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

876Re: [lxx] Goettingen apparatus issues revisited

Expand Messages
  • John Litteral
    May 15, 2004

      I have little experience with the LXX as far as all the variants for textual
      criticism, though I joined this forum so I can get involved with it more.
      Fortunately the NT has alot of great textual critical work such as Reuben
      Swanson's awesome works with lining 45 of the best manuscripts in horizontal
      lines so you can compare variants. But as far as LXX I have been somewhat
      surprised that there has not been more works done for variants.

      Have you checked the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus? I have a site that has those
      in uncials, actually photocopies of the original manuscripts. And also the
      Freer. Here is the site. I will look into your question also to see what I
      can figure out.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "James Miller" <jamtat@...>
      To: <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:20 PM
      Subject: [lxx] Goettingen apparatus issues revisited

      > 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:
      > ME ANTAPODWSW F{b}]
      > 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
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic