Re: [textualcriticism] SNTS 2005 paper on INTF/IGNTP colaboration
- In my last e-mail substitute 'Verbum Project' for 'Principio Project'.
Sleeping at the computer again...
At 08:25 30/08/2005 +0200, you wrote:
>"THE JOINT IGNTP/INTF EDITIO CRITICA MAIOR OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN: ITS------------
>GOALS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP"
>PAPER FOR SNTS 2005, HALLE, Y K. WACHTEL AND D.C. PARKER
>The paper describes the cooperation of IGNTP and INTF on the gospel of
>John. What was new to me is that they will not only produce the T&T volume
>but also the ECM volume! That's great!
>But it's still some time away: "we are looking
>currently at an approximately eight-year period."
>They also write:
>"There are currently no recent critical editions of the versions included
>in the ECM: the Latin, Syriac and Coptic."
>I don't know about the Syriac and Coptic, but isn't there the Itala
>edition by Juelicher, Aland et al.? What's wrong with it?
>They also coin, quite needlessly, another term for the archetype of the
>tradition. They call it "initial text".
>They say that Jo 5:3b-4 and 7:53-8:11 is "unrelated to the initial text".
>... "It surely has to be included somehow".
>Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> * Visit your group
> "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism>textualcriticism" on the web.
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
- Listers may be interested to know that NovTest 2005/3 is available
electronically (subscription only), with two articles on TC, as well as
many reviews with bearing on TC:
The Greek of Codex Vaticanus in the Second Gospel and Marcan Greek
Voelz, James W.
Novum Testamentum, Volume 47, Number 3, 2005, pp. 209-249 (41)
This study seeks to describe in some detail the characteristics of the
Greek of ms. B, Vaticanus, in the Gospel of Mark (including features of
orthography, vocabulary, morphology, and syntax) and then to compare them
to the characteristics of the Greek of that gospel, as determined on the
basis of a much greater range of ms. evidence. It finds that the
relationship between ms. B's characteristics and those of Mark is complex;
the two are largely but not completely congruent. Of special interest is
the fact that the Greek of both exhibits a great "shift" in the latter
half of the book; from chapter 8 onward it is more "Hellenic," new
linguistic patterns emerge, and inconsistencies of usage begin to make a
Dimitrios Doukas and the Accentuation of the New Testament Text of the
Lee, John A.L.
Novum Testamentum, Volume 47, Number 3, 2005, pp. 250-290 (41)
This paper begins by pointing out the previously unobserved fact that the
accentuation of the Greek New Testament text of the Complutensian Polyglot
(1514) follows a monotonic system almost exactly the same as that now in
use in Modern Greek. Next is considered the information on the matter in
the preface to the volume. The Greek text of the preface is presented with
English translation and notes. A number of misconceptions are dealt with.
The question of the identity of the inventor of the accentuation is then
explored in full. The evidence in favour of Dimitrios Doukas as editor of
the text and author of the preface is summarised and augmented. The paper
then argues that it was he who conceived and applied the system of
accentuation. Possible other sources of the idea are considered and
eliminated. Finally the question of who might have been behind the initial
intention to print an unaccented text is discussed.
- At 08:25 AM 8/30/2005 +0200, Wieland Willker wrote:
>They also coin, quite needlessly, another term for the archetype of theThe paper claims that their "initial text" is different from the
>tradition. They call it "initial text".
archetype of the tradition, but it is not quite clear to me how.
One of their reasons given for this distinction is:
|In traditional Lachmannian stemmatics, what happened to
|the text before the archetype was written was not the
However, in my understanding of stemmatics, what happened
before the archetype was written is certainly the editor's
business and, in fact, two of the four phases of stemmatics--
examinatio and divinatio--are expressly devoted to determining
the pre-archetypal text.
Perhaps a valid reason to avoid the term "archetype" is to
avoid its implications, especially that the "archetype"
represents the most recent common ancestor of the entire
textual tradition. If their techniques do not reconstruct
or even approximate such an entity, then it would be
certainly appropriate *not* to term the text that they do
generate as an "archetype."
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481