[tc-list] Re: Swanson's Galatians and NA
- 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"?
> -----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
> INCORRECT" when compared to his lists in the Acts-volume. Just to mention
> most stupid ones: His list of errors from UBS4 actually refers to UBS3.
> 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
> > their copy of MS 1115), and earlier posts to this list (from Munster
> > state that their original data tapes (with digital databases) are not
> > readable. So both the UBS editions, the NA editions and the ANTF
> > 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
> > you an accurate error rate but 5% seems certain.
> Gary, why do you place so much confidence in Swanson's compilation of
> from NA/UBS products in his Acts-volume? Have you double-checked his
> 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
> almost 100%. Please, note I'm not saying Swanson didn't spot errors in NA.
> simply exagerated his case to an extent that is hardly justifying to use
> work as a model of scrutinity and reliability.
> Dr. Ulrich Schmid
> You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: curt.niccum@...
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: Listsaveremail@example.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-900W@...-certr.org