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

883Re: [lxx] Goettingen apparatus issues revisited

Expand Messages
  • James Miller
    May 17, 2004
      Thanks to all, and especially to Bob Kraft, for responding to this query.
      It has helped me in understanding better the specialized language and
      communications techniques of the apparatus. One further point of
      clarification regarding some of the apparatus' symbols in this segment.
      Here, the apparatus uses abbreviated Latin - "om" - to signify an
      omission. But there is also an alternate symbol - ">" - that gets used at
      times to signify omissions. My question in this regard is, why 2 ways of
      signifying omissions? Do the two signifiers - "om" and ">" - have some
      subtle differences in denotation, connotation or whatever?

      Thanks, James

      On Mon, 17 May 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:

      > Sorry, James; weekends are not good times to get quick responses from me.
      >
      > You can find the CATSS format of the Goettingen apparatus for this passage at
      > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/text/religion/biblical/lxxvar/new/deu28-34.tav,
      > if that is of any help. We have tried to operate word by word, rather than with
      > phrases and combinations of words, although that sometimes invites inadvertant
      > errors or misinterpretations.
      >
      > Here is the section that seems to be your main interest, with some comments
      > added by me:
      >
      > <gk>@@KAI\</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      > &&3rd PsVig Varim I 22
      > + <gk>AUTOS</> Clem I 130
      > <gk>A)NTAPODW/SW</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      > : <gk>ANTAPODWSEI</> Procop 2668
      > : <gk>APODWSW</> B
      > <gk>DI/KHN</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      > <gk>TOI=S</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      > <gk>E)XQROI=S</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      > + <gk>MOU</> F{b} 58-376'-707 414 246 54'-75*(cprm) 83* 59 407 Tht II 1464
      > {Lat}cod 100 Cant{R} Aeth Arab Arm Co Syh = MT
      > <gk>,</>] > Ra (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      > <gk>@@KAI\</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      > <gk>TOI=S</>] > 72(|) (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      > <gk>MISOU=SI/N</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      > <gk>ME</> F{b}] > B F 707 W{I}-127 30-344 71 509 Clem I 130 {Lat}Cant{Mil} (sed
      > hab Sixt) (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      >
      > [[it is necessary to list F(b) with the lemma because F* (the original hand in
      > F) lacks the word ME. All other witnesses for this passage also have ME, except
      > for those listed as lacking it (">" in the notation above)]]
      >
      > : <gk>AUTON</> Procop 2668
      >
      > [[this reading resembles what is found a few words earlier in the verse, in
      > some witnesses]]
      >
      > <gk>A)NTAPODW/SW</> F{b}] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      > : <gk>ANTAPODWSEI</> Procop 2668
      >
      > [[virtually all witnesses have either ANTAPODWSW or ANTAPODWSEI -- see also a
      > few words earlier in the verse for a possible source of confusion! -- except
      > the latin cod 330 which omits most of the verse, and the three minuscules 527
      > 630 767 which do not have this entire section (see the listing of MSS in the
      > introduction to the volume) -- the CATSS notation "(</>2)" and "(</>7)" is
      > cryptic here, and I'll need to make it more explicit!]]
      >
      > <gk>:</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
      >
      > > 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?
      >
      > The only reason to list F{b} is that it differs from F. Otherwise, read the
      > notation to mean that all other extant MSS that have been collated for this
      > material agree with F{b}.
      >
      > > 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?
      >
      > Correct.
      >
      > > What am I missing in
      > > attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
      > > really meant to be that cryptic?
      >
      > Actually, it is meant to clear up any question about the variation here
      > between F* and F{b}! If we ever get to it in the CATSS variant data, we would
      > create a program that makes this all explicit. But we need to finish encoding
      > the variants first.
      >
      > Bob
      >
      > >
      > > Input appreciated.
      > >
      > > Thanks, James
      >
      > --
      > Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
      > 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
      > kraft@...
      > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic