09-05-2008, 01:12 AM
But who's underlying text is superior? There ARE differences in them, so either one version is correct, and the other incorrect. Does Roth's NT point out repeatedly how suspicious it is of the "Western Five"? With much respect to Andrew, it doesnt matter how beautiful, nazarene-like, and ancient his version is, I think the underlying text which the whole NT and footnotes are BASED ON should be as close as possible to the original. Which is where I suspect (i didn't say "know"), Dave B.'s version might be a little more valuable, at least in that category. Any views on this? <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->