Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

875Goettingen apparatus issues revisited

Expand Messages
  • James Miller
    May 15, 2004
      I'd like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus at a
      certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut 32:41,
      and I'm looking at page 358. Note, to begin with, that among the chief
      texts consulted at this point are A, B, F, M, V and 848 (listed in the
      top level of the apparatus). If you look towards the end of the
      apparatus' entry for verse 41, you'll see that it has some like this:


      This means that it's dealing with the portion of the verse that reads ME
      ANTAPODWSW - that's clear enough. Furthermore, the F{b} indicates that
      this reading comes from the manuscript F, and specifically from the hand
      of a corrector of it (in the introductory material it is noted that this
      corrector of F wrote in miniscule script). The right square bracket
      indicates that what follows applies to this phrase: the first entry to the
      right - "AUTON ANTAPODWSEI Procop 2668;" indicates that Procopius, in a
      certain work of his, has the reading AUTON ANTAPODWSEI in place of ME
      ANTAPODWSW. Understandable. Following that reference, the apparatus has
      "om ME B F 707 W{I}-127" (etc): in other words, the manuscripts listed
      after "om" omit the word ME from the phrase ME ANTAPODWSW. This also
      seems clear enough. But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
      have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to Codex
      A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But why is
      it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
      reading? And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the first
      level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include this
      verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they are
      not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME? What am I missing in
      attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
      really meant to be that cryptic?

      Input appreciated.

      Thanks, James
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic