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

Re: [lxx] arguments from the silence of the critical apparatus

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.