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

[tc-list] Re: Swanson's Galatians and NA

Expand Messages
  • Mr. Gary S. Dykes
    W. 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
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 10, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      W. 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
      forget
      that NA is only a "hand-edition"! Swanson has 88 pages for Galatians but
      NA
      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
      by
      accident. I was under the impression that "consistenly cited witnesses"
      are
      ALWAYS cited?


      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
      accept them.

      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/
      Contributions accepted

      ---
      You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: Listsaver-of-tc-list@egroups.com
      To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-900W@...-certr.org
    • Wieland Willker
      ... I never stated that I ve found errors in Swanson s group-a. Why do you think so? I just said that I do not consider his group-a listings really NA-errors.
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 11, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Gary Dykes wrote:
        > 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
        > accept them.

        I never stated that I've found errors in Swanson's group-a. Why do you think
        so? I just said that I do not consider his group-a listings really
        NA-errors. They are omissions of witnesses in NA and I agree that this is
        inconsistent. But I do not consider this a REAL error. An error ( for me) is
        only a wrongly cited witness (group-d listings).

        Best wishes
        Wieland
        ---------------
        mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie


        ---
        You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: Listsaver-of-tc-list@egroups.com
        To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-900W@...-certr.org
      • U.B.Schmid
        Is Swanson s error list of the NA/UBS products from his edition of Gal electronically available? I don t have the copy here at hand and would prefer to see the
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 11, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Is Swanson's error list of the NA/UBS products from his edition of Gal
          electronically available? I don't have the copy here at hand and would prefer to
          see the data on my own before publicly interacting.

          BTW-- I hope Swanson's new lists contain fewer items that are "MISLEADING AND
          INCORRECT" when compared to his lists in the Acts-volume. Just to mention the
          most stupid ones: His list of errors from UBS4 actually refers to UBS3. Swanson
          gives readings from H (014) in his error list of NA27, but the manuscript is not
          found in the NA witness list for Acts. Moreover, H (014) is supplemented at Acts
          1,1-5,28 by a 15./16. cent. hand, yet Swanson makes no distinction.

          Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote in part:

          > 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.

          Gary, why do you place so much confidence in Swanson's compilation of errors
          from NA/UBS products in his Acts-volume? Have you double-checked his lists?
          What error rate in Swanson's lists would you tolerate? If I would judge
          Swanson's work by the UBS4 error list in Acts, I could conclude that he missed
          almost 100%. Please, note I'm not saying Swanson didn't spot errors in NA. He
          simply exagerated his case to an extent that is hardly justifying to use his
          work as a model of scrutinity and reliability.

          ------------------------------------------
          Dr. Ulrich Schmid
          U.B.Schmid@...


          ---
          You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: Listsaver-of-tc-list@egroups.com
          To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-900W@...-certr.org
        • Curt Niccum
          I also found Swanson s transcriptions and list of NA/UBS errors in Acts slightly annoying with respect to D (05). Overall I find his work beneficial and laud
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 11, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            I also found Swanson's transcriptions and list of NA/UBS errors in Acts
            slightly annoying with respect to D (05). Overall I find his work beneficial
            and laud his efforts to transcribe what currently exists of a manuscript. On
            the other hand, in those cases where we have multiple transcriptions of
            previously existing portions of a witness, it would seem useful to include
            that text (even if in a differing font to make a distinction between that
            which was personally collated and that which relies upon the earlier
            observations of others). (See for example 21:16 for D. The same could apply
            to other manuscripts suffering from any type of damage such as 33.) I would
            have difficulty labeling the attention rightly paid to the work of previous
            generations as "misleading and incorrect." Many of the other differences
            between Swanson's transcriptions and those of NA/UBS are due to differing
            philosophies about how material should be presented. I wonder whether these
            also warrant the judgmental categorization. Could they not all be listed
            merely as "differences between apparatus"?

            Curt

            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: U.B.Schmid@... [SMTP:U.B.Schmid@...]
            > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 7:01 AM
            > To: TC-List
            > Subject: [tc-list] Re: Swanson's Galatians and NA
            >
            > Is Swanson's error list of the NA/UBS products from his edition of Gal
            > electronically available? I don't have the copy here at hand and would
            > prefer to
            > see the data on my own before publicly interacting.
            >
            > BTW-- I hope Swanson's new lists contain fewer items that are "MISLEADING
            > AND
            > INCORRECT" when compared to his lists in the Acts-volume. Just to mention
            > the
            > most stupid ones: His list of errors from UBS4 actually refers to UBS3.
            > Swanson
            > gives readings from H (014) in his error list of NA27, but the manuscript
            > is not
            > found in the NA witness list for Acts. Moreover, H (014) is supplemented
            > at Acts
            > 1,1-5,28 by a 15./16. cent. hand, yet Swanson makes no distinction.
            >
            > Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote in part:
            >
            > > 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.
            >
            > Gary, why do you place so much confidence in Swanson's compilation of
            > errors
            > from NA/UBS products in his Acts-volume? Have you double-checked his
            > lists?
            > What error rate in Swanson's lists would you tolerate? If I would judge
            > Swanson's work by the UBS4 error list in Acts, I could conclude that he
            > missed
            > almost 100%. Please, note I'm not saying Swanson didn't spot errors in NA.
            > He
            > simply exagerated his case to an extent that is hardly justifying to use
            > his
            > work as a model of scrutinity and reliability.
            >
            > ------------------------------------------
            > Dr. Ulrich Schmid
            > U.B.Schmid@...
            >
            >
            > ---
            > You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: curt.niccum@...
            > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
            > leave-tc-list-900W@...-certr.org

            ---
            You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: Listsaver-of-tc-list@egroups.com
            To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-900W@...-certr.org
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.