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

Old Latin/Vetus Latina

Expand Messages
  • nektarii
    It is my understanding that the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) Bible was a direct translation from the Septuagint. Is this correct? I have a friend looking for the
    Message 1 of 18 , May 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      It is my understanding that the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) Bible was a
      direct translation from the Septuagint. Is this correct?

      I have a friend looking for the Old Latin/Vetus Latina Psalter. Does
      anyone know where a copy might be found?

      Thanks.

      Nektarii
    • John Litteral
      Nekarii, At the present time, the Septuagint is the official text in the Greek Church, and the ancient Latin Versions used in the western church were made from
      Message 2 of 18 , May 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Nekarii,

        At the present time, the Septuagint is the official text in the Greek
        Church, and the ancient Latin Versions used in the western church were made
        from it; the earliest translation adopted in the Latin Church, the Vetus
        Itala, was directly from the Septuagint: the meanings adopted in it, the
        Greek names and words employed (such as: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers
        [Arithmoi], Deuteronomy), and finally, the pronunciation given to the Hebrew
        text, passed very frequently into the Itala, and from it, at times, into the
        Vulgate, which not rarely gives signs of the influence of the Vetus Itala;
        this is especially so in the Psalms , the Vulgate translation being merely
        the Vetus Itala corrected by St. Jerome according to the hexaplar text of
        the Septuagint.

        I would try all the online bookstores like amazon.com. Surely there is
        something, I would think.

        John Litteral litteral@...
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "nektarii" <nektarii@...>
        To: <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 11:56 AM
        Subject: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina


        > It is my understanding that the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) Bible was a
        > direct translation from the Septuagint. Is this correct?
        >
        > I have a friend looking for the Old Latin/Vetus Latina Psalter. Does
        > anyone know where a copy might be found?
        >
        > Thanks.
        >
        > Nektarii
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • James Miller
        ... In other words, the text of the Psalms as found in any Vulgate edition is going to be very close to the old latin - maybe as close as you can get in a
        Message 3 of 18 , May 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On Wed, 5 May 2004, John Litteral wrote:

          > Nekarii,
          >
          > At the present time, the Septuagint is the official text in the Greek
          > Church, and the ancient Latin Versions used in the western church were made
          > from it; the earliest translation adopted in the Latin Church, the Vetus
          > Itala, was directly from the Septuagint: the meanings adopted in it, the
          > Greek names and words employed (such as: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers
          > [Arithmoi], Deuteronomy), and finally, the pronunciation given to the Hebrew
          > text, passed very frequently into the Itala, and from it, at times, into the
          > Vulgate, which not rarely gives signs of the influence of the Vetus Itala;
          > this is especially so in the Psalms , the Vulgate translation being merely
          > the Vetus Itala corrected by St. Jerome according to the hexaplar text of
          > the Septuagint.

          In other words, the text of the Psalms as found in any Vulgate edition is
          going to be very close to the old latin - maybe as close as you can get
          in a version that's readily available.

          James

          >
          > I would try all the online bookstores like amazon.com. Surely there is
          > something, I would think.
          >
          > John Litteral litteral@...
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "nektarii" <nektarii@...>
          > To: <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 11:56 AM
          > Subject: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina
          >
          >
          > > It is my understanding that the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) Bible was a
          > > direct translation from the Septuagint. Is this correct?
          > >
          > > I have a friend looking for the Old Latin/Vetus Latina Psalter. Does
          > > anyone know where a copy might be found?
          > >
          > > Thanks.
          > >
          > > Nektarii
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Chris B.
          ... Jerome made two translations of the Psalms - one from the Septuagint, and one from the Hebrew. I m not sure which one is usually published. I presume the
          Message 4 of 18 , May 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            James Miller wrote:

            >In other words, the text of the Psalms as found in any Vulgate edition is
            >going to be very close to the old latin - maybe as close as you can get
            >in a version that's readily available.
            >
            >

            Jerome made two translations of the Psalms - one from the Septuagint,
            and one from the Hebrew. I'm not sure which one is usually published. I
            presume the Hebrew, but I seem to remember that the Septuagint version
            also became very popular.
          • Bernard A. Taylor
            In the Fischer/Weber et al. volume (Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem) they are printed on facing pages, the LXX on the left, and the Hebrew on the right.
            Message 5 of 18 , May 5, 2004
            • 0 Attachment

              In the Fischer/Weber et al. volume (Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem) they are printed on facing pages, the LXX on the left, and the Hebrew on the right.

               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Chris B. [mailto:chris@...]
              Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 5:46 PM
              To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina

               

              James Miller wrote:

              >In other words, the text of the Psalms as found in any Vulgate edition is
              >going to be very close to the old latin - maybe as close as you can get
              >in a version that's readily available.

              >

              Jerome made two translations of the Psalms - one from the Septuagint,
              and one from the Hebrew. I'm not sure which one is usually published. I
              presume the Hebrew, but I seem to remember that the Septuagint version
              also became very popular.



            • John Litteral
              Jerome used Origen s Hexapla, which consisted of a Hebrew Text, translitered version of the Hebrew into Greek, a Greek translation from Aquila, Symmachus,
              Message 6 of 18 , May 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Jerome used Origen's Hexapla, which consisted of a Hebrew Text, translitered version of the Hebrew into Greek, a Greek translation from Aquila, Symmachus, Septuagint, and Theodotion.  There are actually different stages in his life that he translated from Greek into Latin and Hebrew into Latin.  If you ever have the chance to study any of St. Jerome's writings do it, it is very enlightening.  He refers to these version alot in his works. 
                 
                I hope one day that Origen's Hexapla will be discovered in some way.  There is a Syriac Version of it.
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:21 PM
                Subject: RE: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina

                In the Fischer/Weber et al. volume (Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem) they are printed on facing pages, the LXX on the left, and the Hebrew on the right.

                 

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Chris B. [mailto:chris@...]
                Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 5:46 PM
                To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina

                 

                James Miller wrote:

                >In other words, the text of the Psalms as found in any Vulgate edition is
                >going to be very close to the old latin - maybe as close as you can get
                >in a version that's readily available.

                >

                Jerome made two translations of the Psalms - one from the Septuagint,
                and one from the Hebrew. I'm not sure which one is usually published. I
                presume the Hebrew, but I seem to remember that the Septuagint version
                also became very popular.




              • debbie
                http://www.drgenescott.com/stn49.htm Would anyone know where this is? Debora McCarty ... From: John Litteral To: lxx@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 05,
                Message 7 of 18 , May 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                   
                  Would anyone know where this is? 
                  Debora McCarty
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:37 PM
                  Subject: Re: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina

                  Jerome used Origen's Hexapla, which consisted of a Hebrew Text, translitered version of the Hebrew into Greek, a Greek translation from Aquila, Symmachus, Septuagint, and Theodotion.  There are actually different stages in his life that he translated from Greek into Latin and Hebrew into Latin.  If you ever have the chance to study any of St. Jerome's writings do it, it is very enlightening.  He refers to these version alot in his works. 
                   
                  I hope one day that Origen's Hexapla will be discovered in some way.  There is a Syriac Version of it.
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:21 PM
                  Subject: RE: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina

                  In the Fischer/Weber et al. volume (Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem) they are printed on facing pages, the LXX on the left, and the Hebrew on the right.

                   

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Chris B. [mailto:chris@...]
                  Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 5:46 PM
                  To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina

                   

                  James Miller wrote:

                  >In other words, the text of the Psalms as found in any Vulgate edition is
                  >going to be very close to the old latin - maybe as close as you can get
                  >in a version that's readily available.

                  >

                  Jerome made two translations of the Psalms - one from the Septuagint,
                  and one from the Hebrew. I'm not sure which one is usually published. I
                  presume the Hebrew, but I seem to remember that the Septuagint version
                  also became very popular.





                • Bernard A. Taylor
                  Check here: http://www.drgenescott.com/laucmore.htm ... From: debbie [mailto:debm@sirinet.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:44 PM To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                  Message 8 of 18 , May 5, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Check here:

                     

                    http://www.drgenescott.com/laucmore.htm

                     

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: debbie [mailto:debm@...]
                    Sent:
                    Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:44 PM
                    To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina

                     

                     

                    Would anyone know where this is? 

                    Debora McCarty

                    ----- Original Message -----

                    Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:37 PM

                    Subject: Re: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina

                     

                    Jerome used Origen's Hexapla, which consisted of a Hebrew Text, translitered version of the Hebrew into Greek, a Greek translation from Aquila, Symmachus, Septuagint, and Theodotion.  There are actually different stages in his life that he translated from Greek into Latin and Hebrew into Latin.  If you ever have the chance to study any of St. Jerome's writings do it, it is very enlightening.  He refers to these version alot in his works. 

                     

                    I hope one day that Origen's Hexapla will be discovered in some way.  There is a Syriac Version of it.

                    ----- Original Message -----

                    From: Bernard A. Taylor

                    Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:21 PM

                    Subject: RE: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina

                     

                    In the Fischer/Weber et al. volume (Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem) they are printed on facing pages, the LXX on the left, and the Hebrew on the right.

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Chris B. [mailto:chris@...]
                    Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 5:46 PM
                    To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [lxx] Old Latin/Vetus Latina

                     

                    James Miller wrote:

                    >In other words, the text of the Psalms as found in any Vulgate edition is
                    >going to be very close to the old latin - maybe as close as you can get
                    >in a version that's readily available.

                    >

                    Jerome made two translations of the Psalms - one from the Septuagint,
                    and one from the Hebrew. I'm not sure which one is usually published. I
                    presume the Hebrew, but I seem to remember that the Septuagint version
                    also became very popular.


                     




                  • James Miller
                    I d like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus at a certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut 32:41, and I m
                    Message 9 of 18 , May 15, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I'd like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus at a
                      certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut 32:41,
                      and I'm looking at page 358. Note, to begin with, that among the chief
                      texts consulted at this point are A, B, F, M, V and 848 (listed in the
                      top level of the apparatus). If you look towards the end of the
                      apparatus' entry for verse 41, you'll see that it has some like this:

                      ME ANTAPODWSW F{b}]

                      This means that it's dealing with the portion of the verse that reads ME
                      ANTAPODWSW - that's clear enough. Furthermore, the F{b} indicates that
                      this reading comes from the manuscript F, and specifically from the hand
                      of a corrector of it (in the introductory material it is noted that this
                      corrector of F wrote in miniscule script). The right square bracket
                      indicates that what follows applies to this phrase: the first entry to the
                      right - "AUTON ANTAPODWSEI Procop 2668;" indicates that Procopius, in a
                      certain work of his, has the reading AUTON ANTAPODWSEI in place of ME
                      ANTAPODWSW. Understandable. Following that reference, the apparatus has
                      "om ME B F 707 W{I}-127" (etc): in other words, the manuscripts listed
                      after "om" omit the word ME from the phrase ME ANTAPODWSW. This also
                      seems clear enough. But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
                      have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to Codex
                      A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But why is
                      it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
                      reading? And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the first
                      level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include this
                      verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they are
                      not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME? What am I missing in
                      attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
                      really meant to be that cryptic?

                      Input appreciated.

                      Thanks, James
                    • John Litteral
                      James, I have little experience with the LXX as far as all the variants for textual criticism, though I joined this forum so I can get involved with it more.
                      Message 10 of 18 , May 15, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        James,

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

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

                        http://alpha.reltech.org:8080/
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "James Miller" <jamtat@...>
                        To: <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:20 PM
                        Subject: [lxx] Goettingen apparatus issues revisited


                        > I'd like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus at a
                        > certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut 32:41,
                        > and I'm looking at page 358. Note, to begin with, that among the chief
                        > texts consulted at this point are A, B, F, M, V and 848 (listed in the
                        > top level of the apparatus). If you look towards the end of the
                        > apparatus' entry for verse 41, you'll see that it has some like this:
                        >
                        > ME ANTAPODWSW F{b}]
                        >
                        > This means that it's dealing with the portion of the verse that reads ME
                        > ANTAPODWSW - that's clear enough. Furthermore, the F{b} indicates that
                        > this reading comes from the manuscript F, and specifically from the hand
                        > of a corrector of it (in the introductory material it is noted that this
                        > corrector of F wrote in miniscule script). The right square bracket
                        > indicates that what follows applies to this phrase: the first entry to the
                        > right - "AUTON ANTAPODWSEI Procop 2668;" indicates that Procopius, in a
                        > certain work of his, has the reading AUTON ANTAPODWSEI in place of ME
                        > ANTAPODWSW. Understandable. Following that reference, the apparatus has
                        > "om ME B F 707 W{I}-127" (etc): in other words, the manuscripts listed
                        > after "om" omit the word ME from the phrase ME ANTAPODWSW. This also
                        > seems clear enough. But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
                        > have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to Codex
                        > A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But why is
                        > it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
                        > reading? And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the first
                        > level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include this
                        > verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they are
                        > not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME? What am I missing in
                        > attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
                        > really meant to be that cryptic?
                        >
                        > Input appreciated.
                        >
                        > Thanks, James
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • John Litteral
                        James, I just realized that the link that I gave you did not have the OT Sinaiticus and Vaticanus like I thought, only NT. Sorry. But it does have the Freer.
                        Message 11 of 18 , May 15, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          James,

                          I just realized that the link that I gave you did not have the OT Sinaiticus
                          and Vaticanus like I thought, only NT. Sorry. But it does have the Freer.
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "James Miller" <jamtat@...>
                          To: <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:20 PM
                          Subject: [lxx] Goettingen apparatus issues revisited


                          > I'd like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus at a
                          > certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut 32:41,
                          > and I'm looking at page 358. Note, to begin with, that among the chief
                          > texts consulted at this point are A, B, F, M, V and 848 (listed in the
                          > top level of the apparatus). If you look towards the end of the
                          > apparatus' entry for verse 41, you'll see that it has some like this:
                          >
                          > ME ANTAPODWSW F{b}]
                          >
                          > This means that it's dealing with the portion of the verse that reads ME
                          > ANTAPODWSW - that's clear enough. Furthermore, the F{b} indicates that
                          > this reading comes from the manuscript F, and specifically from the hand
                          > of a corrector of it (in the introductory material it is noted that this
                          > corrector of F wrote in miniscule script). The right square bracket
                          > indicates that what follows applies to this phrase: the first entry to the
                          > right - "AUTON ANTAPODWSEI Procop 2668;" indicates that Procopius, in a
                          > certain work of his, has the reading AUTON ANTAPODWSEI in place of ME
                          > ANTAPODWSW. Understandable. Following that reference, the apparatus has
                          > "om ME B F 707 W{I}-127" (etc): in other words, the manuscripts listed
                          > after "om" omit the word ME from the phrase ME ANTAPODWSW. This also
                          > seems clear enough. But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
                          > have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to Codex
                          > A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But why is
                          > it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
                          > reading? And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the first
                          > level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include this
                          > verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they are
                          > not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME? What am I missing in
                          > attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
                          > really meant to be that cryptic?
                          >
                          > Input appreciated.
                          >
                          > Thanks, James
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • John Litteral
                          James, May I ask where you got your version of the Goettingen Septuagint? How could I purchase one? I have intended on getting a Ralfhs LXX, but it appears
                          Message 12 of 18 , May 15, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            James,

                            May I ask where you got your version of the Goettingen Septuagint? How
                            could I purchase one? I have intended on getting a Ralfhs LXX, but it
                            appears that the Goetingen is much more what I am looking for. Could you
                            tell me a little bit about it! Thanks!

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


                            > I'd like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus at a
                            > certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut 32:41,
                            > and I'm looking at page 358. Note, to begin with, that among the chief
                            > texts consulted at this point are A, B, F, M, V and 848 (listed in the
                            > top level of the apparatus). If you look towards the end of the
                            > apparatus' entry for verse 41, you'll see that it has some like this:
                            >
                            > ME ANTAPODWSW F{b}]
                            >
                            > This means that it's dealing with the portion of the verse that reads ME
                            > ANTAPODWSW - that's clear enough. Furthermore, the F{b} indicates that
                            > this reading comes from the manuscript F, and specifically from the hand
                            > of a corrector of it (in the introductory material it is noted that this
                            > corrector of F wrote in miniscule script). The right square bracket
                            > indicates that what follows applies to this phrase: the first entry to the
                            > right - "AUTON ANTAPODWSEI Procop 2668;" indicates that Procopius, in a
                            > certain work of his, has the reading AUTON ANTAPODWSEI in place of ME
                            > ANTAPODWSW. Understandable. Following that reference, the apparatus has
                            > "om ME B F 707 W{I}-127" (etc): in other words, the manuscripts listed
                            > after "om" omit the word ME from the phrase ME ANTAPODWSW. This also
                            > seems clear enough. But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
                            > have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to Codex
                            > A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But why is
                            > it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
                            > reading? And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the first
                            > level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include this
                            > verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they are
                            > not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME? What am I missing in
                            > attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
                            > really meant to be that cryptic?
                            >
                            > Input appreciated.
                            >
                            > Thanks, James
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • James Miller
                            ... I got the version I m consulting out of my university s library. Where to purchase was discussed briefly onlist recently: if you search the archive, you
                            Message 13 of 18 , May 16, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Sat, 15 May 2004, John Litteral wrote:

                              > May I ask where you got your version of the Goettingen Septuagint? How
                              > could I purchase one? I have intended on getting a Ralfhs LXX, but it
                              > appears that the Goetingen is much more what I am looking for. Could you
                              > tell me a little bit about it! Thanks!

                              I got the version I'm consulting out of my university's library. Where to
                              purchase was discussed briefly onlist recently: if you search the archive,
                              you could probably turn up some useful information on this. That said,
                              you might be more interested in Rahlfs'. His is complete, whereas the
                              Goettingen project remains only partially done - even over 70 years after
                              it was begun! But there is some progress. You should be aware that all
                              introductory material for the Goettingen editions is in German, so if you
                              can't read some German, it might not be as useful to you as you might
                              hope. It's published in many volumes - I think 16 to date. It's roughly
                              one volume per biblical book.

                              If anyone can respond to my initial query about the point of
                              interpretation, I would be very appreciative. Could you give that a stab,
                              Bob Kraft, if you're getting these posts?

                              Thanks, James


                              > > I'd like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus at a
                              > > certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut 32:41,
                              > > and I'm looking at page 358. Note, to begin with, that among the chief
                              > > texts consulted at this point are A, B, F, M, V and 848 (listed in the
                              > > top level of the apparatus). If you look towards the end of the
                              > > apparatus' entry for verse 41, you'll see that it has some like this:
                              > >
                              > > ME ANTAPODWSW F{b}]
                              > >
                              > > This means that it's dealing with the portion of the verse that reads ME
                              > > ANTAPODWSW - that's clear enough. Furthermore, the F{b} indicates that
                              > > this reading comes from the manuscript F, and specifically from the hand
                              > > of a corrector of it (in the introductory material it is noted that this
                              > > corrector of F wrote in miniscule script). The right square bracket
                              > > indicates that what follows applies to this phrase: the first entry to the
                              > > right - "AUTON ANTAPODWSEI Procop 2668;" indicates that Procopius, in a
                              > > certain work of his, has the reading AUTON ANTAPODWSEI in place of ME
                              > > ANTAPODWSW. Understandable. Following that reference, the apparatus has
                              > > "om ME B F 707 W{I}-127" (etc): in other words, the manuscripts listed
                              > > after "om" omit the word ME from the phrase ME ANTAPODWSW. This also
                              > > seems clear enough. But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
                              > > have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to Codex
                              > > A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But why is
                              > > it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
                              > > reading? And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the first
                              > > level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include this
                              > > verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they are
                              > > not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME? What am I missing in
                              > > attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
                              > > really meant to be that cryptic?
                              > >
                              > > Input appreciated.
                              > >
                              > > Thanks, James
                            • John Litteral
                              James, Thank you for your info about the Goettingen! As far as the variant you asked about, all I know is that variants that are listed are sometimes not as
                              Message 14 of 18 , May 16, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                James,

                                Thank you for your info about the Goettingen! As far as the variant you
                                asked about, all I know is that variants that are listed are sometimes not
                                as accurate as what we hope for. And sometimes they keep you a little in
                                the dark by giving you variants that are simply not double checked. Listing
                                of variants can be improved because readings are not always reported
                                correctly and are not always consistant in their use of evidence from
                                earlier sources. Until someone does what Reuben Swanson did for the NT by
                                putting all the most important variant readings arranged in horizontal
                                lines, the OT LXX variants will always leave questions like you have.
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "James Miller" <jamtat@...>
                                To: <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 7:43 PM
                                Subject: [lxx] info on Goettingen (was Goettingen apparatus issues
                                revisited)


                                > On Sat, 15 May 2004, John Litteral wrote:
                                >
                                > > May I ask where you got your version of the Goettingen Septuagint? How
                                > > could I purchase one? I have intended on getting a Ralfhs LXX, but it
                                > > appears that the Goetingen is much more what I am looking for. Could
                                you
                                > > tell me a little bit about it! Thanks!
                                >
                                > I got the version I'm consulting out of my university's library. Where to
                                > purchase was discussed briefly onlist recently: if you search the archive,
                                > you could probably turn up some useful information on this. That said,
                                > you might be more interested in Rahlfs'. His is complete, whereas the
                                > Goettingen project remains only partially done - even over 70 years after
                                > it was begun! But there is some progress. You should be aware that all
                                > introductory material for the Goettingen editions is in German, so if you
                                > can't read some German, it might not be as useful to you as you might
                                > hope. It's published in many volumes - I think 16 to date. It's roughly
                                > one volume per biblical book.
                                >
                                > If anyone can respond to my initial query about the point of
                                > interpretation, I would be very appreciative. Could you give that a stab,
                                > Bob Kraft, if you're getting these posts?
                                >
                                > Thanks, James
                                >
                                >
                                > > > I'd like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus
                                at a
                                > > > certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut
                                32:41,
                                > > > and I'm looking at page 358. Note, to begin with, that among the
                                chief
                                > > > texts consulted at this point are A, B, F, M, V and 848 (listed in the
                                > > > top level of the apparatus). If you look towards the end of the
                                > > > apparatus' entry for verse 41, you'll see that it has some like this:
                                > > >
                                > > > ME ANTAPODWSW F{b}]
                                > > >
                                > > > This means that it's dealing with the portion of the verse that reads
                                ME
                                > > > ANTAPODWSW - that's clear enough. Furthermore, the F{b} indicates
                                that
                                > > > this reading comes from the manuscript F, and specifically from the
                                hand
                                > > > of a corrector of it (in the introductory material it is noted that
                                this
                                > > > corrector of F wrote in miniscule script). The right square bracket
                                > > > indicates that what follows applies to this phrase: the first entry to
                                the
                                > > > right - "AUTON ANTAPODWSEI Procop 2668;" indicates that Procopius, in
                                a
                                > > > certain work of his, has the reading AUTON ANTAPODWSEI in place of ME
                                > > > ANTAPODWSW. Understandable. Following that reference, the apparatus
                                has
                                > > > "om ME B F 707 W{I}-127" (etc): in other words, the manuscripts listed
                                > > > after "om" omit the word ME from the phrase ME ANTAPODWSW. This also
                                > > > seems clear enough. But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
                                > > > have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to
                                Codex
                                > > > A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But
                                why is
                                > > > it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
                                > > > reading? And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the
                                first
                                > > > level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include
                                this
                                > > > verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they
                                are
                                > > > not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME? What am I missing in
                                > > > attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
                                > > > really meant to be that cryptic?
                                > > >
                                > > > Input appreciated.
                                > > >
                                > > > Thanks, James
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • Giuseppe Regalzi
                                ... Critical editions can be divided into two groups: those with positive apparatus, and those with negative apparatus. A positive apparatus lists every
                                Message 15 of 18 , May 16, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  James Miller:

                                  > But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
                                  > have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to
                                  > Codex A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But
                                  > why is it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
                                  > reading? And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the first
                                  > level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include this
                                  > verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they
                                  > are not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME? What am I missing in
                                  > attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
                                  > really meant to be that cryptic?

                                  Critical editions can be divided into two groups: those with positive
                                  apparatus, and those with negative apparatus. A positive apparatus lists
                                  every witness, both to the reading adopted into the text and to its
                                  variants; a negative apparatus lists only the witnesses to the variant
                                  readings. What you are dealing with is apparently a negative apparatus: to
                                  know what the witnesses to the text are, just refer to the first level of
                                  the apparatus, after subtracting the witnesses to the variants.

                                  Hope this helps,
                                  Giuseppe


                                  --------------------------------------
                                  Dr Giuseppe Regalzi, DR
                                  Rome, Italy
                                  regalzi@...
                                  http://purl.org/net/regalzi/
                                  http://www.orientalisti.net/
                                • Robert Kraft
                                  Sorry, James; weekends are not good times to get quick responses from me. You can find the CATSS format of the Goettingen apparatus for this passage at
                                  Message 16 of 18 , May 16, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Sorry, James; weekends are not good times to get quick responses from me.

                                    You can find the CATSS format of the Goettingen apparatus for this passage at
                                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/text/religion/biblical/lxxvar/new/deu28-34.tav,
                                    if that is of any help. We have tried to operate word by word, rather than with
                                    phrases and combinations of words, although that sometimes invites inadvertant
                                    errors or misinterpretations.

                                    Here is the section that seems to be your main interest, with some comments
                                    added by me:

                                    <gk>@@KAI\</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                    &&3rd PsVig Varim I 22
                                    + <gk>AUTOS</> Clem I 130
                                    <gk>A)NTAPODW/SW</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                    : <gk>ANTAPODWSEI</> Procop 2668
                                    : <gk>APODWSW</> B
                                    <gk>DI/KHN</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                    <gk>TOI=S</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                    <gk>E)XQROI=S</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                    + <gk>MOU</> F{b} 58-376'-707 414 246 54'-75*(cprm) 83* 59 407 Tht II 1464
                                    {Lat}cod 100 Cant{R} Aeth Arab Arm Co Syh = MT
                                    <gk>,</>] > Ra (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                    <gk>@@KAI\</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                    <gk>TOI=S</>] > 72(|) (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                    <gk>MISOU=SI/N</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                    <gk>ME</> F{b}] > B F 707 W{I}-127 30-344 71 509 Clem I 130 {Lat}Cant{Mil} (sed
                                    hab Sixt) (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)

                                    [[it is necessary to list F(b) with the lemma because F* (the original hand in
                                    F) lacks the word ME. All other witnesses for this passage also have ME, except
                                    for those listed as lacking it (">" in the notation above)]]

                                    : <gk>AUTON</> Procop 2668

                                    [[this reading resembles what is found a few words earlier in the verse, in
                                    some witnesses]]

                                    <gk>A)NTAPODW/SW</> F{b}] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                    : <gk>ANTAPODWSEI</> Procop 2668

                                    [[virtually all witnesses have either ANTAPODWSW or ANTAPODWSEI -- see also a
                                    few words earlier in the verse for a possible source of confusion! -- except
                                    the latin cod 330 which omits most of the verse, and the three minuscules 527
                                    630 767 which do not have this entire section (see the listing of MSS in the
                                    introduction to the volume) -- the CATSS notation "(</>2)" and "(</>7)" is
                                    cryptic here, and I'll need to make it more explicit!]]

                                    <gk>:</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)

                                    > I'd like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus at a
                                    > certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut 32:41,
                                    > and I'm looking at page 358. Note, to begin with, that among the chief
                                    > texts consulted at this point are A, B, F, M, V and 848 (listed in the
                                    > top level of the apparatus). If you look towards the end of the
                                    > apparatus' entry for verse 41, you'll see that it has some like this:
                                    >
                                    > ME ANTAPODWSW F{b}]
                                    >
                                    > This means that it's dealing with the portion of the verse that reads ME
                                    > ANTAPODWSW - that's clear enough. Furthermore, the F{b} indicates that
                                    > this reading comes from the manuscript F, and specifically from the hand
                                    > of a corrector of it (in the introductory material it is noted that this
                                    > corrector of F wrote in miniscule script). The right square bracket
                                    > indicates that what follows applies to this phrase: the first entry to the
                                    > right - "AUTON ANTAPODWSEI Procop 2668;" indicates that Procopius, in a
                                    > certain work of his, has the reading AUTON ANTAPODWSEI in place of ME
                                    > ANTAPODWSW. Understandable. Following that reference, the apparatus has
                                    > "om ME B F 707 W{I}-127" (etc): in other words, the manuscripts listed
                                    > after "om" omit the word ME from the phrase ME ANTAPODWSW. This also
                                    > seems clear enough. But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
                                    > have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to Codex
                                    > A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But why is
                                    > it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
                                    > reading?

                                    The only reason to list F{b} is that it differs from F. Otherwise, read the
                                    notation to mean that all other extant MSS that have been collated for this
                                    material agree with F{b}.

                                    > And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the first
                                    > level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include this
                                    > verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they are
                                    > not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME?

                                    Correct.

                                    > What am I missing in
                                    > attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
                                    > really meant to be that cryptic?

                                    Actually, it is meant to clear up any question about the variation here
                                    between F* and F{b}! If we ever get to it in the CATSS variant data, we would
                                    create a program that makes this all explicit. But we need to finish encoding
                                    the variants first.

                                    Bob

                                    >
                                    > Input appreciated.
                                    >
                                    > Thanks, James

                                    --
                                    Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                                    227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                                    kraft@...
                                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                                  • James Miller
                                    Thanks to all, and especially to Bob Kraft, for responding to this query. It has helped me in understanding better the specialized language and communications
                                    Message 17 of 18 , May 17, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Thanks to all, and especially to Bob Kraft, for responding to this query.
                                      It has helped me in understanding better the specialized language and
                                      communications techniques of the apparatus. One further point of
                                      clarification regarding some of the apparatus' symbols in this segment.
                                      Here, the apparatus uses abbreviated Latin - "om" - to signify an
                                      omission. But there is also an alternate symbol - ">" - that gets used at
                                      times to signify omissions. My question in this regard is, why 2 ways of
                                      signifying omissions? Do the two signifiers - "om" and ">" - have some
                                      subtle differences in denotation, connotation or whatever?

                                      Thanks, James

                                      On Mon, 17 May 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:

                                      > Sorry, James; weekends are not good times to get quick responses from me.
                                      >
                                      > You can find the CATSS format of the Goettingen apparatus for this passage at
                                      > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/text/religion/biblical/lxxvar/new/deu28-34.tav,
                                      > if that is of any help. We have tried to operate word by word, rather than with
                                      > phrases and combinations of words, although that sometimes invites inadvertant
                                      > errors or misinterpretations.
                                      >
                                      > Here is the section that seems to be your main interest, with some comments
                                      > added by me:
                                      >
                                      > <gk>@@KAI\</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      > &&3rd PsVig Varim I 22
                                      > + <gk>AUTOS</> Clem I 130
                                      > <gk>A)NTAPODW/SW</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      > : <gk>ANTAPODWSEI</> Procop 2668
                                      > : <gk>APODWSW</> B
                                      > <gk>DI/KHN</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      > <gk>TOI=S</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      > <gk>E)XQROI=S</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      > + <gk>MOU</> F{b} 58-376'-707 414 246 54'-75*(cprm) 83* 59 407 Tht II 1464
                                      > {Lat}cod 100 Cant{R} Aeth Arab Arm Co Syh = MT
                                      > <gk>,</>] > Ra (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      > <gk>@@KAI\</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      > <gk>TOI=S</>] > 72(|) (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      > <gk>MISOU=SI/N</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      > <gk>ME</> F{b}] > B F 707 W{I}-127 30-344 71 509 Clem I 130 {Lat}Cant{Mil} (sed
                                      > hab Sixt) (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      >
                                      > [[it is necessary to list F(b) with the lemma because F* (the original hand in
                                      > F) lacks the word ME. All other witnesses for this passage also have ME, except
                                      > for those listed as lacking it (">" in the notation above)]]
                                      >
                                      > : <gk>AUTON</> Procop 2668
                                      >
                                      > [[this reading resembles what is found a few words earlier in the verse, in
                                      > some witnesses]]
                                      >
                                      > <gk>A)NTAPODW/SW</> F{b}] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      > : <gk>ANTAPODWSEI</> Procop 2668
                                      >
                                      > [[virtually all witnesses have either ANTAPODWSW or ANTAPODWSEI -- see also a
                                      > few words earlier in the verse for a possible source of confusion! -- except
                                      > the latin cod 330 which omits most of the verse, and the three minuscules 527
                                      > 630 767 which do not have this entire section (see the listing of MSS in the
                                      > introduction to the volume) -- the CATSS notation "(</>2)" and "(</>7)" is
                                      > cryptic here, and I'll need to make it more explicit!]]
                                      >
                                      > <gk>:</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                      >
                                      > > I'd like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus at a
                                      > > certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut 32:41,
                                      > > and I'm looking at page 358. Note, to begin with, that among the chief
                                      > > texts consulted at this point are A, B, F, M, V and 848 (listed in the
                                      > > top level of the apparatus). If you look towards the end of the
                                      > > apparatus' entry for verse 41, you'll see that it has some like this:
                                      > >
                                      > > ME ANTAPODWSW F{b}]
                                      > >
                                      > > This means that it's dealing with the portion of the verse that reads ME
                                      > > ANTAPODWSW - that's clear enough. Furthermore, the F{b} indicates that
                                      > > this reading comes from the manuscript F, and specifically from the hand
                                      > > of a corrector of it (in the introductory material it is noted that this
                                      > > corrector of F wrote in miniscule script). The right square bracket
                                      > > indicates that what follows applies to this phrase: the first entry to the
                                      > > right - "AUTON ANTAPODWSEI Procop 2668;" indicates that Procopius, in a
                                      > > certain work of his, has the reading AUTON ANTAPODWSEI in place of ME
                                      > > ANTAPODWSW. Understandable. Following that reference, the apparatus has
                                      > > "om ME B F 707 W{I}-127" (etc): in other words, the manuscripts listed
                                      > > after "om" omit the word ME from the phrase ME ANTAPODWSW. This also
                                      > > seems clear enough. But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
                                      > > have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to Codex
                                      > > A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But why is
                                      > > it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
                                      > > reading?
                                      >
                                      > The only reason to list F{b} is that it differs from F. Otherwise, read the
                                      > notation to mean that all other extant MSS that have been collated for this
                                      > material agree with F{b}.
                                      >
                                      > > And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the first
                                      > > level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include this
                                      > > verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they are
                                      > > not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME?
                                      >
                                      > Correct.
                                      >
                                      > > What am I missing in
                                      > > attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
                                      > > really meant to be that cryptic?
                                      >
                                      > Actually, it is meant to clear up any question about the variation here
                                      > between F* and F{b}! If we ever get to it in the CATSS variant data, we would
                                      > create a program that makes this all explicit. But we need to finish encoding
                                      > the variants first.
                                      >
                                      > Bob
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      > > Input appreciated.
                                      > >
                                      > > Thanks, James
                                      >
                                      > --
                                      > Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                                      > 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                                      > kraft@...
                                      > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • Robert Kraft
                                      Off the top of my head (without actually looking!), I think that the symbol is used after the presentation of a text lemma (followed by ] ), while the
                                      Message 18 of 18 , May 17, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Off the top of my head (without actually looking!), I think that the ">" symbol
                                        is used after the presentation of a text lemma (followed by "]"), while the
                                        "om" syntax appears when no lemma is stated. In any event, I'm not aware of any
                                        difference in meaning between these conventions -- they both indicate "minus"
                                        readings, where something is not found in certain witnesses (to call this
                                        "omission" begs the question of textual development, of course, and
                                        presupposes a certain starting point [base text] for recording variants).

                                        Bob

                                        >
                                        > Thanks to all, and especially to Bob Kraft, for responding to this query.
                                        > It has helped me in understanding better the specialized language and
                                        > communications techniques of the apparatus. One further point of
                                        > clarification regarding some of the apparatus' symbols in this segment.
                                        > Here, the apparatus uses abbreviated Latin - "om" - to signify an
                                        > omission. But there is also an alternate symbol - ">" - that gets used at
                                        > times to signify omissions. My question in this regard is, why 2 ways of
                                        > signifying omissions? Do the two signifiers - "om" and ">" - have some
                                        > subtle differences in denotation, connotation or whatever?
                                        >
                                        > Thanks, James
                                        >
                                        > On Mon, 17 May 2004, Robert Kraft wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > Sorry, James; weekends are not good times to get quick responses from me.
                                        > >
                                        > > You can find the CATSS format of the Goettingen apparatus for this passage at
                                        > > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/text/religion/biblical/lxxvar/new/deu28-34.tav,
                                        > > if that is of any help. We have tried to operate word by word, rather than with
                                        > > phrases and combinations of words, although that sometimes invites inadvertant
                                        > > errors or misinterpretations.
                                        > >
                                        > > Here is the section that seems to be your main interest, with some comments
                                        > > added by me:
                                        > >
                                        > > <gk>@@KAI\</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > > &&3rd PsVig Varim I 22
                                        > > + <gk>AUTOS</> Clem I 130
                                        > > <gk>A)NTAPODW/SW</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > > : <gk>ANTAPODWSEI</> Procop 2668
                                        > > : <gk>APODWSW</> B
                                        > > <gk>DI/KHN</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > > <gk>TOI=S</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > > <gk>E)XQROI=S</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > > + <gk>MOU</> F{b} 58-376'-707 414 246 54'-75*(cprm) 83* 59 407 Tht II 1464
                                        > > {Lat}cod 100 Cant{R} Aeth Arab Arm Co Syh = MT
                                        > > <gk>,</>] > Ra (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > > <gk>@@KAI\</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > > <gk>TOI=S</>] > 72(|) (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > > <gk>MISOU=SI/N</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > > <gk>ME</> F{b}] > B F 707 W{I}-127 30-344 71 509 Clem I 130 {Lat}Cant{Mil} (sed
                                        > > hab Sixt) (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > >
                                        > > [[it is necessary to list F(b) with the lemma because F* (the original hand in
                                        > > F) lacks the word ME. All other witnesses for this passage also have ME, except
                                        > > for those listed as lacking it (">" in the notation above)]]
                                        > >
                                        > > : <gk>AUTON</> Procop 2668
                                        > >
                                        > > [[this reading resembles what is found a few words earlier in the verse, in
                                        > > some witnesses]]
                                        > >
                                        > > <gk>A)NTAPODW/SW</> F{b}] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > > : <gk>ANTAPODWSEI</> Procop 2668
                                        > >
                                        > > [[virtually all witnesses have either ANTAPODWSW or ANTAPODWSEI -- see also a
                                        > > few words earlier in the verse for a possible source of confusion! -- except
                                        > > the latin cod 330 which omits most of the verse, and the three minuscules 527
                                        > > 630 767 which do not have this entire section (see the listing of MSS in the
                                        > > introduction to the volume) -- the CATSS notation "(</>2)" and "(</>7)" is
                                        > > cryptic here, and I'll need to make it more explicit!]]
                                        > >
                                        > > <gk>:</>] > (</>2){Lat}cod 330(</>2) (</>7)527 630 767(</>7)
                                        > >
                                        > > > I'd like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus at a
                                        > > > certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut 32:41,
                                        > > > and I'm looking at page 358. Note, to begin with, that among the chief
                                        > > > texts consulted at this point are A, B, F, M, V and 848 (listed in the
                                        > > > top level of the apparatus). If you look towards the end of the
                                        > > > apparatus' entry for verse 41, you'll see that it has some like this:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > ME ANTAPODWSW F{b}]
                                        > > >
                                        > > > This means that it's dealing with the portion of the verse that reads ME
                                        > > > ANTAPODWSW - that's clear enough. Furthermore, the F{b} indicates that
                                        > > > this reading comes from the manuscript F, and specifically from the hand
                                        > > > of a corrector of it (in the introductory material it is noted that this
                                        > > > corrector of F wrote in miniscule script). The right square bracket
                                        > > > indicates that what follows applies to this phrase: the first entry to the
                                        > > > right - "AUTON ANTAPODWSEI Procop 2668;" indicates that Procopius, in a
                                        > > > certain work of his, has the reading AUTON ANTAPODWSEI in place of ME
                                        > > > ANTAPODWSW. Understandable. Following that reference, the apparatus has
                                        > > > "om ME B F 707 W{I}-127" (etc): in other words, the manuscripts listed
                                        > > > after "om" omit the word ME from the phrase ME ANTAPODWSW. This also
                                        > > > seems clear enough. But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
                                        > > > have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to Codex
                                        > > > A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But why is
                                        > > > it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
                                        > > > reading?
                                        > >
                                        > > The only reason to list F{b} is that it differs from F. Otherwise, read the
                                        > > notation to mean that all other extant MSS that have been collated for this
                                        > > material agree with F{b}.
                                        > >
                                        > > > And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the first
                                        > > > level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include this
                                        > > > verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they are
                                        > > > not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME?
                                        > >
                                        > > Correct.
                                        > >
                                        > > > What am I missing in
                                        > > > attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
                                        > > > really meant to be that cryptic?
                                        > >
                                        > > Actually, it is meant to clear up any question about the variation here
                                        > > between F* and F{b}! If we ever get to it in the CATSS variant data, we would
                                        > > create a program that makes this all explicit. But we need to finish encoding
                                        > > the variants first.
                                        > >
                                        > > Bob
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Input appreciated.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Thanks, James
                                        > >
                                        > > --
                                        > > Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                                        > > 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                                        > > kraft@...
                                        > > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > 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
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.