awesome a statement as it might seem.nMost of the variants, as the differingnreadings are known, were quite minornand unimportant. Some of the variationnwas due to differences in scholarlynmethods or in competence, some tondenominational diversity, some to thenwar between religious liberals and religiousnconservatives. In the course ofnthe past generation, however, a coupntook place. There are now two standardnand easily available texts of thenGreek New Testament, one of themnaimed at scholars, the other at translators.nThe first gives some informationnon many passages, the second ratherndetailed information on many fewernpassages. These texts are accepted bynboth the Protestant United Bible Societiesnand the corresponding offices ofnthe Roman Catholic Church — “anninconceivable situation until quite recently,”nas the authors rightly say.nThese texts are almost exacdy similar,nword for word, letter for letter. The keynfigures in creating this nearly unheardnof agreement have been the Alands.nSome may object that although thenscholarly edition; Nestle-Aland, is KurtnAland’s, the translators’ edition — thenGreek New Testament, or GNT — isnedited by an international board ofnscholars who vote on every issue andnamong whom, in practice, there isnalmost no dissent. When BrucenMetzger compiled a volume of textualnnotes on the GNT using the minutesnof the board’s meetings, there werenonly 30 dissensions from the hundredsnof decisions recorded in the volume.nTwenty-seven of these were bynMetzger himself, eight of them sharednwith another scholar who had twonadditional dissensions. Metzger sharednone dissension each with two othernscholars and Kurt Aland wrote one bynhimself in addition to another henshared with Metzger. The board’s decisionsnwere typically made on thennarrowest of grounds, and many importantnpassages are not even discussed.nThis consensus might seem to be annencouraging sign: after nearly fivenhundred years of research, the sciencenof textual criticism has finally, it appears,ngiven us a New Testament textnon which we can all agree. I amndoubtful, however. Where scholarsnhave access to an author’s own copy ornproofs corrected by the author, sub­n38/CHRONICLESnstantial consent may be expected, althoughnnot always achieved. The evidencenfor the New Testament is, atnclosest, generations from the originalncopies, and for many passages, hundredsnof years from them. On the othernhand, we have a great deal of relevantnevidence. There are many issues onnwhich scholars can and do disagree, yetnthis valid disagreement is not reflectednin the commentary based on the notesnof their meetings. Furthermore, importantndecisions are made on the basis ofna scholarly consensus that is not textual,nbut theological.nLet me give two examples of veryndifferent types. The first involves thennature of the kinds of texts that havenpreserved the New Testament. In thenearly centuries of the Christian eranthere were a number of distinctiventexts, one partially identified with Italynand Latin translations, some with othernconnections. Eventually a vulgate wasncreated, which is found in most laternmanuscripts and was the basis of thenErasmus text and the King James Bible.nMuch of the early history ofnmodern Bible scholarship involvednfreeing the text of the New Testamentnof inferior readings from the late andnpoor manuscripts that Erasmus usednfor his edition. The tradition representednby the King James Bible, now callednthe Byzantine or Majority tradition, is,nhowever, found in better manuscriptsnthan Erasmus used and contains annumber of readings that have beenndiscovered in eariy papyri and so cannotnbe due solely to a late edition. Thencommon text of Nestle-Aland andnGNT tends to give short shrift to thisntradition, and the Alands make nonbones about their contempt for competingnolder editions that paid morenattention to Majority readings, not tonmention the recent Farstad-HodgesnGreek New Testament According to thenMajority Text (“an anachronism innevery respect”). One does not have tonbelieve that the Majority text is alwaysnright to know that it has been proven toncontain good, old readings, as the importantnclassicist Giinther Zunzt pointednout. The Aland-inspired consensusnon this issue is old-fashioned and needsnto be rethought.nLet us leave general considerationsnand take a specific passage: Paul’s Letternto the Romans 9:4-5. There are nonsignificant variant readings here, butnnnpunctuation can change the text profoundly.nPaul is lamenting the alienationnof his brothers according to thenflesh from Jesus. “They are Israelites.nThe sonship and the glory and thencommandments and the giving of thenlaw and .service in the temple andnGod’s promises belong to them. ThenFathers belong to them and from themnaccording to the flesh comes the Messiah.”nAnd now, depending on thenpunctuation, one may read: a) “MaynGod who is over all be blessed forever!”nor b) “the Messiah, who is Godnover all, blessed forever.” The committeenopted for the former and so thenjoint text is punctuated. Their reasoningnwas straightforward. NineteenthcenturynNew Testament scholars havenproven that Paul did not believe thatnJesus was God, therefore he could notnhave said that He was. In response,nMetzger showed that when Paul ornanybody else in the Bible in Greek ornHebrew says “Glory be to God!” orn”God be blessed!” — what is technicallyncalled a doxology — such doxologiesnare always different in structure fromnRomans 9:5. Anyhow, it is extremelyninappropriate to end a serious, evenntragic, passage such as this one with an”Hallelujah!” The committee ignorednthe objective philological evidence innorder to import into the text a theologicalnview disguised as the result ofnhistorical-critical research.nI am not denying that the twoneditions with one text are fine works ofnscholarship. They are. Monopoly,nhowever, is never beneficial, least of allnin scholarship. In economics, monopolynat least makes some people rich. Innscholarship, it impoverishes even thosenin control by denying them the activendebate necessary to stimulate research.nIt gives the nonexpert a false idea ofnthe state of the art. There are nownmany translahons pouring out of variousnpresses. They seem to indicate angreat diversity and richness in our understandingnof the Bible. In the case ofnthe New Testament, this appearance isnan illusion. Behind this superficial diversitynlies a suffocating uniformity thatndoes not represent the real, and verynlively, possibilities of the text of thenNew Testament. Until the day thatn”Bible-believing” Christians carenenough to master sufficient Greek tonunderstand the key issues in translatingnthe Bible — issues that are not beyondn