8437[tc-list] Re: Swanson's Galatians and NA
- Apr 10, 2000W. Wilker wrote in part:
My (minor) criticism has to do with what Swanson calls "errors" in
Nestle-Aland. He finds a lot of things missing in NA, but he seems to
that NA is only a "hand-edition"! Swanson has 88 pages for Galatians but
has only 11.
In an appendix Swanson compares on 33 pages his edition with NA. Of course
he finds many differences, mainly omissions in NA.
He has 5 categories:
a) "consistenly cited witnesses" not cited for this particular reading
b) MSS never cited in NA not belonging to Maj.
c) MSS never cited in NA belonging to Maj.
d) MSS cited in error by NA
e) other variants not cited by NA
Of these only things listed under d) are really errors (c. 40 entries).
Nevertheless 4 errors per NA page (if Swanson is always correct).
b) and c) entries are no errors. The editors of NA decided not to include
these MSS in the edition. Of course one can discuss if this was a wise
decision but these are not errors.
The listings under a) are omissions. I am not sure if this is intended or
accident. I was under the impression that "consistenly cited witnesses"
My REPLY (DYKES)
Glad you finally got your copy. Though the William Carey University has the
entire set for less than what Bibal charges (though Bibal has a lower price
for certain individual volumes).
Swanson's error list was perhaps not understood by you. The NA27th edition
claims to "Consistently Cite" a certain group of MSS in its apparatus, see
page 60* of the NA27. Even though it is just a "hand book" they do make
this erroneous claim, and they cite "consistently" only a few (FEW)
witnesses, and they fail miserably at this!
Reuben found that this is not true (their consistency) and demonstrated
many places where (for some unknown reason) the NA27 edition failed to cite
a "Consistenly Cited Witness". When the MS(S) in question are not cited,
this leads the reader to suppose that the MS does not support the variant.
HENCE, this is a true error.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to demonstrate a few of these errors you
found in Swanson's group "a". Until I can examine your claims I cannot
I know where Reuben got his MS information. I supply him with much
material. (Films, papyri, readings, etc.). He does not list explicitely the
type of source as you pointed out. NOR does the NA editions or the UBS
editions, nor practically any other edition (in my work on Corinthians -- I
do) [I suppose somewhere an edition may do this, which I am forgetful of].
Why should Reuben supply this, when all others do not? In your
criticism you singled him out while ignoring the labors of others (notable
the NA editions).
The NA editions and the UBS editions, and the ANTF use films and prior
collations. They even rely (apparently in some instances) upon Von Soden
(per a letter to me). Some of the films at Munster are very poor (such as
their copy of MS 1115), and earlier posts to this list (from Munster folks)
state that their original data tapes (with digital databases) are not
readable. So both the UBS editions, the NA editions and the ANTF editions
are corrupt. In my research and as Reuben shows (especailly in Acts and
Galatians) too many errors exist in these works. I cannot at this time give
you an accurate error rate but 5% seems certain.
Most users do not know which readings in these works are in error or not?
Many cannot or will not test the works (such as D. C. Parker, in his review
of an ANTF volume). They need desperately to be corrected, OR replaced. I
feel that Reuben's work is replacing these corrupt handbooks. Reuben may
not use as many witnesses, but his work is much much more dependable,
easier to use, and currently much cheaper.
I await your posting of Reuben type "a" error citations.
adelpoj sou en Xristw.
Mr. Gary S. Dykes
Swanson's Errata List -- http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/yhwh3in1/
You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: Listsaveremail@example.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-900W@...-certr.org
- Next post in topic >>