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

arguments from the silence of the critical apparatus

Expand Messages
  • James Miller
    I d like to get some feedback on this question - particularly from Bob Kraft - but also from others. Let s say I m examining a facsimile of a well-known LXX
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 25, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I'd like to get some feedback on this question - particularly from Bob
      Kraft - but also from others. Let's say I'm examining a facsimile of a
      well-known LXX manuscript. I find there a reading I want to check against
      the Gottingen (sorry, my mail client doesn't do umlauts) edition of the
      book in question. The reading I've found varies from that given in the
      Gottingen edition's critical text. At the same time, the reading is not
      given as a variant in the critical apparatus. What conclusions can I draw
      from this? Can I therefore state confidently from the fact that the
      reading I've found is not given as a variant in the Gottingen critical
      apparatus that it is otherwise unattested among LXX manuscript evidence?
      (yes, I *am* hoping that you won't tell me I should check Swete, the
      Larger Cambridge LXX, Holmes Parsons, Rahlfs' Handausgabe, the Aldine,
      etc, etc, etc, just to be sure :) )

      Thanks, James
    • Robert Kraft
      Not enough detail to evaluate the situation. Normal orthographic variations (itacisms and the like) usually are not noted, nor are abbreviations. Sinaiticus
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 25, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Not enough detail to evaluate the situation. "Normal" orthographic
        variations (itacisms and the like) usually are not noted, nor are
        abbreviations. Sinaiticus especially is notorious for writing -ai where we
        expect -e, and sometimes vice versa, but this would not normally be noted
        if it is an "obvious" scribal tendency.

        More significant variations, excepting "obvious" scribal "nonsense"
        errors, should be included in the apparatus, or at least discussed
        somewhere in the introduction. But sometimes things slip through, so it is
        always safer to look at the other major editions "just to be sure." Or
        tell the list what you are looking for and see what happens! You will be
        on record as discovering the problem. (I actually found one of these in
        the Sinaiticus text of Barnabas, where the Greek OU had been emended to QU
        by adding a little stroke in the O, and editors had missed it -- talk
        about jots and tittles?)

        Bob

        > I'd like to get some feedback on this question - particularly from Bob
        > Kraft - but also from others. Let's say I'm examining a facsimile of a
        > well-known LXX manuscript. I find there a reading I want to check against
        > the Gottingen (sorry, my mail client doesn't do umlauts) edition of the
        > book in question. The reading I've found varies from that given in the
        > Gottingen edition's critical text. At the same time, the reading is not
        > given as a variant in the critical apparatus. What conclusions can I draw
        > from this? Can I therefore state confidently from the fact that the
        > reading I've found is not given as a variant in the Gottingen critical
        > apparatus that it is otherwise unattested among LXX manuscript evidence?
        > (yes, I *am* hoping that you won't tell me I should check Swete, the
        > Larger Cambridge LXX, Holmes Parsons, Rahlfs' Handausgabe, the Aldine,
        > etc, etc, etc, just to be sure :) )
        >
        > 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
      • James Miller
        Thanks for your input, Bob. Let s assume for the moment that I m wrong about the variant: it s a misspelling that looks like another word and I mistakenly
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 26, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for your input, Bob. Let's assume for the moment that I'm wrong
          about the variant: it's a misspelling that looks like another word and I
          mistakenly thought it was a real variant. The question still remains
          about what sort of general conclusions should be drawn from the Gottingen
          apparatus. Should it be presumed that, where the apparatus offers no
          variants, all manuscript evidence consulted reads the same as the critical
          text (or differs only in insignificant ways)? The apparatus is obviously
          meant to aid the manuscript researcher in getting a grasp on the range of
          evidence available - to provide positive evidence - but does it serve the
          related function of excluding other possibilities, i.e., providing
          negative evidence (no cited variant = no significant variation in known
          evidence)? I hope this makes sense. Do LXX researchers use the apparatus
          in this way, i.e., to conclude that no noteworthy variation occurs at a
          certain place based on absence of a variant citation in the Gottingen
          apparatus?

          Thanks, James

          PS I may post more later on the variant I brought up initially and ask for
          further clarification on it.

          On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:

          > Not enough detail to evaluate the situation. "Normal" orthographic
          > variations (itacisms and the like) usually are not noted, nor are
          > abbreviations. Sinaiticus especially is notorious for writing -ai where we
          > expect -e, and sometimes vice versa, but this would not normally be noted
          > if it is an "obvious" scribal tendency.
          >
          > More significant variations, excepting "obvious" scribal "nonsense"
          > errors, should be included in the apparatus, or at least discussed
          > somewhere in the introduction. But sometimes things slip through, so it is
          > always safer to look at the other major editions "just to be sure." Or
          > tell the list what you are looking for and see what happens! You will be
          > on record as discovering the problem. (I actually found one of these in
          > the Sinaiticus text of Barnabas, where the Greek OU had been emended to QU
          > by adding a little stroke in the O, and editors had missed it -- talk
          > about jots and tittles?)
          >
          > Bob
          >
          > > I'd like to get some feedback on this question - particularly from Bob
          > > Kraft - but also from others. Let's say I'm examining a facsimile of a
          > > well-known LXX manuscript. I find there a reading I want to check against
          > > the Gottingen (sorry, my mail client doesn't do umlauts) edition of the
          > > book in question. The reading I've found varies from that given in the
          > > Gottingen edition's critical text. At the same time, the reading is not
          > > given as a variant in the critical apparatus. What conclusions can I draw
          > > from this? Can I therefore state confidently from the fact that the
          > > reading I've found is not given as a variant in the Gottingen critical
          > > apparatus that it is otherwise unattested among LXX manuscript evidence?
          > > (yes, I *am* hoping that you won't tell me I should check Swete, the
          > > Larger Cambridge LXX, Holmes Parsons, Rahlfs' Handausgabe, the Aldine,
          > > etc, etc, etc, just to be sure :) )
          > >
          > > 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
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • James Miller
          Let me try a real world example to add some substance to these otherwise abstract questions. It s an example I ve sort of chosen at random, and is fairly
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 27, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Let me try a real world example to add some substance to these otherwise
            abstract questions. It's an example I've sort of chosen at random,
            and is fairly trivial. Maybe that will evoke some more response. Take a
            look at the Gottingen edition for Exodus, the first page of the critical
            text (p 65). In the first level of the apparatus, you'll see a list of
            materials consulted for this passage: the uncial manuscripts A, B, M, the
            recension groups O'' and C'', the manuscript groups b, d, f, n, s, t, x, y
            and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic versions. In the second level of the
            apparatus, under "1" (verse 1), note that "de" is added after "tauta" in
            a couple of miniscules, as well as in a patristic source. Apart from
            this, no other variants are noted for verse 1 until the word
            "eispeporeumenwn" - 6 words later. Here's how my questions would be
            formulated relative to this passage:

            1) Am I justified in stating that all manuscripts consulted (A, B, M, the
            recension groups O'' and C'', the manuscript groups b, d, f, n, s, t, x, y
            and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic versions), with the exception of the
            miniscules noted in the apparatus (53 and 664), read exactly as the
            critical text does between the words "tauta" and "eispeporeumenwn?" In
            other words, that all those manuscripts read "ta onomata twn uiwn israhl
            twn" at this point?

            2) Relatedly, am I also justified in stating "no significant variant
            reading among A, B, M, the recension groups O'' and C'', the manuscript
            groups b, d, f, n, s, t, x, y and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic versions
            (apart from those seen in 53 and 664) exists at this point?" Such is not
            stated anywhere in the Gottingen editions so far as I know, but is it not
            inferred?

            2a) Am I to presume that all pertinent LXX evidence currently available
            has been consulted for this passage, such that the statement "no known
            variant for the phrase 'ta onomata twn uiwn israhl twn' in Exod 1:1
            exists" is viable?

            I consider an answer to the effect "LXX studies is not at such a point yet
            that such sweeping statements can be made" a valid and acceptable one,
            btw. It may not be what I, or others, would like to hear, but it could
            aid those of us dealing with LXX texts and their corresponding Gottingen
            editions in developing sound approaches.

            Thanks, James

            On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, James Miller wrote:

            > Thanks for your input, Bob. Let's assume for the moment that I'm wrong
            > about the variant: it's a misspelling that looks like another word and I
            > mistakenly thought it was a real variant. The question still remains
            > about what sort of general conclusions should be drawn from the Gottingen
            > apparatus. Should it be presumed that, where the apparatus offers no
            > variants, all manuscript evidence consulted reads the same as the critical
            > text (or differs only in insignificant ways)? The apparatus is obviously
            > meant to aid the manuscript researcher in getting a grasp on the range of
            > evidence available - to provide positive evidence - but does it serve the
            > related function of excluding other possibilities, i.e., providing
            > negative evidence (no cited variant = no significant variation in known
            > evidence)? I hope this makes sense. Do LXX researchers use the apparatus
            > in this way, i.e., to conclude that no noteworthy variation occurs at a
            > certain place based on absence of a variant citation in the Gottingen
            > apparatus?
            >
            > Thanks, James
            >
            > PS I may post more later on the variant I brought up initially and ask for
            > further clarification on it.
            >
            > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:
            >
            > > Not enough detail to evaluate the situation. "Normal" orthographic
            > > variations (itacisms and the like) usually are not noted, nor are
            > > abbreviations. Sinaiticus especially is notorious for writing -ai where we
            > > expect -e, and sometimes vice versa, but this would not normally be noted
            > > if it is an "obvious" scribal tendency.
            > >
            > > More significant variations, excepting "obvious" scribal "nonsense"
            > > errors, should be included in the apparatus, or at least discussed
            > > somewhere in the introduction. But sometimes things slip through, so it is
            > > always safer to look at the other major editions "just to be sure." Or
            > > tell the list what you are looking for and see what happens! You will be
            > > on record as discovering the problem. (I actually found one of these in
            > > the Sinaiticus text of Barnabas, where the Greek OU had been emended to QU
            > > by adding a little stroke in the O, and editors had missed it -- talk
            > > about jots and tittles?)
            > >
            > > Bob
            > >
            > > > I'd like to get some feedback on this question - particularly from Bob
            > > > Kraft - but also from others. Let's say I'm examining a facsimile of a
            > > > well-known LXX manuscript. I find there a reading I want to check against
            > > > the Gottingen (sorry, my mail client doesn't do umlauts) edition of the
            > > > book in question. The reading I've found varies from that given in the
            > > > Gottingen edition's critical text. At the same time, the reading is not
            > > > given as a variant in the critical apparatus. What conclusions can I draw
            > > > from this? Can I therefore state confidently from the fact that the
            > > > reading I've found is not given as a variant in the Gottingen critical
            > > > apparatus that it is otherwise unattested among LXX manuscript evidence?
            > > > (yes, I *am* hoping that you won't tell me I should check Swete, the
            > > > Larger Cambridge LXX, Holmes Parsons, Rahlfs' Handausgabe, the Aldine,
            > > > etc, etc, etc, just to be sure :) )
            > > >
            > > > 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
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • thrdjohn13
            James, Not to state the obvious, but have you waded through the introductory material in the Goettingen edition? Or have you looked at the brief sections on
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 27, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              James,

              Not to state the obvious, but have you waded through the introductory
              material in the Goettingen edition? Or have you looked at the brief
              sections on the Goettingen edition found in S. Jellicoe's "Septuatint
              in Modern Study"? I wonder if that material would answer your
              questions. Don't be too intimidated by the German--the vocab is all
              pretty technical, but it's usually limited so it's not that bad (took
              me a couple days of flipping through a dictionary to get through the
              stuff in Isaiah and the minor prophets).

              Though I don't know the textual situation of the LXX Exodus
              specifically, I'm sure it can't be any worse than Isaiah. I believe
              I can say for Isaiah that the critical apparatus contains the most
              important data, though not all of it. As Bob noted, things slip
              through the cracks (can you imagine how difficult it must be to look
              at all those mss, let alone keep them straight in your head, and then
              to put them in a critical apparatus? Yipes!). I have personal
              experience trying to make an electronic version of a Goettingen
              edition, and I've found it's extremely easy to goof up (and I have an
              easy job compared to the edition editors).

              Also, have you compared the critical text and apparatus of Goettingen
              with the Cambridge edition (which I'm sure you know is avalable
              online at http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/) ?

              --Justin D.

              --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, James Miller <jamtat@m...> wrote:
              > Let me try a real world example to add some substance to these
              otherwise
              > abstract questions. It's an example I've sort of chosen at random,
              > and is fairly trivial. Maybe that will evoke some more response.
              Take a
              > look at the Gottingen edition for Exodus, the first page of the
              critical
              > text (p 65). In the first level of the apparatus, you'll see a
              list of
              > materials consulted for this passage: the uncial manuscripts A, B,
              M, the
              > recension groups O'' and C'', the manuscript groups b, d, f, n, s,
              t, x, y
              > and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic versions. In the second level
              of the
              > apparatus, under "1" (verse 1), note that "de" is added
              after "tauta" in
              > a couple of miniscules, as well as in a patristic source. Apart
              from
              > this, no other variants are noted for verse 1 until the word
              > "eispeporeumenwn" - 6 words later. Here's how my questions would be
              > formulated relative to this passage:
              >
              > 1) Am I justified in stating that all manuscripts consulted (A, B,
              M, the
              > recension groups O'' and C'', the manuscript groups b, d, f, n, s,
              t, x, y
              > and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic versions), with the exception of
              the
              > miniscules noted in the apparatus (53 and 664), read exactly as the
              > critical text does between the words "tauta"
              and "eispeporeumenwn?" In
              > other words, that all those manuscripts read "ta onomata twn uiwn
              israhl
              > twn" at this point?
              >
              > 2) Relatedly, am I also justified in stating "no significant variant
              > reading among A, B, M, the recension groups O'' and C'', the
              manuscript
              > groups b, d, f, n, s, t, x, y and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic
              versions
              > (apart from those seen in 53 and 664) exists at this point?" Such
              is not
              > stated anywhere in the Gottingen editions so far as I know, but is
              it not
              > inferred?
              >
              > 2a) Am I to presume that all pertinent LXX evidence currently
              available
              > has been consulted for this passage, such that the statement "no
              known
              > variant for the phrase 'ta onomata twn uiwn israhl twn' in Exod 1:1
              > exists" is viable?
              >
              > I consider an answer to the effect "LXX studies is not at such a
              point yet
              > that such sweeping statements can be made" a valid and acceptable
              one,
              > btw. It may not be what I, or others, would like to hear, but it
              could
              > aid those of us dealing with LXX texts and their corresponding
              Gottingen
              > editions in developing sound approaches.
              >
              > Thanks, James
              >
              > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, James Miller wrote:
              >
              > > Thanks for your input, Bob. Let's assume for the moment that I'm
              wrong
              > > about the variant: it's a misspelling that looks like another
              word and I
              > > mistakenly thought it was a real variant. The question still
              remains
              > > about what sort of general conclusions should be drawn from the
              Gottingen
              > > apparatus. Should it be presumed that, where the apparatus
              offers no
              > > variants, all manuscript evidence consulted reads the same as the
              critical
              > > text (or differs only in insignificant ways)? The apparatus is
              obviously
              > > meant to aid the manuscript researcher in getting a grasp on the
              range of
              > > evidence available - to provide positive evidence - but does it
              serve the
              > > related function of excluding other possibilities, i.e., providing
              > > negative evidence (no cited variant = no significant variation in
              known
              > > evidence)? I hope this makes sense. Do LXX researchers use the
              apparatus
              > > in this way, i.e., to conclude that no noteworthy variation
              occurs at a
              > > certain place based on absence of a variant citation in the
              Gottingen
              > > apparatus?
              > >
              > > Thanks, James
              > >
              > > PS I may post more later on the variant I brought up initially
              and ask for
              > > further clarification on it.
              > >
              > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:
              > >
              > > > Not enough detail to evaluate the situation. "Normal"
              orthographic
              > > > variations (itacisms and the like) usually are not noted, nor
              are
              > > > abbreviations. Sinaiticus especially is notorious for writing -
              ai where we
              > > > expect -e, and sometimes vice versa, but this would not
              normally be noted
              > > > if it is an "obvious" scribal tendency.
              > > >
              > > > More significant variations, excepting "obvious"
              scribal "nonsense"
              > > > errors, should be included in the apparatus, or at least
              discussed
              > > > somewhere in the introduction. But sometimes things slip
              through, so it is
              > > > always safer to look at the other major editions "just to be
              sure." Or
              > > > tell the list what you are looking for and see what happens!
              You will be
              > > > on record as discovering the problem. (I actually found one of
              these in
              > > > the Sinaiticus text of Barnabas, where the Greek OU had been
              emended to QU
              > > > by adding a little stroke in the O, and editors had missed it --
              talk
              > > > about jots and tittles?)
              > > >
              > > > Bob
              > > >
              > > > > I'd like to get some feedback on this question - particularly
              from Bob
              > > > > Kraft - but also from others. Let's say I'm examining a
              facsimile of a
              > > > > well-known LXX manuscript. I find there a reading I want to
              check against
              > > > > the Gottingen (sorry, my mail client doesn't do umlauts)
              edition of the
              > > > > book in question. The reading I've found varies from that
              given in the
              > > > > Gottingen edition's critical text. At the same time, the
              reading is not
              > > > > given as a variant in the critical apparatus. What
              conclusions can I draw
              > > > > from this? Can I therefore state confidently from the fact
              that the
              > > > > reading I've found is not given as a variant in the Gottingen
              critical
              > > > > apparatus that it is otherwise unattested among LXX
              manuscript evidence?
              > > > > (yes, I *am* hoping that you won't tell me I should check
              Swete, the
              > > > > Larger Cambridge LXX, Holmes Parsons, Rahlfs' Handausgabe,
              the Aldine,
              > > > > etc, etc, etc, just to be sure :) )
              > > > >
              > > > > Thanks, James
              > > >
              > > > --
              > > > Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
              > > > 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
              > > > kraft@c...
              > > > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
            • James Miller
              ... Hello Justin. I wouldn t say I m bilingual when it comes to German, but I do ok with it (need a dictionary to clarify fine points). And, you guessed the
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 28, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, thrdjohn13 wrote:

                > Not to state the obvious, but have you waded through the introductory
                > material in the Goettingen edition? Or have you looked at the brief
                > sections on the Goettingen edition found in S. Jellicoe's "Septuatint
                > in Modern Study"? I wonder if that material would answer your
                > questions. Don't be too intimidated by the German--the vocab is all
                > pretty technical, but it's usually limited so it's not that bad (took
                > me a couple days of flipping through a dictionary to get through the
                > stuff in Isaiah and the minor prophets).

                Hello Justin. I wouldn't say I'm bilingual when it comes to German, but I
                do ok with it (need a dictionary to clarify fine points). And, you
                guessed the obvious: I *have* consulted the introductions of many of the
                Gottingen volumes - certainly for those I've been using most. Had there
                been an obvious answer there to the questions I'm posing, I think I would
                have found it. I don't consider myself infallible though, so if you can
                find an answer in the introductory material to the sorts of questions I'm
                posing, or if you just know of one offhand, I'd be happy to admit my
                oversight and learn from that information. Can you do so? If not,
                perhaps you'd like to join in my inquiry?

                > Though I don't know the textual situation of the LXX Exodus
                > specifically, I'm sure it can't be any worse than Isaiah. I believe
                > I can say for Isaiah that the critical apparatus contains the most
                > important data, though not all of it. As Bob noted, things slip
                > through the cracks (can you imagine how difficult it must be to look
                > at all those mss, let alone keep them straight in your head, and then
                > to put them in a critical apparatus? Yipes!). I have personal
                > experience trying to make an electronic version of a Goettingen
                > edition, and I've found it's extremely easy to goof up (and I have an
                > easy job compared to the edition editors).

                It was some "real" variants I ran across in a facsimile that were not
                documented in the apparatus that sort of sparked my initial interest in
                this line of questioning. I've since discovered that the editor seems not
                to have taken my manuscript evidence into account. But equally pressing
                became the question of how I can determine which manuscript(s) read with
                the critical text in places where the apparatus does not expressly
                stipulate this (i.e., the bulk of the work, it appears). As in the
                questions I posed in my earlier post, since no comment is made in the
                apparatus for text that lies between "ta" and the second "twn" in Exodus
                1:1, is it therefore to be assumed that all witnesses consulted for this
                passage (A, B, M, the recension groups O'' and C'', the manuscript groups
                b, d, f, n, s, t, x, y and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic versions) read
                exactly as the critical text reads at this point? Should I be able to
                state confidently, based on the apparatus, "if you go and pick up M and
                open to Exod 1:1, you are going to find it reads 'ta onomata twn uiwn
                israhl twn'"? I frame it as a yes or no question, but responses like
                "gee, I just don't know" or "I think doing that is unadvisable" are
                possible, too. If I need to make sweeping claims about the nature of a
                manuscript ("M has this reading in this place" or "the z group reads like
                this at this verse") I may not be able to rely on the Gottingen editions
                but may instead need to consult the manuscripts/facsimiles themselves. As
                a student of the LXX, don't you consider that an important factor to know
                about? I do. It could save us from making some serious blunders.

                > Also, have you compared the critical text and apparatus of Goettingen
                > with the Cambridge edition (which I'm sure you know is avalable
                > online at http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/) ?

                Yes, I have. I'm using the print copies, which I have taken out of my
                library, rather than the online one you provide the link for. In a
                diplomatic critical edition (like the Cambridge), there's usually not much
                question about what text the critical text is giving: it's that of a
                single manuscript, with correction of gross errors (what was corrected is
                noted immediately below the critical text). It's not quite as clear what
                text is being given in the Gottingen. It's eclectic with respect to the
                manuscript evidence. But I'm trying to find out how (if?) you can
                determine, in places in Gottingen where the apparatus does not
                specifically indicate what manuscripts read with the critical text
                provided, which manuscript(s) do(es) and which do(es) not. Maybe it
                cannot be determined - rather, the manuscripts/facsimiles themselves must
                be consulted.

                I think what I'm ultimately dealing with here is the relative
                advantages/shortcomings of eclectic vs. diplomatic approaches to rendering
                the LXX. I've of course read about these things previously, but this is
                the first time I've encountered them in a practical context. I offer my
                grapplings and gropings on it here onlist in hopes that someone else may
                benefit from them.

                James

                > --Justin D.
                >
                > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, James Miller <jamtat@m...> wrote:
                > > Let me try a real world example to add some substance to these
                > otherwise
                > > abstract questions. It's an example I've sort of chosen at random,
                > > and is fairly trivial. Maybe that will evoke some more response.
                > Take a
                > > look at the Gottingen edition for Exodus, the first page of the
                > critical
                > > text (p 65). In the first level of the apparatus, you'll see a
                > list of
                > > materials consulted for this passage: the uncial manuscripts A, B,
                > M, the
                > > recension groups O'' and C'', the manuscript groups b, d, f, n, s,
                > t, x, y
                > > and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic versions. In the second level
                > of the
                > > apparatus, under "1" (verse 1), note that "de" is added
                > after "tauta" in
                > > a couple of miniscules, as well as in a patristic source. Apart
                > from
                > > this, no other variants are noted for verse 1 until the word
                > > "eispeporeumenwn" - 6 words later. Here's how my questions would be
                > > formulated relative to this passage:
                > >
                > > 1) Am I justified in stating that all manuscripts consulted (A, B,
                > M, the
                > > recension groups O'' and C'', the manuscript groups b, d, f, n, s,
                > t, x, y
                > > and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic versions), with the exception of
                > the
                > > miniscules noted in the apparatus (53 and 664), read exactly as the
                > > critical text does between the words "tauta"
                > and "eispeporeumenwn?" In
                > > other words, that all those manuscripts read "ta onomata twn uiwn
                > israhl
                > > twn" at this point?
                > >
                > > 2) Relatedly, am I also justified in stating "no significant variant
                > > reading among A, B, M, the recension groups O'' and C'', the
                > manuscript
                > > groups b, d, f, n, s, t, x, y and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic
                > versions
                > > (apart from those seen in 53 and 664) exists at this point?" Such
                > is not
                > > stated anywhere in the Gottingen editions so far as I know, but is
                > it not
                > > inferred?
                > >
                > > 2a) Am I to presume that all pertinent LXX evidence currently
                > available
                > > has been consulted for this passage, such that the statement "no
                > known
                > > variant for the phrase 'ta onomata twn uiwn israhl twn' in Exod 1:1
                > > exists" is viable?
                > >
                > > I consider an answer to the effect "LXX studies is not at such a
                > point yet
                > > that such sweeping statements can be made" a valid and acceptable
                > one,
                > > btw. It may not be what I, or others, would like to hear, but it
                > could
                > > aid those of us dealing with LXX texts and their corresponding
                > Gottingen
                > > editions in developing sound approaches.
                > >
                > > Thanks, James
                > >
                > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, James Miller wrote:
                > >
                > > > Thanks for your input, Bob. Let's assume for the moment that I'm
                > wrong
                > > > about the variant: it's a misspelling that looks like another
                > word and I
                > > > mistakenly thought it was a real variant. The question still
                > remains
                > > > about what sort of general conclusions should be drawn from the
                > Gottingen
                > > > apparatus. Should it be presumed that, where the apparatus
                > offers no
                > > > variants, all manuscript evidence consulted reads the same as the
                > critical
                > > > text (or differs only in insignificant ways)? The apparatus is
                > obviously
                > > > meant to aid the manuscript researcher in getting a grasp on the
                > range of
                > > > evidence available - to provide positive evidence - but does it
                > serve the
                > > > related function of excluding other possibilities, i.e., providing
                > > > negative evidence (no cited variant = no significant variation in
                > known
                > > > evidence)? I hope this makes sense. Do LXX researchers use the
                > apparatus
                > > > in this way, i.e., to conclude that no noteworthy variation
                > occurs at a
                > > > certain place based on absence of a variant citation in the
                > Gottingen
                > > > apparatus?
                > > >
                > > > Thanks, James
                > > >
                > > > PS I may post more later on the variant I brought up initially
                > and ask for
                > > > further clarification on it.
                > > >
                > > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:
                > > >
                > > > > Not enough detail to evaluate the situation. "Normal"
                > orthographic
                > > > > variations (itacisms and the like) usually are not noted, nor
                > are
                > > > > abbreviations. Sinaiticus especially is notorious for writing -
                > ai where we
                > > > > expect -e, and sometimes vice versa, but this would not
                > normally be noted
                > > > > if it is an "obvious" scribal tendency.
                > > > >
                > > > > More significant variations, excepting "obvious"
                > scribal "nonsense"
                > > > > errors, should be included in the apparatus, or at least
                > discussed
                > > > > somewhere in the introduction. But sometimes things slip
                > through, so it is
                > > > > always safer to look at the other major editions "just to be
                > sure." Or
                > > > > tell the list what you are looking for and see what happens!
                > You will be
                > > > > on record as discovering the problem. (I actually found one of
                > these in
                > > > > the Sinaiticus text of Barnabas, where the Greek OU had been
                > emended to QU
                > > > > by adding a little stroke in the O, and editors had missed it --
                > talk
                > > > > about jots and tittles?)
                > > > >
                > > > > Bob
                > > > >
                > > > > > I'd like to get some feedback on this question - particularly
                > from Bob
                > > > > > Kraft - but also from others. Let's say I'm examining a
                > facsimile of a
                > > > > > well-known LXX manuscript. I find there a reading I want to
                > check against
                > > > > > the Gottingen (sorry, my mail client doesn't do umlauts)
                > edition of the
                > > > > > book in question. The reading I've found varies from that
                > given in the
                > > > > > Gottingen edition's critical text. At the same time, the
                > reading is not
                > > > > > given as a variant in the critical apparatus. What
                > conclusions can I draw
                > > > > > from this? Can I therefore state confidently from the fact
                > that the
                > > > > > reading I've found is not given as a variant in the Gottingen
                > critical
                > > > > > apparatus that it is otherwise unattested among LXX
                > manuscript evidence?
                > > > > > (yes, I *am* hoping that you won't tell me I should check
                > Swete, the
                > > > > > Larger Cambridge LXX, Holmes Parsons, Rahlfs' Handausgabe,
                > the Aldine,
                > > > > > etc, etc, etc, just to be sure :) )
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Thanks, James
                > > > >
                > > > > --
                > > > > Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                > > > > 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                > > > > kraft@c...
                > > > > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Robert Kraft
                ... Yes, barring some error in collation of the individual MSS (collected over many decades by various contributors) or an oversight in transferring the
                Message 7 of 11 , Feb 29, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Oops. Should have looked ahead. Briefly:

                  > Let me try a real world example to add some substance to these otherwise
                  > abstract questions. It's an example I've sort of chosen at random,
                  > and is fairly trivial. Maybe that will evoke some more response. Take a
                  > look at the Gottingen edition for Exodus, the first page of the critical
                  > text (p 65). In the first level of the apparatus, you'll see a list of
                  > materials consulted for this passage: the uncial manuscripts A, B, M, the
                  > recension groups O'' and C'', the manuscript groups b, d, f, n, s, t, x, y
                  > and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic versions. In the second level of the
                  > apparatus, under "1" (verse 1), note that "de" is added after "tauta" in
                  > a couple of miniscules, as well as in a patristic source. Apart from
                  > this, no other variants are noted for verse 1 until the word
                  > "eispeporeumenwn" - 6 words later. Here's how my questions would be
                  > formulated relative to this passage:

                  > 1) Am I justified in stating that all manuscripts consulted (A, B, M, the
                  > recension groups O'' and C'', the manuscript groups b, d, f, n, s, t, x, y
                  > and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic versions), with the exception of the
                  > miniscules noted in the apparatus (53 and 664), read exactly as the
                  > critical text does between the words "tauta" and "eispeporeumenwn?" In
                  > other words, that all those manuscripts read "ta onomata twn uiwn israhl
                  > twn" at this point?

                  Yes, barring some error in collation of the individual MSS (collected over
                  many decades by various contributors) or an oversight in transferring the
                  information from the various collation files to the synthetic apparatus --
                  and, of course, ignoring minor orthographic variations (itacism, etc. --
                  Israel can get spelled strange ways such as ISTRAHEL).

                  > 2) Relatedly, am I also justified in stating "no significant variant
                  > reading among A, B, M, the recension groups O'' and C'', the manuscript
                  > groups b, d, f, n, s, t, x, y and z and the Achmimic and Sahidic versions
                  > (apart from those seen in 53 and 664) exists at this point?" Such is not
                  > stated anywhere in the Gottingen editions so far as I know, but is it not
                  > inferred?

                  Yes, implied.

                  > 2a) Am I to presume that all pertinent LXX evidence currently available
                  > has been consulted for this passage, such that the statement "no known
                  > variant for the phrase 'ta onomata twn uiwn israhl twn' in Exod 1:1
                  > exists" is viable?

                  Well, available to the time the editor created the apparatus; additional
                  materials may have been discovered since. The introduction also might list
                  some "nicht kollationierte Handschriften" (uncollated MSS) known to the
                  editor but for whatever reason (usually late dates) not included; further,
                  MSS written after the 16th century are not normally consulted for such
                  editions (an arbitrary cutoff relating to the success of the printing
                  press).

                  > I consider an answer to the effect "LXX studies is not at such a point yet
                  > that such sweeping statements can be made" a valid and acceptable one,
                  > btw. It may not be what I, or others, would like to hear, but it could
                  > aid those of us dealing with LXX texts and their corresponding Gottingen
                  > editions in developing sound approaches.

                  > Thanks, James

                  These editions are very good, better than the earlier attempts, at least
                  in terms of the body of evidence gathered. But there can be mistakes, and
                  there can be other MSS not included for whatever reason. The wisdom of
                  ignoring MSS after the 16th century is questionable, but on the other
                  hand, presumably a "point of diminishing returns" is a significant
                  practical consideration in the hardcopy print world. With computer files,
                  the data collection can be open ended (some coordination is needed, of
                  course).

                  Bob

                  > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, James Miller wrote:
                  >
                  > > Thanks for your input, Bob. Let's assume for the moment that I'm wrong
                  > > about the variant: it's a misspelling that looks like another word and I
                  > > mistakenly thought it was a real variant. The question still remains
                  > > about what sort of general conclusions should be drawn from the Gottingen
                  > > apparatus. Should it be presumed that, where the apparatus offers no
                  > > variants, all manuscript evidence consulted reads the same as the critical
                  > > text (or differs only in insignificant ways)? The apparatus is obviously
                  > > meant to aid the manuscript researcher in getting a grasp on the range of
                  > > evidence available - to provide positive evidence - but does it serve the
                  > > related function of excluding other possibilities, i.e., providing
                  > > negative evidence (no cited variant = no significant variation in known
                  > > evidence)? I hope this makes sense. Do LXX researchers use the apparatus
                  > > in this way, i.e., to conclude that no noteworthy variation occurs at a
                  > > certain place based on absence of a variant citation in the Gottingen
                  > > apparatus?
                  > >
                  > > Thanks, James
                  > >
                  > > PS I may post more later on the variant I brought up initially and ask for
                  > > further clarification on it.
                  > >
                  > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > Not enough detail to evaluate the situation. "Normal" orthographic
                  > > > variations (itacisms and the like) usually are not noted, nor are
                  > > > abbreviations. Sinaiticus especially is notorious for writing -ai where we
                  > > > expect -e, and sometimes vice versa, but this would not normally be noted
                  > > > if it is an "obvious" scribal tendency.
                  > > >
                  > > > More significant variations, excepting "obvious" scribal "nonsense"
                  > > > errors, should be included in the apparatus, or at least discussed
                  > > > somewhere in the introduction. But sometimes things slip through, so it is
                  > > > always safer to look at the other major editions "just to be sure." Or
                  > > > tell the list what you are looking for and see what happens! You will be
                  > > > on record as discovering the problem. (I actually found one of these in
                  > > > the Sinaiticus text of Barnabas, where the Greek OU had been emended to QU
                  > > > by adding a little stroke in the O, and editors had missed it -- talk
                  > > > about jots and tittles?)
                  > > >
                  > > > Bob
                  > > >
                  > > > > I'd like to get some feedback on this question - particularly from Bob
                  > > > > Kraft - but also from others. Let's say I'm examining a facsimile of a
                  > > > > well-known LXX manuscript. I find there a reading I want to check against
                  > > > > the Gottingen (sorry, my mail client doesn't do umlauts) edition of the
                  > > > > book in question. The reading I've found varies from that given in the
                  > > > > Gottingen edition's critical text. At the same time, the reading is not
                  > > > > given as a variant in the critical apparatus. What conclusions can I draw
                  > > > > from this? Can I therefore state confidently from the fact that the
                  > > > > reading I've found is not given as a variant in the Gottingen critical
                  > > > > apparatus that it is otherwise unattested among LXX manuscript evidence?
                  > > > > (yes, I *am* hoping that you won't tell me I should check Swete, the
                  > > > > Larger Cambridge LXX, Holmes Parsons, Rahlfs' Handausgabe, the Aldine,
                  > > > > etc, etc, etc, just to be sure :) )
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 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
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  --
                  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
                • Chris B.
                  Where do you buy this Gottingen book?
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Where do you buy this Gottingen book?
                  • James Miller
                    ... It s not a single book, but a series. It s something like 15-20 volumes thus far. Each volume gives a reconstructed Greek text for a book, or a portion,
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Chris B. wrote:

                      > Where do you buy this Gottingen book?

                      It's not a single book, but a series. It's something like 15-20 volumes
                      thus far. Each volume gives a reconstructed Greek text for a book, or a
                      portion, of the OT. There is an extensive apparatus (which I've been
                      discussing) that takes up usually 50% or more of any given page of the
                      volumes and that lists variant readings to those the editor of the
                      respective volume has chosen for the reconstructed (critical) text. The
                      project has been ongoing for about 70 years now (! yes, my Psalmi cum Odis
                      volume, which was the first published, I believe, lists the initial
                      publication date as 1931) and is not yet complete. There is talk of
                      reissuing (doing new editions of) the early volumes already. As has been
                      discussed thus far, the introductory material is in German, as is the
                      explication of signs and abbreviations used in the apparatus. The
                      apparatus itself uses Latin and Latin abbreviations when comments are
                      required. Now, to your question. I'm guessing it could be ordered
                      through some large online retailer like amazon.com. Here's the citation
                      as it appears in my library's catalogue: Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum
                      Graecum / auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum, Göttinge:
                      Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931- (there's that pesky umlaut! the secret is,
                      after all, copy and paste! Hey, if "Gottingensis" is good enough for
                      those snooty Latins, "Gottingen" can suit just fine for us regular old
                      Americans). I suppose contacting the publisher directly would be another
                      way of getting, or finding out how to get, it.

                      James
                    • John McChesney-Young
                      ... and James Miller suggested: ... Dove Booksellers lists most or all of the volumes: http://dovebook.com/new/product.asp?code=like 936 Those in Europe might
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Chris B. wrote:
                        >
                        >> Where do you buy this Gottingen book?

                        and James Miller suggested:

                        ... I'm guessing it could be ordered
                        >through some large online retailer like amazon.com.

                        Dove Booksellers lists most or all of the volumes:

                        http://dovebook.com/new/product.asp?code=like'936'

                        Those in Europe might find ordering from Buchhandel.de easier:

                        http://www.buchhandel.de/

                        Putting this search string into the "Profisuche" window:

                        Vetus Testamentum Graecum

                        will return the series - and additionally provide
                        more extensive bibliographical data. These
                        results show that Dove's prices are extremely
                        reasonable; e.g., the Sirach volume is list 94
                        Eur in Germany and $125 from Dove, barely above
                        the inter-bank exchange rate.

                        (Please note that I have no connection to Dove Books other than as a customer.)

                        >(there's that pesky umlaut! the secret is,
                        >after all, copy and paste! Hey, if "Gottingensis" is good enough for
                        >those snooty Latins, "Gottingen" can suit just fine for us regular old
                        >Americans).

                        Umlauted letters are not part of the universally
                        understood (by computers) 7-bit character set
                        called lower ASCII, and as a result are
                        problematic when used in e-mail. Observation of
                        their attempted use on other lists suggests that
                        about 90% of recipients will see these correctly:

                        ä ë ï ö ü

                        but about 10% won't. See:

                        http://recipes.chef2chef.net/cool/data/accented-character-recipe.htm

                        for instructions for European accents for PCs and
                        Macs, but don't expect them to be visible to all
                        correspondents.

                        One solution is to use the alternates mandated
                        for Bryn Mawr Classical Review contributors:

                        http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/review.html

                        A slightly more intuitive option is to use a
                        double quotation mark after the letter, but
                        perhaps the best alternative is the long-time
                        standard of replacing an umlaut with a following
                        "e". See e.g. paragraph 5 here:

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis

                        John
                        --


                        *** John McChesney-Young ** panis@...
                        ** Berkeley, California, U.S.A. ***
                      • Michael Jay
                        ... I see all non 7-bit lower ASCII as Chinese myself.
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >
                          > Umlauted letters are not part of the universally
                          > understood (by computers) 7-bit character set
                          > called lower ASCII, and as a result are
                          > problematic when used in e-mail. Observation of
                          > their attempted use on other lists suggests that
                          > about 90% of recipients will see these correctly:


                          I see all non 7-bit lower ASCII as Chinese myself.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.