First Encounter with the Exciting SBLGNT and Its Limited Apparatus
Many in the biblical studies world have heard by now that the new edition of the Greek New Testament (SBLGNT), a joint project of the SBL and Logos Bible Software, and edited by Michael Holmes, is available for free download. It’s exciting news. Lately, I haven’t been doing much detailed text critical work in the NT and thus it doesn’t have a major impact on my current research at the moment. I am excited, however, to see where the SBLGNT differs from the NA/UBS text as I work through apocalyptic passages this year. The most exciting thing about this edition is perhaps how it can be accessed and used by anyone from anywhere for free. Maybe something like the Greek NT on the former zhubert.com can return again.
As I was taking a gander at the apparatus, however, I was a little confused. Looking through the verses, you find no mention of any actual manuscripts. The only cited variations referred to other critical editions of the texts. Further, it looked like the NA was hardly mentioned at all in the apparatus — what about that claim of so many differences from the NA text? Then I noticed this note: “NA is explicitly cited only when it differs from NIV.” Really? Why is the Greek edition underlying the NIV more of a standard than the that of NA/UBS? Is there a theological preference being exhibited here?
Next I read the Introduction:
The starting point for the SBLGNT was the edition of Westcott and Hort. First, the WH text was modified to match the orthographic standards of the SBLGNT (described below). Next, the modified version was compared to the other three primary editions (Treg, NIV, and RP) in order to identify points of agreement and disagreement between them. Where all four editions agreed, the text was tentatively accepted as the text of the SBL edition; points of disagreement were marked for further consideration. The editor then worked systematically through the entire text, giving particular attention to the points of disagreement but examining as well the text where all four editions were in agreement. Where there was disagreement among the four editions, the editor determined which variant to print as the text; occasionally a reading not found in any of the four editions commended itself as the most probable representative of the text and therefore was adopted. Similarly, where all four texts were in agreement, the editor determined whether to accept that reading or to adopt an alternative variant as the text. In this manner, the text of the SBLGNT was established.
Seems like an interesting approach. The feeling of the apparatus, however, and the way this introductory remark makes examining points of agreement in the editions an afterthought had me resonating with a comment on the Logos blog from Jim Lowther:
I am very hesitant to embrace a Greek text that confuses printed editions (if I understand the preface correctly) with primary textual witnesses. I would much prefer resources based on the UBS/NA text, since that is not only the defacto standard, but also represents the result of meticulous direct interaction with manuscripts. It seems to me that the SBL Greek New Testament is a step or two removed.
Rick Brannon, who I gather developed the technical infrastructure for the project, responds with a helpful and informative comment:
It is most definitely not meant to list evidence in the editions as the primary evidence for or against a reading, or to give the sole evidence the editor (Michael W. Holmes) considered in reviewing a variation. Instead, the editions were used as a sort of “first pass” to determine where most areas of variation exist in the text. Dr. Holmes reviewed the entire text, both where the consulted editions agreed completely and where they disagreed in some way. . . . You can be sure that we don’t intend the apparatus to the SBLGNT to be a replacement for the apparatus to the NA27, and we do not intend it to be used instead of the apparatus to the NA27. The SBLGNT apparatus is more about showing what the editions say at a given variation unit so that the reader is aware of possible alternate readings.
Holmes himself also commented on the process on the ETC blog, including: “In all, there are fifty-six variation units in the SBLGNT where I preferred a reading not found in the text of any of the four primary editions.” He also notes:
Thus there are many interesting places of variation in the manuscript tradition that are not noticed in this limited apparatus. . . . As will be clear from the nature and scope of the apparatus, this text may be considered a “reading edition,” with the apparatus serving to alert the reader to the more important places where there are differences between editions of the Greek NT and to indicate how other editions have handled matters.
I see where Holmes indicates he has looked past the critical editions, but I would probably get even more excited about an edition that made a more radical starting point. I imagine that the initial comparison of the four critical editions was done by software — perhaps even Logos itself. Well, what if software performed the initial comparison of all extant manuscripts? The results could even be altered by the use of some rubric or formula by which the editor could choose which variables (timelines, “if…then” scenarios) determine the hierarchy of the resulting edition, which could also produce a full critical apparatus noting the variations in manuscripts. Heck, maybe this search itself could someday be offered to the masses via Logos, so that anyone owning the appropriate version of the software could produce their own critical editions. Further, it’d be great to see things like a hover-over feature for all manuscripts that tells you the historical information about that particular manuscript, it’s estimated approximate date, where it was found, etc. It would have to be very user-friendly, but I think Logos is up to the task.
I just say these things because I like to dream big about technology and biblical studies. It really is an exciting edition. I have profound admiration and respect for Mike Holmes — and great gratitude towards Logos and SBL!
Josephus Coined the Term "Theocracy"
Many people may know this already, but I didn’t. I came across Josephus’ use of “theocracy” (θεοκρατία) and the footnote read that Josephus apparently coined this term. I turned to my trusty Logos Bible Software to check for any other reference in any of my Greek sources with a Word Study. Sure enough, only one occurrence in Josephus and nothing in the Septuagint, OT Pseudepigrapha, Philo, NT, or Apostolic Fathers. I went online and checked TLG to find only one other reference elsewhere (not counting Eusebius’ quotation of Josephus). The only other use I found was in Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos’ (905-959) On Virtue and Vice . Interesting.
Of course, when Josephus uses “theocracy” (Apion 2.165), it has a positive connotation–unlike how many use it today as a critique of those Christians who would like the United States to be (even) more intimately tied to Christianity. Josephus uses the term to contrast the other forms of government in the world. This is linked to his discussion on the Jewish legal system. The Greeks change their laws because they have human laws. The Jews get their law from God. For Josephus, Jewish society is founded upon the rule of God and God’s law (and has been for a very long time!). Here is the “theocracy” passage:
To give but a summary enumeration: some peopls have entrusted the supreme political power to monarchies, others to oligarchies, yet others to the masses. Our lawgiver, however, was attracted by none of these forms of polity, but gave to his constitution the form of what–if a forced expression be permitted–may be termed a “theocracy,” placing all sovereignty and authority in the hands of God. To Him he persuaded all to look, as the author of all blessings, both those which are common to all mankind, and those which they had won for themselves by prayer in the crises of their history. He convinced them that no single action, no secret thought, could be hid from Him. He represented Him as One, uncreated and immutable to all eternity; in beauty surpassing all mortal thought, made known to us by His power, although the nature of His real being passes knowledge. [Apion 2.164-167, Thackeray trans.]
One of the reasons I love Logos Bible Software
As a seminarian and a devoted user of Bible software, I am often asked what I might recommend for Bible software. While other programs (BibleWorks, Accordance) do have their advantages, I am quite happy with Logos. Years ago, their emphasis on library building meant an emphasis on (in my humble opinion) cheesy and unhelpful biblical tools. As I understand the narrative of Bible software history, when Logos was compared to BibleWorks in those days, Logos seemed an almost embarrassing choice for serious scholars of the biblical text. More recently, however, Logos has been capitalizing on their effective method of library building in a more scholarly way. One can now find incredible resources in whole sets of commentaries (such as Hermeneia and the NIGTC) or various collections of scholarly monographs (one example of many is the Library of NT Studies: JSNTS on the Gospels and Acts).
But as one who is preparing for doctoral study, the benefit of Logos for which I’m thankful at the moment is their possibilities for in-depth language study. Today in the mail, I received my order of Logos’ two versions of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I now have not only BHS, but the Targums of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project and the DSS. Not to mention the fact that I have BDB, HALOT, Gesenius, Jouon-Muraoka, Waltke-O’Connor, and plenty of other Hebrew and Aramaic resources at my finger tips. That means that I can do powerful language searches, run automatic word studies, and a bunch of other stuff I don’t even know about yet.
The same goes for Greek, but even more so. There are simply more possibilities for a range of Greek literature. So, in addition to having precious grammars (Robertson, BDF, Wallace, etc.) and lexica (BDAG, LSJ, M-M, Louw-Nida, TDNT, etc.) to call upon, as well as the LXX and various versions of the Greek NT (including many of the earliest papyri manuscripts – which is linked with the apparatuses Logos offers), I have options for exploring other primary sources. Logos currently offers or is developing: the Pseudepigrapha, the works of Philo, a critical edition of Josephus’ works, the Apostolic Fathers, and now Homer’s Illiad (see Rick Brannon’s post about this on the Logos blog). All of these are morphologically tagged, so a reader can decide whether and when they’d like to use “crutches.” But it is nice to be able to double-click on a word and have it pop up in BDAG or LSJ.
Another thing that I’m itching to acquire, but is too much of a wallet buster at the moment is the SESB 2.0 collection. This includes the critical apparatuses for both the Greek NT (NA27 and UBS4) and BHS. It even includes part of the new BHQ, the Gospel of Thomas (in four languages), and many modern language (other than English) Bibles.
Logos is also working on developing Coptic resources (see Crum, for example) and a few things on Ugaritic. Also exciting is the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which will be a huge resource for scholars who work with Latin. My guess is that once they have this massive Latin dictionary available, Logos will start adding Latin texts of the early church and Greco-Roman world. They obviously already have the Vulgate.
Logos has even begun to create an electronic version of the unabridged Collins English Dictionary. A while back, I recommended they develop the OED (they have a suggestion email address), but that is naturally a huge undertaking. I think that it is important for those who work with language have tools regarding their own language as well as others.
In the future, I think I’d like to see Logos develop more German resources. Perhaps since they now have a relationship with Collins, they can look into producing the Collins German Dictionary. Or the Oxford-Duden, which is the print dictionary that I have and I think is the most helpful. I know a lot of students in theology and biblical studies who could use German tools. Maybe things like Hammer’s German Grammar and Usage by Durrell and/or German Quickly by April Wilson. One text that may be especially useful would be Ziefle’s Modern Theological German: A Reader and Dictionary. I can see these resources branching out into the works of many of the great German theologians and biblical scholars. That’s long term, I suppose.
But that last point is exactly the reason I love Logos. I can think of the build up of their resources over time. They are constantly adding helpful tools for language study and the possibilities for research keep expanding. With all of this said, one can really see how Logos has taken their stereotyped “cheesy Christian library” role from the past and not only blown it out of the water, but turned their “weakness” into a formidable strength for scholarly work. [I know some Logos folks might disagree with my depiction of their past image, but I'm just commenting on how I perceive things . . . I'm willing to be wrong. I was one of their customers back in my fundamentalist highschooler days 10 years ago, so I have some personal experience with the history as well as what I've heard from some biblical scholars.]
. . . Ooh, one more thing. I think it’d be cool to get some of those books from the 501 Verb series that Barron’s does, especially the ones for Latin and German, on Logos. I have found those very helpful.
"The accuser of our comrades"?
Don’t get me wrong, I like the NRSV for the most part, and I am a huge advocate for inclusive language. But the NRSV does get a little out of hand in their translation of ἀδελφῶν (adelphōn) from time to time. Take Revelation 12:10 for instance:
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, proclaiming,
“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God
and the authority of his Messiah,b
for the accuser of our comradesc has been thrown down,
who accuses them day and night before our God.”b Gk Christ
c Gk brothers
They do the same thing in Rev 19:10 and 22:9. I can understand when they go with “kindred” or “people” or even “beloved,” but “comrades”? It feels a little too “cold war” for me. The interesting thing is that they only use this translation in Revelation. I suppose it’s appropriate (although Americans might not like that the “comrades” are the good guys here).
Doing the translation in the 80s, they must have known how “comrades” would sound to readers. Why would they go with it?
Greek Question: "to the ones being [in Ephesus?]"
We were translating the first part of Ephesians in my Greek Reading class the other day and I was suddenly struck by the words τοῖς οὖσιν (Greekish: “to the ones being”) in verse 1. You may know that there is a debate about whether Paul wrote Ephesians, and related to that question is whether the epistle was in fact written to the Ephesians. You find the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ (“in Ephesus”) in brackets in our modern editions of the Greek text (UBS4 and NA27) because the committee deciding on the most accurate Greek text had a difficult time deciding on whether it was truly in the original document. The evidence for “in Ephesus” is not born out in some of the most important manuscripts of the Greek text from the early church. Here is Metzger’s entry for the verse in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (to my non-Bible-geeky friends: don’t worry too much about the technical stuff):
The words ἐν Ἐφέσῳͅ are absent from several important witnesses (P46 א* B* 424c 1739) as well as from manuscripts mentioned by Basil and the text used by Origen. Certain internal features of the letter as well as Marcion’s designation of the epistle as “To the Laodiceans” and the absence in Tertullian and Ephraem of an explicit quotation of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ have led many commentators to suggest that the letter was intended as an encyclical, copies being sent to various churches, of which that at Ephesus was chief. Since the letter has been traditionally known as “To the Ephesians,” and since all witnesses except those mentioned above include the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, the Committee decided to retain them, but enclosed within square brackets.
So the way it looks is: τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] (“to the ones being [in Ephesus]“). I haven’t done much research into this Ephesians authorship debate, so my curiosity about this phrase will, I hope, be answered by someone who has. We had read the beginning of 1 Corinthians the week just prior to this in Greek Reading, so I recalled that in that letter Paul indicates the recipients of his letter by using the same kind of phrasing: τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ (Greekish: “to the church of God, to the one being in Corinth”). See also 2 Corinthians 1:1, Romans 1:7, and Philippians 1:1. So in Ephesians, what would happen if we lost “in Ephesus”? The author states that it is: “To the saints (holy ones), to the ones being ___ and faithful in Christ Jesus.” I suppose this could mean: “to the ones being also faithful in Christ Jesus.” Given the other standard letter openings, though, that seems unlikely. It would seem that either it was written to the ones being “in Ephesus” or the author forgot to specify the city in which the “ones” “were”. I suppose this could fit into the idea, mentioned above by Metzger, that this was an “encyclical“. So maybe the missing specified city could be thought of as: “to the ones being [in "fill in the blank with your city here"]“.
Anybody have an opinion or some more information about this element of the first verse of Ephesians?
Update (05/07/07): Jim mentions in his comment that my “the ones being” is a little too formal here and suggests that “those who are” would be more appropriate. I thought that enough people would have a question about this that I should make a comment in the original body of the post. I completely agree! I wouldn’t keep “the ones being” in a final, smooth translation. But I like to start my translating as wooden, and as my Greek Reading instructor puts it, “Greekish” as I can. After I figure out settle on an opinion of what’s going on grammatically, I smooth it out. That’s just my personal style. Sometimes the transition is instantaneous or within seconds; in a case like this, it takes longer for me.
By the way, I recommend you check out Chris Spinks’ response in the comments. Chris recently taught the book of Ephesians, so this stuff is fresh in his mind.
Omega is…
In Greek Reading tonight, my instructor said something that made me chuckle:
Omega is the ‘Jaws’ of Greek vowels.
~David Kiefer, Fuller Registrar and Greek instructor
Now, ponder that one for a minute. I am a “visual” person and I like to take imagery seriously. Can’t you just see the omegas nearly jumping off the page with violent, ravenous appetite for the destruction of all other Greek vowels? It will be hard to look at my Greek NT again without the image.
Exegetical Method & Practice: What we're doing
Love Sechrest, the newest addition to Fuller’s NT faculty, is keen on the “practice” part of this Exegetical Method and Practice course that I’m taking with her. Sure, we’ll be learning the method in lectures and reading, but the focus of our assignments is on practice. We have an assigned Greek text for every session of the class; first we’re going through Romans and then Revelation. We are assigned either to do a translation of that text or a journal entry of questions related to the English text. The journal entries should contain 6-10 question from categories such as literary, historical, theological, and some critical questions from secondary literature (but a lighter emphasis on this last category).
On top of those daily assignments are several assignments related to our primary selected passage. Mine is Revelation 4:1-11. For this passage, we will do 1-3 page summary of text criticism in the passage, a sentence diagram of any 7 continuous verses from our passage, and an arcing diagram. Since the narrative of Revelation is not conducive to “arcing” (and don’t ask me what that is, because I don’t know yet), those of us with Revelation passages (me) will submit an arcing diagram for Romans 4:1-16. We will also submit an “Exegetical Working Paper” for the rest of the students in the class to read for the day when our passage it going to be discussed (discussion for my passage is on 5/14). The “working paper” will be three pages (single-spaced) summarizing the significant exegetical and theological issues for our passage. Finally, our final exegesis paper will be based on this passage. This is expected to be 10-15 pages and should put forth a thesis statement and argument regarding how this passage should be interpreted. That might be a little difficult for me because I find it hard to stick to one meaning in any given passage.
Here’s the weight for grading:
- Daily translations and journals (15%)
- Exegetical assignments (15%)
- Exegetical working paper (30%)
- Final exegesis paper (40%)
A lot of work! To be honest, though, I would prefer more work because (1) it spreads the grade out amidst lots of assignments and (2) it provides for a greater learning experience. The grading appears to hold a high standard: A is 96 or above; A- is 93-96; B+ is 90-92! Not much room for error.
As far as learning method, we will be reading through the hard copies of Michael Gorman’s Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers and David Alan Black‘s New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide. Those are the books that were required for purchase. But we also have an electronic reader including large selections from Gordan Fee’s New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, Joel Green’s Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, Sandra Hack Polaski’s A Feminist Introduction to Paul, Amy-Jill Levine’s, et al., “Roundtable Discussion: Anti-Judaism and Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation” from the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 10/1 (Spr 2004). On this CD-ROM reader, we also have two introductions from a commentary on Romans (Dunn) and one on Revelation (Beale). It seems to be a pretty good mix, and not narrowed in on one author’s approach. It will highlight the traditional historical-critical methods, literary methods (particularly OT intertextuality), and we will even explore ideological/reader’s response methods such as African American, Postcolonial, and Feminist hermeneutics.
Speaking of all this reading, I should probably get cracking because I have to read 117 pages and translate Romans 1:8-17 by tomorrow.
Greek Reading: What we're doing
For my Greek Reading course with David Kiefer, Fuller Seminary’s Registrar, we will (naturally) be diving into Greek for this next quarter. Here are the Course Objectives and Learning Outcomes from the syllabus:
Upon successful completion of this course, you should be able to (a) identify all the relevant categories (i.e., to parse) all regular forms and most of the irregular but frequent forms of the articles, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs that occur in the Greek New Testament; (b) know the most common meanings of about 900 words that occur most frequently in the Greek NT, (c) know the patterns of Greek word formation and put this to use in vocabulary development and reading, (d) understand and be able to recognize the basic grammatical structures, sentence patterns, and styles of Koine Greek sentences as found in the Greek NT; and (e) be able to use all of this to read and translate extended passages throughout the New Testament with minimal use of reference tools.
To do that we’ll be focusing on two things primarily: vocabulary development and translation. For our vocabulary development we’ll be using Thomas Robinson’s Mastering New Testament Greek: Essential Tools for Students (for a review of the new edition, see this one in RBL). The major portion of the book (section 2, pp. 11-113) is a grouping of Greek words found in the New Testament under cognate groups, which are listed in order of frequency. First, though, we’ll be memorizing prefixes, prepositions and suffixes that are listed out in sections 3 and 4. We will also be memorizing irregular verb forms from a list that David will provide and discussing various areas of Greek morphology.
For translation we will be doing both prepared and unprepared translation. The class meets twice a week and the first day will be devoted to the prepared translation, while the second day will be devoted to “sight reading.” David said that he didn’t really like that phrase because it connotes a stressful “on the spot” kind of “test” of knowledge. He prefers us not to fret about it and just be willing to put ourselves forward, not worrying about making mistakes. I’m still going to call it “sight reading,” because, well, that’s what it is. For the prepared translations, we’ll be given a schedule (we don’t have it yet) of texts and we will read through taking notes on the things that puzzle us and interest us in the passage. We will also keep a reading and rereading log of the texts that we read for the first time for the following week, read for the second time for the present week, and read for the third time for the past week. A lot of reading! We’ll also have weekly quizzes and a final exam on the material.
Overall, it should be a lot of work, but I’m looking forward to it. It’s a smallish class and I think we’re going to have some fun with it. I’m definitely looking forward to getting some of my foundations more solidified in Koine Greek.
Changing my blog's name
I wrote a post a couple weeks ago soliciting opinions about whether I should change my blog’s name (“kata ton biblon”) to something else. I had discovered that it was grammatically incorrect. My intention was for the title to mean “according to the book,” referring to interpretation of biblical texts and also those who live their lives “according to the book.” Biblon is the accusative form of “biblos,” which is one of those funky second declension feminine nouns. I accidentally used a neuter article. It took me many months to realize my error. There is also another word for book: biblion, which is neuter but spelled differently.
I received many thoughtful responses to my post. Most of them seemed to either outright state that I should change it, or imply such. One person, Matt Barnes, suggested that I keep it because it’s part of the identity of the blog. I like that reasoning. I began this blog, not knowing really what blogging was and gradually learned more about what I’d like to do with it. All the while, my blog’s name has stayed the same. It’s nice to have a constant. On the other hand, I’d like to think that this is only the beginning of my blog’s life and that not that much time has really passed. And I don’t want to get five years down the line and have to keep explaining why its name is wrong.
Carl W. Conrad, Associate Professor Emeritus of Greek and Latin Poetry and Biblical Literature at Washington University at St. Louis, suggested (and Stephen C. Carlson agreed) that I use the plural of biblion, so: kata ta biblia. I looked things up in a few sources and decided that it doesn’t make too much difference whether it is singular or plural, biblon or biblion, since it seems it was used to refer to sacred literature (even the Bible itself) as any combination of those (see the Lampe entries below). Dr. Conrad’s suggestion, however, (and he should know more than me!) appears to be the most common way that the phrase is communicated in the literature. Also, it rhymes. I think it’s nice to have a blog name that sounds good.
So I’m changing my blog’s name to kata ta biblia. It can still mean “according to the book,” taking book in the collective sense. I like how the plural seems to imply many voices gathered together in one collection. I suppose the plural could also refer to other sacred books or various scholarly books. Of course, people don’t live their lives “according to various scholarly books” (I hope), so that sense of meaning is out. I do hope to continue my concentration on biblical studies, particularly New Testament, from an Anabaptist perspective. But I am also interested in leaving my blog a little open-ended to generally focus on the interpretation of texts, be they sacred, scholarly, or popular.
Below are the entries for biblion and biblos in G. W. H. Lampe’s A Patristic Greek Lexicon. I found them helpful and thought you might like to take a peek.
-
Elsewhere . . .- Blog titles beginning with "A" to "Z" on your reader Mark Goodacre
- Of making many books there is no end Chris Brady
- Free Online: The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon S and C
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? II agathos
- Steven J. Friesen and the Identity of Satan’s Throne in Pergamum alan
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? agathos
- Bloomsbury buys Continuum Mark Goodacre
- Imperial America Peter J. Leithart
- C.F.D. Moule on the Birth of the New Testament d. miller
- Responding to Kostenberger (with comparisons to Marshall) Jeremiah
-
As a member of RevGalBlogPals, I am committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
Research assisted by:
When "new wine" is not "new wine" (Acts 2 vs. Luke 5)
I was recently preparing for a sermon based on the Pentecost text from Acts 2:1-41. After I had done my initial planning for the sermon, I was perusing some commentaries for possible additional insights. In one commentary (which shall remain nameless), I instead found some things that were simply false.
The one example that stands out most prominently is when he talks about the onlookers thinking the disciples are “filled with new wine.” The commentator says something to the effect of “The astute reader will notice that Jesus used these very same words back in Luke 5:33-39.” That’s the passage about “new wine” needing to go into “new wineskins.” The commentator says that it is a deliberate allusion by Luke to say that they are filled with the “new wine” of the gospel. I thought: “Wow, that’s cool. That’d be a great point.” But upon closer inspection, I noticed that they are not the same words in Greek! The word in Acts 2:13 is γλεῦκος while in Luke 5, two words are used: ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος. Both are translated as “new wine” in many English translations. Neat symbolism, but it’s not truly in the text.
The commentator had a number of other shaky points on the passage, mostly when he appealed to some kind of deeper symbolic allusion like this “new wine” proposal. So, this is a testimonial for preachers (or seminary students writing papers) to make sure you double-check what you use from commentaries and a plea for scholars who publish commentaries to check the original language! (though, that should go without saying… )