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

Errors in IGNTP John

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    I finally finished my way through the latest IGNTP volume on the majuscules of John. What I liked about the volume is that they wrote how they analyzed each of
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 28, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I finally finished my way through the latest IGNTP volume on
      the majuscules of John. What I liked about the volume is
      that they wrote how they analyzed each of the MSS. I also
      like the font.
      Criticism: The images are bad. This was also the case in the
      papyri volume already. These are clearly NOT state of the
      art.

      I checked the majuscule volume at about 400 variants, those
      which are noted in the online commentary on John. I can say
      that the edition is VERY reliable. I found only about 5
      clear errors plus a few debatable things. These are noted
      below.

      Perhaps one of the editors can comment?


      Errors in IGNTP:
      ============

      Jo 5:3
      A: The correction in A (= omission of 5:3b by A*) is not
      noted in IGNTP! They note two things for 02*, but that's not
      the full thing.

      Jo 7:40
      01: IGNTP completely omits the word TOUTWN for 01. It is
      clearly there, confirmed from the facsimile.

      Jo 11:17
      A: IGNTP misinterprets the evidence. A* is not omitting
      HMERAS, but HDH originally, which is obvious from the
      facsimile, where the vertical bar of the Rho is still
      visible on the next line.

      Jo 14:16
      060: Wrongly transcribed in IGNTP. They give:
      DWSEI UMIN INA
      [ME]Q UMWN EIS TON
      [AIWNA ME]NH TO PNA
      This would be a singular reading.
      It is pretty clear that this is simply the NA txt reading!
      The last line is:
      [AIWNA] H TO PNA
      The 'dotted' Nu is the remains of an Alpha from AIWNA. This
      can be tentatively confirmed from the plate in the IGNTP
      volume. NA has it correctly.

      Jo 14:26
      060: Not listed in IGNTP, but in NA. At the place in
      question (the image is in the IGNTP volume) the parchment is
      quite damaged, but it is probable that there is a word, very
      probably this must be EGW. Then comes a free space followed
      by EIRHNEN. But ok, from the image the EGW is debatable.

      Jo 16:18
      01: IGNTP does not note the omission of TO by 01-c2. They
      note the addition of hO LEGEI. The TO is crossed out by two
      small diagonal strokes and hO LEGEI is written above it. NA
      and Swanson have it correctly.

      Jo 16:27-8
      Gamma: The omission of 27 PARA . 28 EXHLQON due to
      parablepsis is not noted in IGNTP. It's in Swanson.

      Jo 17:21
      N, W: According to NA and Swanson, both N and W read PATHR
      (against PATER). This is not noted in IGNTP (only B, D).
      Again at Jo 17:24 and 17:25 A and N are listed for PATHR in
      NA and Swanson, but not in IGNTP (here only B). A is listed
      for PATHR also in Tischendorf.

      Jo 20:17
      D: According to NA and Swanson D omits the MOU after
      ADELFOUS. IGNTP does not list this. NA is right. This is
      confirmed from the facsimile.


      One thing regarding a lacuna:
      Jo 3:28
      083: IGNTP reconstructs:
      [MARTUREIT]E OTI E
      [IPON 3-5 ] OUK EI
      Isn't this a bit unusual, to have the Iota on a new line?
      Tischendorf suggests OTI EGW EIPON OUK EIMI EGW. Seems
      better to me, although it would be a singular reading.



      There are some more (about 12) discrepancies between NA and
      IGNTP which I was not able to check on my own so far.


      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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.