Tim Finney is right on in his definitions on these in his work for which he supplied the link. A variation unit is any place in the text where variantMessage 1 of 8 , Apr 9, 2009View SourceTim Finney is right on in his definitions on these in his work for which he supplied the link. A variation unit is any place in the text where variant readings are found, with the scope of the unit being decided somewhat differently by different editors. A variation unit can include anywhere from 2 variant readings (the minimum) upward (a few have more than 10 variant readings, especially when titles of books are included). A variant reading is any place where a given manuscript has a different reading from the other witnesses (of course, multiple witnesses can share the same variant reading).
On Apr 8, 2009, at 10:33 PM, yennifmit wrote:
Of course it is possible to define about variant units, but the problem is that editors/composers of a textcritical apparatus are free to decide about theMessage 2 of 8 , Apr 9, 2009View SourceOf course it is possible to define about variant units, but the problem is that editors/composers of a textcritical apparatus are free to decide about the content of the unit. For example the lesson of the present Thursday of this Holy Week, 'Washing the Diciples'Feet', John 13,10. In TGNT/UBS4, 1993, the variant unit (nr.3 in the chapter) is: |ouk eichei chreian ei m^e tous podas nipsasthai|. I count a dozen variant readings. In NA 27, 1993 there are two units: |eichei chreian| and |ei m^e tous podas nipsasthai|. To make a big jump in history: in Griesbach/Schulz, 1827, are two units: |ou chreian eichei| and |^e tous podas nipsasthai|. Nota bene in NA27 is the Byzantine |ou| in stead of |ouk| out of sight, so not in the first unit.
I wonder at the cling to the idea of making rules for variant units to achieve more grip on the material.
Teunis van Lopik
Leidschendam, The Netherlands