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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.