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

Re: New NA and UBS

Expand Messages
  • yennifmit
    Dear Wieland, Thank you for raising this topic. I have a particular desire concerning the apparatus information contained in the NA and UBS editions: I would
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 14, 2008
      Dear Wieland,

      Thank you for raising this topic.

      I have a particular desire concerning the apparatus information
      contained in the NA and UBS editions: I would like to see the
      apparatus of each made available in an electronic form to facilitate
      further analysis.

      In my opinion, the most useful form is a data matrix that for every
      variation unit lists the state of each witness that is included in the
      apparatus.

      E.g.

      V1 V2 ... Vn
      W1 1 2 ... 2
      W2 NA 3 ... 1
      ... ... ... ... ...
      Wn 2 1 ... NA

      Here, V1, V2 etc. are variation units and W1, W2 etc. are witnesses.
      Numerals represent states of the text within the variation units. (A
      key can be provided to show what text each numeral represents.) 'NA'
      means that a witness is lacunose or has an uncertain reading at the
      variation unit in question.

      More details on data matrices and how to encode an apparatus can be
      found in chapter two of my evolving book:

      http://purl.org/tfinney/NTText/book/index.html

      An existing feature of the UBS apparatus is particularly helpful in
      this respect: each apparatus entry lists all of the witnesses covered
      by the apparatus unless the reading of a witness cannot be determined
      for that variation unit. The existing NA apparatus is more difficult
      to use for this purpose because some witnesses are not always
      explicitly listed, meaning extra work has to be done to determine
      whether a "constant" witness which is not listed in an apparatus entry
      is subsumed under a group category (e.g. f1, f13, M) or is lacunose.

      Best,

      Tim Finney

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker"
      <willker@...> wrote:
      >
      > According to the reports form the latest SBL in 2007 in San Diego,
      there will be a new NA28 in 2009.
      > Also works are in progress for a new UBS5 in 2014.
      >
      > If I understand correctly the NA28 will be basically the same as
      NA27, but with the insights from ECM (catholic epistles) added (text
      and apparatus).
      >
      > What are your thoughts on this?
      >
      > What can be improved on NA?
      > What can be improved on the UBS-GNT?
      >
      > Do you think that we still need those two different editions?
      > Or other ones?
      >
      >
      > In my commentary I have some comments on this:
      > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Suggestions-NA-text.pdf
      >
      > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Suggestions-NA-apparatus.pdf
      >
      >
      > Best wishes
      > Wieland
      > <><
      > ------------------------------------------------
      > Dr. Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      > mailto:willker@...
      > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      > Textcritical commentary:
      > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
      >
    • Peter
      Me, too: Thanks for the question. You asked whether the two editions UBS and NA should remain separate and I think both could remain good for students. The
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 15, 2008
        Me, too: Thanks for the question.
        You asked whether the two editions UBS and NA should remain separate
        and I think both could remain good for students. The diglot editions,
        which I use in NA (for New Vulgate), are probably better done in UBS.
        The NA could stick to Greek for the most part, but both will sell, so
        let it be, I guess.
        To cut down the NA edition:
        1. The appendix of critical editions -- I always consult it to see
        who agreed with me: THSMVBN -- really isn't necessary. If they keep
        the appendix, a gentle critique of the editors should steer the
        student to why we consult it: A bio of each is needed, saying
        Tischendorf championed this and Hort that; Weiss viewed one way or
        other and then Weymouth, but both ended up in Nestle. The Catholics
        were building on von Soden, like Merk, or are viewed as close to the
        Byzantine text. Et cetera. Include them only as long as it matters
        (but it matters less now).
        2. Keep text changes to a minimum. We've all learned to follow the
        apparatus in cases of doubt, and you need to convincingly explain
        everything a Committee dares to change if the student has suspicions
        built on defending their own tradition. If the UBS stays the same,
        that's enough: just add the new note {E} (for Error !) in the
        apparatus if the NA must be updated to correct clear errors.
        3. The Vulgates of Sixtus and Clement are modern and should no
        longer be cited as witnesses being consulted for the text. Just vg or
        lat, vgMSS and vgST or vgWW are enough. Let the Latin editions supply
        the Sixtine or Clementine for the interested student.
        4. Don't convene a new UBS Committee for text changes without making
        it representative. I admit, we Catholics have gotten used to the fact
        that the denominations were doing the text criticism way before us.
        But there is still ecumenical interest in having the Orthodox,
        especially the Moscow patriarchate, agreeable to the Committee makeup.
        -- That's cautions on including too much.

        Now for how I would include more:
        5. A popular name index ! Students can't look at numbers and
        letters for very long without getting lost, and all of us who read
        these know these codices by names. (How did UBS miss this?) Codex
        Sinaiticus and Vaticanus should somewhere be identified as such. In
        my first NA, I pencilled in all the names in the tabula codicum, but
        it can be done in a double alphabetical and symbol index.
        6. As mentioned in No. 1 above, personalities should have bios. Name
        the Committee contributors, the school, if their NT criticism
        contribution is patristics or Semitic languages, UBS oversight,
        Byzantine text history, form criticism or redaction, etc. Same with
        THSMVBN if they're still included. (This means finding a nice way of
        revealing what we all think may be their bias, since when they turn
        up as minority of the Committee or whatever we think twice when it's
        unexpected.)
        7. The shyness of NA toward including syPAL or Diatessaron may be
        understandable. Whenever it matters, however, they should be
        included, with the Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopian suspicions when we
        can't be sure of the Greek base they reflect. Give their dates either
        way (Tatian is given no dates in NA). Where syPAL is nonByz and could
        confirm some incomplete Syriac tradition, include it. If you doubt
        them all, say so in the intro, use them sparingly, or name a specific
        MS., or always in parens (syPALms?) -- whatever. Find an honest way.
        The same with actual stages of Byzantine, like clusters found by von
        Soden: maybe spell out a Pi or Omega or whatever gratuitously when it
        seems to matter. (We sometimes think this way when we see "Caesarean"
        witnesses, that they get more or less critical or political in
        stages.)
        8. Correctors are ambiguous in NA27. Try to tie down an original
        diorthotes if known (I'm a proofreader, and I know it can be more
        important than the original copyist). I know what to expect from the
        source of a Sinaiticus-2 or Ephraemi-3, but otherwise a corrector
        that names a group is only a suspicion. If the original corrector
        really is known only sometimes, keep the 1,2,3 for ranges, but then
        add a superscript letter like "a" or "b" when they matter and are
        known. (If needed, explain how a systematic corrector may have a
        marked text (like Vaticanus umlauts) and select those passages to
        correct, unlike an owner who alters as he reads.)
        9. Use the script "l" for lectionaries, not the italic in NA27
        apparatus. It looks more cool.
        -- Peter F.X. Gibson

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker"
        <willker@...> wrote:
        >
        > According to the reports from the latest SBL in 2007 in San Diego,
        there will be a new NA28 in 2009.
        > Also works are in progress for a new UBS5 in 2014.
        >
        > If I understand correctly the NA28 will be basically the same as
        NA27, but with the insights from ECM (catholic epistles) added (text
        and apparatus).
        >
        > What are your thoughts on this?
        >
        > What can be improved on NA?
        > What can be improved on the UBS-GNT?
        >
        > Do you think that we still need those two different editions?
        > Or other ones?
        >
        >
        > In my commentary I have some comments on this:
        > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Suggestions-NA-text.pdf
        >
        > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Suggestions-NA-apparatus.pdf
        >
        >
        > Best wishes
        > Wieland
        > <><
        > ------------------------------------------------
        > Dr. Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        > mailto:willker@...
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        > Textcritical commentary:
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
        >
      • Peter
        I have to revise my wish list. This is therefore an exercise in self-correction. I should distribute the suggestions thus: A. NA28 Admit text changes. Omit the
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 16, 2008
          I have to revise my wish list.
          This is therefore an exercise in self-correction.
          I should distribute the suggestions thus:

          A. NA28
          Admit text changes.
          Omit the dagger on NA25 readings.
          Omit Sixtine and Clementine Vulgate.
          Include original corrector "a" when known.
          Include sy-pal or Diatessaron reading when of known relevance.
          Use script ell, not ital, for Lectionary.

          B. UBS
          Index popular names of codices.
          Diglot with New Vulgate here rather than NA-28.
          Note NA text changes in apparatus.
          Move the modern versions THSMVBN appendix here, with bios.
          Bios of Committee members.

          -- Pete
          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Peter" <peter_fx@...> wrote:
          >
          > Me, too: Thanks for the question.
          > You asked whether the two editions UBS and NA should remain
          separate
          > and I think both could remain good for students. The diglot
          editions,
          > which I use in NA (for New Vulgate), are probably better done in
          UBS.
          > The NA could stick to Greek for the most part, but both will sell,
          so
          > let it be, I guess.
          > To cut down the NA edition:
          > 1. The appendix of critical editions -- I always consult it to see
          > who agreed with me: THSMVBN -- really isn't necessary. If they keep
          > the appendix, a gentle critique of the editors should steer the
          > student to why we consult it: A bio of each is needed, saying
          > Tischendorf championed this and Hort that; Weiss viewed one way or
          > other and then Weymouth, but both ended up in Nestle. The Catholics
          > were building on von Soden, like Merk, or are viewed as close to
          the
          > Byzantine text. Et cetera. Include them only as long as it matters
          > (but it matters less now).
          > 2. Keep text changes to a minimum. We've all learned to follow the
          > apparatus in cases of doubt, and you need to convincingly explain
          > everything a Committee dares to change if the student has
          suspicions
          > built on defending their own tradition. If the UBS stays the same,
          > that's enough: just add the new note {E} (for Error !) in the
          > apparatus if the NA must be updated to correct clear errors.
          > 3. The Vulgates of Sixtus and Clement are modern and should no
          > longer be cited as witnesses being consulted for the text. Just vg
          or
          > lat, vgMSS and vgST or vgWW are enough. Let the Latin editions
          supply
          > the Sixtine or Clementine for the interested student.
          > 4. Don't convene a new UBS Committee for text changes without
          making
          > it representative. I admit, we Catholics have gotten used to the
          fact
          > that the denominations were doing the text criticism way before us.
          > But there is still ecumenical interest in having the Orthodox,
          > especially the Moscow patriarchate, agreeable to the Committee
          makeup.
          > -- That's cautions on including too much.
          >
          > Now for how I would include more:
          > 5. A popular name index ! Students can't look at numbers and
          > letters for very long without getting lost, and all of us who read
          > these know these codices by names. (How did UBS miss this?) Codex
          > Sinaiticus and Vaticanus should somewhere be identified as such. In
          > my first NA, I pencilled in all the names in the tabula codicum,
          but
          > it can be done in a double alphabetical and symbol index.
          > 6. As mentioned in No. 1 above, personalities should have bios.
          Name
          > the Committee contributors, the school, if their NT criticism
          > contribution is patristics or Semitic languages, UBS oversight,
          > Byzantine text history, form criticism or redaction, etc. Same with
          > THSMVBN if they're still included. (This means finding a nice way
          of
          > revealing what we all think may be their bias, since when they turn
          > up as minority of the Committee or whatever we think twice when
          it's
          > unexpected.)
          > 7. The shyness of NA toward including syPAL or Diatessaron may be
          > understandable. Whenever it matters, however, they should be
          > included, with the Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopian suspicions when we
          > can't be sure of the Greek base they reflect. Give their dates
          either
          > way (Tatian is given no dates in NA). Where syPAL is nonByz and
          could
          > confirm some incomplete Syriac tradition, include it. If you doubt
          > them all, say so in the intro, use them sparingly, or name a
          specific
          > MS., or always in parens (syPALms?) -- whatever. Find an honest
          way.
          > The same with actual stages of Byzantine, like clusters found by
          von
          > Soden: maybe spell out a Pi or Omega or whatever gratuitously when
          it
          > seems to matter. (We sometimes think this way when we
          see "Caesarean"
          > witnesses, that they get more or less critical or political in
          > stages.)
          > 8. Correctors are ambiguous in NA27. Try to tie down an original
          > diorthotes if known (I'm a proofreader, and I know it can be more
          > important than the original copyist). I know what to expect from
          the
          > source of a Sinaiticus-2 or Ephraemi-3, but otherwise a corrector
          > that names a group is only a suspicion. If the original corrector
          > really is known only sometimes, keep the 1,2,3 for ranges, but then
          > add a superscript letter like "a" or "b" when they matter and are
          > known. (If needed, explain how a systematic corrector may have a
          > marked text (like Vaticanus umlauts) and select those passages to
          > correct, unlike an owner who alters as he reads.)
          > 9. Use the script "l" for lectionaries, not the italic in NA27
          > apparatus. It looks more cool.
          > -- Peter F.X. Gibson
          >
          > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker"
          > <willker@> wrote:
          > >
          > > According to the reports from the latest SBL in 2007 in San
          Diego,
          > there will be a new NA28 in 2009.
          > > Also works are in progress for a new UBS5 in 2014.
          > >
          > > If I understand correctly the NA28 will be basically the same as
          > NA27, but with the insights from ECM (catholic epistles) added
          (text
          > and apparatus).
          > >
          > > What are your thoughts on this?
          > >
          > > What can be improved on NA?
          > > What can be improved on the UBS-GNT?
          > >
          > > Do you think that we still need those two different editions?
          > > Or other ones?
          > >
          > >
          > > In my commentary I have some comments on this:
          > > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Suggestions-NA-text.pdf
          > >
          > > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Suggestions-NA-
          apparatus.pdf
          > >
          > >
          > > Best wishes
          > > Wieland
          > > <><
          > > ------------------------------------------------
          > > Dr. Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          > > mailto:willker@
          > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          > > Textcritical commentary:
          > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
          > >
          >
        • James Snapp, Jr.
          Dear Wieland: An improved apparatus will be a good thing, of course. ... (1) Represent all correctors individually. (2) Include more patristic citations,
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 20, 2008
            Dear Wieland:

            An improved apparatus will be a good thing, of course.

            >> What can be improved on NA? <<

            (1) Represent all correctors individually.
            (2) Include more patristic citations, with an exhaustive index
            stating precisely where each citation/usage is found. Include, where
            feasible, the composition-date of the pertinent work.
            (3) Using Swanson, the corrections to Swanson, and whatever
            corrections J. Keith Elliott & company can provide, fix all typo's
            and miscitations.
            (4) Stop using 2427.
            (5) Stop using "Clement-to-Theodore."
            (6) Always indicate where the text is on cancel-sheets.
            (7) Include more Byzantine readings, especially where the Byzantine
            reading appears to be non-Alexandrian and non-Western.
            (8) Indicate the presence of B-umlauts.
            (9) Reformulate f-1 readings to reflect 1582 as the definitive
            member, and adjust accordingly (so that if 1 and 1582 agree, *they*
            have the f-1 reading, even if all other members diverge).
            (10) Print nomina sacra, not the spelled-out names, where all Greek
            witnesses have nomina sacra. Note where a witness has spelled out a
            N.S. that is normally contracted.

            What can be improved on the UBS-GNT?

            (1-10) Everything just listed for N-A.
            (11) Add comment on Mt. 5:27, change "V" to "VI" in the chapter-
            reference to Origen's Commentary on John on p. 23, add comment on Mt.
            9:13b, 9:35b, 12:35, 13:51, 14:33, 15:8, 16:4, 17:4, 17:11, 18:19,
            19:20, 20:6, 20:7b, 22:13, 23:3, 23:8, 24:7, 24:42, 24:48, 26:3,
            26:59, 26:61, 27:42, 28:2, Mark 1:10 (eis/en), 2:2 (euqews), 2:17b,
            3:5b, 3:15, 5:3, 6:11b, 6:36b, adopt "kai nhsteia" at 9:29 and change
            comment accordingly; add comment at Mk. 6:44 (wsei), 9:40, 10:29
            (maybe place a bracketed "kai" and "apokriqeis de o Ihsous" in the
            text), 12:4, 12:33, 13:11 (mhde meletate - early h.t.?), 13:14,
            14:27, 14:70, and thoroughly rewrite the comment on Mark 16:9-20. As
            for Luke, John, etc. ... more of the same.
            (12) Make room for those wished-for comments where the addition or
            omission of a word or phrase makes a real translatable difference,
            and scrap most of the "Western" readings in Acts, particularly where
            the apparatus includes variants which are just trivial. Does anyone
            know of any living Bible-translators who have actually used
            the "Western" Text of Acts as the basis for their translation of Acts
            into a foreign language? It's just not significant for translators
            or for the establishment of the text.
            (12) Re-write the Introduction. Stop calling P-45 "Pre-Caesarean."
            (13) Get rid of the A-B-C-D difficulty-grading.
            (14) Do not use any brackets. Instead, mention all variant-units
            that pose a high degree of instability in a new Textual Commentary.
            It's got to be frustrating to translators to read "kai" and "autou"
            in brackets, in a verse where the presence or absence of the word
            makes a translatable difference, and not be given any indication of
            the strength or weakness of the evidence for the word.
            (15) Review the sub-headings and make alterations to ensure that the
            wording is accurate and as unobjectionable as possible.

            >> Do you think that we still need those two different editions? <<

            Yes; I think we can use all the resources we can get.

            >> Or other ones? <<

            Other ones, too. Swanson especially. All three were very useful as
            I was putting together the Greek Uncial Archetype of Mark (about a
            third of which can be viewed with a papyrus background, btw, from
            www.curtisvillechristian.org/KataMarkon.html .) I'd like something
            in a multi-volume set which, like the GUAM, includes brief comments
            on the internal evidence, whenever it is the make-or-break factor,
            instead of just citing selected external evidence and leaving the
            consideration of internal evidence to a separate volume.

            While I'm wishing, I wish that instead of having a text produced by a
            committee, I wish I had a 14-volume text of Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn-Acts-
            PaulineNonPastoralEpistles-Pastorals-Hebrews-James-FirstPeter-
            SecondPeter-JohannineCatholicEpistles-Jude-Revelation, each produced
            by someone who has made that particular text his or her specialty.
            The format could be a boiled-down version of something like what
            Tommy Wasserman did with the text of Jude.

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
            Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
            Tipton, Indiana (USA)
            www.curtisvillechristian.org/TCGoals.html
          • Wieland Willker
            Jim, I agree with most of what you wrote. ... Is this used somewhere? ... That s interesting. They actually do so for W-sup. You are probably thinking of 01 at
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 21, 2008
              Jim, I agree with most of what you wrote.
              Some comments:

              > (5) Stop using "Clement-to-Theodore."

              Is this used somewhere?


              > (6) Always indicate where the text is on cancel-sheets.

              That's interesting.
              They actually do so for W-sup.
              You are probably thinking of 01 at the end of Mk? How would you
              indicate that?


              > (8) Indicate the presence of B-umlauts.

              Would be great but I think this is difficult because often it is
              not clear what variant the umlaut means at all. So one has to
              label the complete line of B in some not too obstructive way in
              NA. How to do this?


              > (10) Print nomina sacra, not the spelled-out names, where all
              > Greek witnesses have nomina sacra. Note where a witness
              > has spelled out a N.S. that is normally contracted.

              Is this really needed?
              What would this be good for?
              Also define "all Greek witnesses".


              I also agree with everything Peter Gibson wrote last week.
              Good ideas!


              I think that the UBS GNT in its present form is not very well
              suited for the translator. The UBS committee has to make their
              mind up what they really want.
              The selection of variants that are really important for a
              translator could be significantly improved.
              Think of the typical textcritical education of a translator.
              Adjust the notes accordingly.
              Also the importance of a variant sometimes depends on the
              church/doctrine a translator belongs to. Not sure though how
              this could/should be indicated.

              Best wishes
              Wieland
              <><
              ------------------------------------------------
              Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
              mailto:wie@...
              http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
              Textcritical commentary:
              http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
            • James Snapp, Jr.
              Dear Wieland, ... After checking ... no. I must ve been thinking of something else. Well, this wish should be easily granted, eh. ... at the end of Mk? How
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 21, 2008
                Dear Wieland,

                >> "Is this [Clement-to-Theodore] used somewhere?" <<

                After checking ... no. I must've been thinking of something else.
                Well, this wish should be easily granted, eh.

                >> (About indicating cancel-sheets: "You are probably thinking of 01
                at the end of Mk? How would you indicate that?" <<

                Yes; there and at the end of I Thess. and in Matthew. I'd underline
                the siglum, or add a superscripted letter or letters (maybe "cs" to
                signify "cancel-sheet"). I wouldn't use "suppl" because replacement-
                pages introduced during the MS's production should be presented in a
                way different from pages introduced subsequent to the MS's
                production.

                >> {About indicating the .. in B) "So one has to label the complete
                line of B in some not too obstructive way in NA. How to do this?" <<

                One way would be to create a symbol that means "Umlaut-in-B" and
                include it, as a witness listed separately from the "B" symbol, at
                every variant noted where the text occurs in a line in B parallel to
                an umlaut. And add a note in the Introduction stating that the
                Umlaut-in-B symbol indicates a possible variant in a supplemental
                exemplar used by the scribe of B.

                Another way woud be to create two symbols to place in the text,
                rather than in the apparatus: one that shows where an umlauted line
                begins, and another to show where the same umlauted line (or the last
                word on the line) ends. (An advantage of this would be that it would
                be less cumbersome to indicate the presence of an umlaut where no
                known variant exists.)

                >> (About printing N.S. and noting where a witness has spelled out a
                N.S. that is normally contracted) "Is this really needed?" <<

                Yes, if the N-A's compilers wish to tell readers what the MSS
                actually contain, instead of what they mean. (While I'm thinking
                about it, gematria-numerals and written-out quantities should
                probably also be differentiated, where other variants exist.)

                "What would this be good for?"

                It would more readily convey to the reader the mechanisms by which
                nomina sacra could be confused with other nomina sacra, or with short
                syllables -- at Mt. 27:16-17, Jn. 1:18, Acts 20:28, James 1:12, Jude
                v. 5, I Tim. 3:16, etc. Noting where a N.S. is spelled out could
                help indicate scribes' interpretation of the passage, which could
                suggest some variant-causing mechanisms.

                "Also define "all Greek witnesses.""

                All the (undamaged) Greek mss that contain a contracted N.S. where no
                Greek ms contains a non-contracted N.S., at a particular point in the
                text.

                Yours in Christ,

                James Snapp, Jr.
                Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                www.curtisvillechristian.org/TCGoals.html
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.