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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Feb 29 8:36 PM
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.