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

Re: Use of vid in NA27

Expand Messages
  • Richard Wilson
    Whilst the on-line version of the variants at http://www.laparola.net/greco/ can t be searched for vid , I was able to go through the database to look for it.
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 11, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Whilst the on-line version of the variants at
      http://www.laparola.net/greco/ can't be searched for "vid", I was able
      to go through the database to look for it. Note however that this is
      not the NA27 apparatus, but the combination of the apparatus from
      various sources.

      For the papyri, I came up with 439 vid out of 3983 citations: 10.8%
      For the uncials, 396 out of 56661: 0.7%
      For the minuscules, 216 out of 67286: 0.3%
      For the lectionaries, 8 out of 3478: 0.2%
      For the Old Latin, 60 out of 22399: 0.3%
      For the Syriac, 6 out of 8416: 0.07%
      For the Coptic, 18 out of 6870: 0.3%

      This is not of course a statistically acceptable one of doing it. What
      we should count is the number of vid words (even if of no interest for
      a variant reading) out of the total number of words in each manuscript
      type. But no one (I believe) has ever done these counts for one
      manuscript, let alone all the manuscripts of each type.

      The most "vidded" manuscript is p45 (87 times), followed by C
      (including the correctors) (81 times), then 33 (74) and p74 (62).
      p84 is vidded all 8 times it is cited, p27 all 4 times, and 14 other
      manuscripts all 1, 2 or 3 times.

      If anyone else wants to play with the data, you can download a text
      file with all the manuscripts, the number of times cited and the
      number of vid from
      http://www.laparola.net/greco/vid.txt

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "P.M. Head" <pmh15@...> wrote:
      >
      > I wonder if anyone can help me on this. I am writing something on
      problems
      > associated with NT papyri, and in one section I have argued that
      > difficulties of deciphering and reconstructing the text are more
      severe in
      > the papyri than among other types of NT ms. In (admittedly weak)
      support of
      > this (strongly plausible) contention I proposed:
      >
      > "I don't have any general figures concerning the use of vid in the NA27
      > apparatus. In writing this I have opened my copy at p. 304 - 305 (John
      > 16.24 - 17.13). In this opening there are sixteen occasions in the
      > apparatus where vid is used: fifteen for papyri (P22vid: 3 times;
      P5vid: 4
      > times; P66vid: 8 times), and once for an uncial (C2vid at 16.29)."
      >
      > But it strikes me that the NA apparatus may well be generally
      searchable
      > and this type of thing may be quantifiable with some numbers. But I
      can't
      > figure out how to do it.
      >
      > Any ideas?
      >
      > Peter
      >
    • Peter M. Head
      Thanks Richard, That is very interesting. Are the various sources basically Tischendorf and NA27 or is it more complicated? Pete ... Peter M. Head, PhD Sir
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 11, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Richard,

        That is very interesting. Are the "various sources" basically
        Tischendorf and NA27 or is it more complicated?

        Pete

        At 09:37 11/09/2008, you wrote:
        >Whilst the on-line version of the variants at
        >http://www.laparola.net/greco/ can't be searched for "vid", I was able
        >to go through the database to look for it. Note however that this is
        >not the NA27 apparatus, but the combination of the apparatus from
        >various sources.
        >
        >For the papyri, I came up with 439 vid out of 3983 citations: 10.8%
        >For the uncials, 396 out of 56661: 0.7%
        >For the minuscules, 216 out of 67286: 0.3%
        >For the lectionaries, 8 out of 3478: 0.2%
        >For the Old Latin, 60 out of 22399: 0.3%
        >For the Syriac, 6 out of 8416: 0.07%
        >For the Coptic, 18 out of 6870: 0.3%
        >
        >This is not of course a statistically acceptable one of doing it. What
        >we should count is the number of vid words (even if of no interest for
        >a variant reading) out of the total number of words in each manuscript
        >type. But no one (I believe) has ever done these counts for one
        >manuscript, let alone all the manuscripts of each type.
        >
        >The most "vidded" manuscript is p45 (87 times), followed by C
        >(including the correctors) (81 times), then 33 (74) and p74 (62).
        >p84 is vidded all 8 times it is cited, p27 all 4 times, and 14 other
        >manuscripts all 1, 2 or 3 times.
        >
        >If anyone else wants to play with the data, you can download a text
        >file with all the manuscripts, the number of times cited and the
        >number of vid from
        >http://www.laparola.net/greco/vid.txt
        >
        >--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "P.M. Head" <pmh15@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > I wonder if anyone can help me on this. I am writing something on
        >problems
        > > associated with NT papyri, and in one section I have argued that
        > > difficulties of deciphering and reconstructing the text are more
        >severe in
        > > the papyri than among other types of NT ms. In (admittedly weak)
        >support of
        > > this (strongly plausible) contention I proposed:
        > >
        > > "I don't have any general figures concerning the use of vid in the NA27
        > > apparatus. In writing this I have opened my copy at p. 304 - 305 (John
        > > 16.24 - 17.13). In this opening there are sixteen occasions in the
        > > apparatus where vid is used: fifteen for papyri (P22vid: 3 times;
        >P5vid: 4
        > > times; P66vid: 8 times), and once for an uncial (C2vid at 16.29)."
        > >
        > > But it strikes me that the NA apparatus may well be generally
        >searchable
        > > and this type of thing may be quantifiable with some numbers. But I
        >can't
        > > figure out how to do it.
        > >
        > > Any ideas?
        > >
        > > Peter
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >------------------------------------
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        Peter M. Head, PhD
        Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
        Tyndale House
        36 Selwyn Gardens
        Cambridge CB3 9BA
        01223 566601
      • Jan Krans
        ... Yes we do know, it is that Codex Guelferbytanus 99 Weissenburgensis. In my view, Lachmann s information came from Ebert, either directly or indirectly.  
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 11, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          > 1- we don't know what's the codex Lachmann did talk about?
          Yes we do know, it is that Codex Guelferbytanus 99 Weissenburgensis. In my view, Lachmann's information came from Ebert, either directly or indirectly.
           
          > 2- ’Codex Guelferbytanus 99 Weissenburgensis’ dates for the
          8th century?
          That is what 19th-century and present-day specialists say, mainly based on its script.

          > 3- may i ask for english translation for the german texts?
          Yes you may, but I wont provide any. There are excellent courses everywhere. Can one have aspirations in textual criticism without the ability to read German?

          Greetings,
          Jan Krans
          VU University, Amsterdam
          Utrecht University
          Radboud University, Nijmegen

          fadie atef schreef:

          thx Wieland.
           
          Jan, great insight.
           
          some questions:
           
          1- we don't know what's the codex Lachmann did talk about?
           
          2- ’Codex Guelferbytanus 99 Weissenburgensis’ dates for the 8th century?
           
          3- may i ask for english translation for the german texts?
           
          Best Regards
           
          Fadie , Egypt

          --- On Wed, 9/10/08, Jan Krans <jlhkvu@xs4all. nl> wrote:
          From: Jan Krans <jlhkvu@xs4all. nl>
          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Codex Wizanburgensis
          To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
          Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 6:09 AM

          In any case, this ‘Wizanburgensis’ is not a Greek manuscript, but a Latin Vulgate manuscript. No Gregory-Aland number therefore.

          The (mis)information floating around on the internet derives (indirectly) from Lachmann’s edition of the Greek and Latin NT, with Buttmann, 2 vols., Berlin 1842 and 1850. In the second volume, on pp. 240-241, the reading of a codex named Wizanburgensis 99 is given as adding after ‘spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt’ the words ‘sicut et in caelum tres sunt, pater verbum et spiritus, et tres unum sunt’. The reading is followed by the attestation ‘Wizanburgensis 99 saeculi octavi’.

          It is indeed typical for TR/KJV-defenders to have access to such information only indirectly, and to turn it on its head by making it into Greek attestation of the comma.

          The situation is even worse. See for instance how Düsterdieck uses the exact wording of the reading to underline the secondary nature of the comma (Die drei johanneischen Briefe II-1, 1854, p. 354; for the entire discussion see pp. 347-357!):

          Erwägt man nun die eigenthümlichen Variationen des Hauptgedankens in allen diesen Stellen [various Latin sources from the fifth century onwards], in welchen ein angeblich johanneischer Satz wiedergegeben werden soll, bedenkt man ferner, daß in manchen Handschriften bei den ächten Worten V. 7. 8 sich Randglossen finden, wie [...], bedenkt man ferner, daß die himmlischen Zeugen in einigen lateinischen Handschriften hinter den irdischen Zeugen aufgeführt werden, und daß ein Codex der Vulgata (Cod. Wizanburgensis 99, aus dem 8. Jahrhundert, bei Lachmann) den Zusatz mit einem ‘sicut et’ einfügt (‘quia tres sunt, qui testimonium dant, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt, sicut et in caelum tres sunt, pater, verbum et spiritus, et tres unum sunt): so wird man nicht zweifeln, daß das Einschiebsel ein bloßes Interpretament sei, dessen Eindringen in den Text man deutlich verfolgen kann. Wie verrätherisch [not so much ‘treacherous’, but rather ‘revealing’] ist in dieser Hinsicht z. B. der von Lachmann angeführte Codex der Vulgata, welcher das ´sicut et in caelum’ bietet, ohne zuvor den Zusatz ‘in terra’ gemacht zu haben!

          These Germans really knew how to write long sentences! But the idea is clear. One may wonder, however, which manuscript it really is, and why Lachmann cites it only for this place.

          Some further research (hear hear) establishes that the manuscript is nr.. 99 of the Weissenburg collection in the Herzog August library in Wolfenbüttel (’Codex Guelferbytanus 99 Weissenburgensis’ ). In the seventeenth century, the HAB acquired a large part of the library of the Weissenburg monastery.. Cod. Guelf. 99. Weiss. is the so-called ‘Weissenburg Augustine’, containing homilies by Augustine, in which also the Catholic Epistles, the Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, and some other works are found (see Hans Butzmann, Die Weissenburger Handschriften ..., 1964, pp. 283-287).

          Butzmann refers for the text to F.A. Ebert, Zur Handschriftenkunde, p. 186. That turns out to be Friedrich Adolph Ebert, Zur Handschriftenkunde. Erstes Bändchen, Leipzig, 1825, where Ebert mentions on p. 185 that people always want to look up 1 John 5:7-8 (and 1 Tim 3:16) in old manuscripts, and then, after mentioning two Latin manuscripts in which the comma is not found, he writes on p. 186:

          Dagegen lautet sie in einem Pergamentcodex des 8. Jahrhunderts (Weissenb. 99. Bl. 117b) so: Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Jesus Christus, non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et in sanguine. Et spiritus est ventus, quia tres sunt, qui testimonium dant, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt, sicut etiam in coelum (sic) tres sunt, pater, verbum et spirits, et tres unum sunt. Si testimonium hominum accipimus u.s.w.

          This information may well be have been Lachmann’s source (perhaps indirectly so). Note however the difference between ‘sicut et’ (Lachmann etc.) and ‘sicut etiam’ (Ebert); note also the peculiar reading ‘ventus’ instead of ‘veritas’.

          Anyway, the case is solved, with shelve mark and folio number. Let no one from now on cite this codex as early Greek attestation for the comma. It provides no more than an interesting part of the rather wild Latin-only transmission of the gloss.

          Finally: a nice image of the manuscript can be found online, though not f. 117v, at the site of the Herzog August Bibliothek.

          Greetings,
          Jan Krans
          VU University, Amsterdam
          Utrecht University
          Radboud University, Nijmegen

          fadie atef schreef:
          Many online articles defending the Johannine Comma use a codex named "Wizanburgensis" . as it's said, dated back for the 8th century. i googled it but the result was so many links for such articles, and no given Gregory- Aland number.
           
          any informations about this codex? date, text-type, collater...etc?

          _

        • Richard Wilson
          More complicated... There aren t all of NA s readings, but there are all of UBS3 and 4 s readings, all the differences from the NA/UBS texts and the WH, TR and
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 11, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            More complicated... There aren't all of NA's readings, but there are
            all of UBS3 and 4's readings, all the differences from the NA/UBS
            texts and the WH, TR and Byzantine texts, all the readings in the
            newly discovered papyri, plus material from the textual commentary on
            the Gospels, from http://www.bibletranslation.ws/, and various others
            sources.

            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Peter M. Head" <pmh15@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Thanks Richard,
            >
            > That is very interesting. Are the "various sources" basically
            > Tischendorf and NA27 or is it more complicated?
            >
            > Pete
            >
            > At 09:37 11/09/2008, you wrote:
            > >Whilst the on-line version of the variants at
            > >http://www.laparola.net/greco/ can't be searched for "vid", I was able
            > >to go through the database to look for it. Note however that this is
            > >not the NA27 apparatus, but the combination of the apparatus from
            > >various sources.
            > >
            > >For the papyri, I came up with 439 vid out of 3983 citations: 10.8%
            > >For the uncials, 396 out of 56661: 0.7%
            > >For the minuscules, 216 out of 67286: 0.3%
            > >For the lectionaries, 8 out of 3478: 0.2%
            > >For the Old Latin, 60 out of 22399: 0.3%
            > >For the Syriac, 6 out of 8416: 0.07%
            > >For the Coptic, 18 out of 6870: 0.3%
            > >
            > >This is not of course a statistically acceptable one of doing it. What
            > >we should count is the number of vid words (even if of no interest for
            > >a variant reading) out of the total number of words in each manuscript
            > >type. But no one (I believe) has ever done these counts for one
            > >manuscript, let alone all the manuscripts of each type.
            > >
            > >The most "vidded" manuscript is p45 (87 times), followed by C
            > >(including the correctors) (81 times), then 33 (74) and p74 (62).
            > >p84 is vidded all 8 times it is cited, p27 all 4 times, and 14 other
            > >manuscripts all 1, 2 or 3 times.
            > >
            > >If anyone else wants to play with the data, you can download a text
            > >file with all the manuscripts, the number of times cited and the
            > >number of vid from
            > >http://www.laparola.net/greco/vid.txt
            > >
            > >--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "P.M. Head" <pmh15@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I wonder if anyone can help me on this. I am writing something on
            > >problems
            > > > associated with NT papyri, and in one section I have argued that
            > > > difficulties of deciphering and reconstructing the text are more
            > >severe in
            > > > the papyri than among other types of NT ms. In (admittedly weak)
            > >support of
            > > > this (strongly plausible) contention I proposed:
            > > >
            > > > "I don't have any general figures concerning the use of vid in
            the NA27
            > > > apparatus. In writing this I have opened my copy at p. 304 - 305
            (John
            > > > 16.24 - 17.13). In this opening there are sixteen occasions in the
            > > > apparatus where vid is used: fifteen for papyri (P22vid: 3 times;
            > >P5vid: 4
            > > > times; P66vid: 8 times), and once for an uncial (C2vid at 16.29)."
            > > >
            > > > But it strikes me that the NA apparatus may well be generally
            > >searchable
            > > > and this type of thing may be quantifiable with some numbers. But I
            > >can't
            > > > figure out how to do it.
            > > >
            > > > Any ideas?
            > > >
            > > > Peter
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >------------------------------------
            > >
            > >Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > Peter M. Head, PhD
            > Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
            > Tyndale House
            > 36 Selwyn Gardens
            > Cambridge CB3 9BA
            > 01223 566601
            >
          • Patrick Gardella
            I ve not tried this, but I m told you can use Accordance to search for the superscript vid in the NA27 apparatus. You can then use some of the reporting
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 11, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I've not tried this, but I'm told you can use Accordance to search for
              the superscript vid in the NA27 apparatus. You can then use some of
              the reporting capabilities to narrow your results down to what you
              need.

              I haven't saved up enough cash to buy the package that contains the
              apparatus yet, so I can't try it.

              Patrick

              On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:36 PM, P.M. Head <pmh15@...> wrote:
              > I wonder if anyone can help me on this. I am writing something on problems
              > associated with NT papyri, and in one section I have argued that
              > difficulties of deciphering and reconstructing the text are more severe in
              > the papyri than among other types of NT ms. In (admittedly weak) support of
              > this (strongly plausible) contention I proposed:
              >
              > "I don't have any general figures concerning the use of vid in the NA27
              > apparatus. In writing this I have opened my copy at p. 304 - 305 (John
              > 16.24 - 17.13). In this opening there are sixteen occasions in the
              > apparatus where vid is used: fifteen for papyri (P22vid: 3 times; P5vid: 4
              > times; P66vid: 8 times), and once for an uncial (C2vid at 16.29)."
              >
              > But it strikes me that the NA apparatus may well be generally searchable
              > and this type of thing may be quantifiable with some numbers. But I can't
              > figure out how to do it.
              >
              > Any ideas?
              >
              > Peter
              >
              > On Sep 10 2008, Peter M. Head wrote:
              >
              >>Bravo,
              >>
              >>Peter M. Head
              >>
              >>
              >>[I agree, great job, Jan!
              >> --- Wieland]
              >>
              >>------------------------------------
              >>
              >>Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
            • Daniel Buck
              ... * * * The first German quote mentions the highly variant nature of the various Latin sources from the fifth century onwards. After quoting
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 11, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, fadie atef <fadie4m@...>
                wrote:
                >> 3- may i ask for english translation for the german texts?<<
                * * *
                The first German quote mentions the highly variant nature of the
                various Latin sources from the fifth century onwards. After quoting
                the reading of Lachmann's Vulgate Codex, and pointing out that, like
                other vulgate mss it reverses the order of the two sets of witnesses--
                but with the intermediating phrase, "just as in heaven," without any
                mention of "earth"--it concludes that the comma is an interpretaion
                that was inserted into the text.

                > Butzmann refers . . . to F.A. Ebert, Zur Handschriftenkunde, p.
                186. . . after mentioning two Latin manuscripts in which the comma is
                not found, he writes on p. 186:

                Dagegen lautet sie in einem Pergamentcodex des 8. Jahrhunderts
                (Weissenb. 99. Bl. 117b) so: [quotes the Latin text].<

                German Translation:
                On the other hand, a parchment codex of the 8th Century (Weissenb.
                99th Bl 117b) reads as follows: [Latin translation: (quotes v7
                to "blood. And it is the Spirit) who comes, that the three are, that
                testimony give, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three
                one are, just as in heaven the three are, the father, the word, and
                the spirit, and the three one are. (begins v. 9)"] etc.

                * * *

                Conclusion: The transmission history of the Comma through the Vulgate
                (and into the Greek, for that matter) is not one of steady copying by
                meticulous scribes, but of a punctuated admixture of theological
                commentary to the authentic text. It is also interesting to note that
                the sentences on one or the other side of the Comma are sometimes
                changed to accomodate it. I'd like to see more research on this
                phenomenon.

                Daniel Buck
              • K.Martin Heide
                Dear Daniel, more research on this phenomenon , especially in the Latin manuscripts, has been carried out already by Thiele, Walter: Beobachtungen zum Comma
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 12, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Daniel,

                  "more research on this phenomenon", especially in the Latin manuscripts, has been
                  carried out already by

                  Thiele, Walter: „Beobachtungen zum Comma Ioanneum (1Joh 5,7f.)” in:
                  Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 50 (1959), pp 61-73.


                  ... and I'm sure, Jan Krans has some futher recommendations on this subject.
                  All the best,

                  Martin



                  Daniel Buck wrote:

                  --- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, fadie atef <fadie4m@... >
                  wrote:
                  >> 3- may i ask for english translation for the german texts?<<
                  * * *
                  The first German quote mentions the highly variant nature of the
                  various Latin sources from the fifth century onwards. After quoting
                  the reading of Lachmann's Vulgate Codex, and pointing out that, like
                  other vulgate mss it reverses the order of the two sets of witnesses--
                  but with the intermediating phrase, "just as in heaven," without any
                  mention of "earth"--it concludes that the comma is an interpretaion
                  that was inserted into the text.

                  > Butzmann refers . . . to F.A. Ebert, Zur Handschriftenkunde, p.
                  186. . . after mentioning two Latin manuscripts in which the comma is
                  not found, he writes on p. 186:

                  Dagegen lautet sie in einem Pergamentcodex des 8. Jahrhunderts
                  (Weissenb. 99. Bl. 117b) so: [quotes the Latin text].<

                  German Translation:


                  On the other hand, a parchment codex of the 8th Century (Weissenb.
                  99th Bl 117b) reads as follows: [Latin translation: (quotes v7
                  to "blood. And it is the Spirit) who comes, that the three are, that
                  testimony give, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three
                  one are, just as in heaven the three are, the father, the word, and
                  the spirit, and the three one are. (begins v. 9)"] etc.

                  * * *

                  Conclusion: The transmission history of the Comma through the Vulgate
                  (and into the Greek, for that matter) is not one of steady copying by
                  meticulous scribes, but of a punctuated admixture of theological
                  commentary to the authentic text. It is also interesting to note that
                  the sentences on one or the other side of the Comma are sometimes
                  changed to accomodate it. I'd like to see more research on this
                  phenomenon.






                  Daniel Buck


                • Peter M. Head
                  Thanks for all the help on this. I believe I can support my original contention more effectively now. A follow up question, based on this data (Jan Krans file
                  Message 8 of 14 , Sep 12, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks for all the help on this. I believe I can support my original
                    contention more effectively now.

                    A follow up question, based on this data (Jan Krans' file and Richard
                    Wilson's info):

                    What is the problem with 33?

                    I can see why C and 048, being palimpests, have a lot of vids (esp.
                    when attempting to determine the original reading before a
                    correction). But 33 looks pretty well preserved in the plates in
                    Aland&Aland and in Hatch. I presume as a whole there must be
                    considerable difficulties in reading this manuscript and I suppose
                    people will include the best photos. But I've never really studied
                    it, has anyone had a look at this?

                    Peter



                    Peter M. Head, PhD
                    Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                    Tyndale House
                    36 Selwyn Gardens
                    Cambridge CB3 9BA
                    01223 566601
                  • Wieland Willker
                    ... Bob Waltz in his Encyclopedia writes: the manuscript has suffered severely from damp; Tregelles said that, of all the manuscripts he collated (presumably
                    Message 9 of 14 , Sep 12, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > What is the problem with 33?

                      Bob Waltz in his Encyclopedia writes:

                      "the manuscript has suffered severely from damp; Tregelles said
                      that, of all the manuscripts he collated (presumably excluding
                      palimpsests), it was the hardest to read. The damage is worst in
                      Acts, where some readings must be determined by reading the
                      offprint on the facing page. In addition, Luke 13:7-19:44 are on
                      damaged leaves and contain significant lacunae."



                      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.