text did not change very much (away from WH), that is, the type of text that discarded most of the Byzantine readings, though somewhat more inclusive of that text form (compared to WH)... so, if we are to compare the three main text editions in the area of "distinctly" Byzantine/TR readings, it will surface some rather interesting results... i am basing this on some older comparisons (c.1980) of the "three main" editions: WH1881, Nestle 23 1957, UBS3 1976... and it is in fact proper to compare these earlier editions, because it was these Greek texts that were current when the debate around texts and versions started to become more heated and the debate was growing more and more on to the "popular" arena among both fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists in the English-speaking world... (you see, it was not Bart Ehrman who popularized textual variants among believers, it was the KJO fundamentalists in numerous pamphlets, articles and books... :-)) the (back then) ever increasing number of modern English versions were almost all based on one or more of these critical editions... -- let's just use one "type" of variant readings as an illustration of the strong mutual unanimity of these three texts: the 3 texts were compared in the exact same places of variation in the NT text, almost 300 places from Matthew to Revelation, in the specific area of omissions/substitutions of names and titles of Deity (as Holy Spirit, through the Spirit, of the Lord, of God, Son of God, Alpha/Omega, in Christ, in Spirit, Jesus, through Jesus Christ, of our Father, raise up Christ, etc etc.... and on further study of these, it becomes clear that several of them affect doctrine for sure....) --- the three texts almost completely agree throughout in the omission (or a few times, substitution) of "Names/Titles of Deity": WH omits "Names/Titles of Deity" 221 places, Nestle 230, UBS 212 -- // these numbers are really telling of the "nature" of these text editions (as a result of modern textual scholars' theories of the "superfluity" of (or the "expansions of Deity" in) the Byz. text in these areas)... it may be argued that it is not very constructive to compare texts just by random selections, but rather sort out according to "type" of variant readings..... [:-()->---