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

Re: [textualcriticism] apparatus correction -> ITNF

Expand Messages
  • Richard Mallett
    Reply to : Steven Avery ... My primary activity is in compiling (from the UBS4 GNT) a data matrix of MSS vs. readings for each verse, which I then send to Tim
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 5, 2011
      Reply to : Steven Avery
      > Hi Folks,
      >
      >> > Subject changed from:
      >> > Error in UBS4 apparatus for Mark 6:33
      > Richard Mallett
      > Many thanks for those two replies. I will inform the INTF that
      > it
      > should probably be cited as a witness for the longer reading.
      > INTF == Neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF) in M√ľnster
      >
      > Steven Avery
      > Richard, are you a good person to contact on apparatus problems ?
      > There are a number that I have run into on a variety of verse
      > quite definite, some for consideration.
      >
      > Is there a recommended mechanism and format ?
      > Is there any feedback and interaction (beyond posting here) ?
      >
      > Would you like proposed corrections to be sent privately, or
      > hashed out on a textual criticism forum first ?
      >
      > In some cases the links to the earlier discussions could be sent
      > with the information.
      >
      > Shalom,
      > Steven Avery
      > Queens, NY
      >

      My primary activity is in compiling (from the UBS4 GNT) a data matrix of
      MSS vs. readings for each verse, which I then send to Tim Finney for
      inclusion in his statistical cluster analysis at www.tfinney.net (see,
      in particular, http://www.tfinney.net/Mapping/index.html and
      http://www.tfinney.net/Views/index.html )

      In the course of this work, I occasionally encounter errors of this
      nature, where the same MS is cited as support for two different readings
      of the same verse. After checking with Tim Finney and here, then I send
      my findings to the INTF. I will leave it to you to decide if your
      researches dovetail with this. You may contact me privately, or through
      the group. Please let me (or the group) know what you have found, in
      any case, as I'm sure it will be of interest.

      --
      --
      Richard Mallett
      Eaton Bray, Dunstable
      South Beds. UK
    • David C Hindley
      Richard, Before you do that, take a look at the 6 variants in the order presented in NA27 (I ve added minuscule 157 where you indicate the UBS4 apparatus cites
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 5, 2011
        Richard,

        Before you do that, take a look at the 6 variants in the order presented in NA27
        (I've added minuscule 157 where you indicate the UBS4 apparatus cites it):

        1) *kai prohlqon autous* [01 (Sinaiticus IV), 03 (Vaticanus IV), minuscule 157
        (XII)]
        2) kai proshlqon autois [037 (IX), 038 (IX)]
        3) kai sunhlqon autou [05 (Bezae VI)]
        4) kai hlqon autou [(family1 XII-XIV), minuscule 565 (IX)]
        5) *kai prohlqon autous* >>kai sunhlqon pros auton<< [p84vid (VI), 02
        (Alexandrinus V), family13 (XI-XIII), minuscule 157 (XII)]
        6) (omit) [032 (Freerer V)]

        If you look close, minuscule 157 actually does support *both* of those readings
        you cited.

        The shorter reading of Mark 6:33-34 (without >>kai sunhlqon pros auton<< "and
        they came together to him") is cited as a likely case of haplography occasioned
        by the tendency of "early amateur copyists" to end lines on KAI (indicating
        beginning of a new clause). The "scare quotes" are there because this is part of
        the rhetoric of "Alexandrian only" proponent "Nazaroo", who cites this variant
        as an example of the arrogance of modern critics, followed "moronically" by
        "almost all modern versions [except the KJV]", who stubbornly just don't get the
        obvious truth. "Nothing is really lost by the adoption of either reading," he
        says, "except of course the reputation of the Alexandrian scribes, and the
        credibility of modern Bible editors."
        http://adultera.awardspace.com/SUPLEM/UBSgaffs.html#Mark01

        Sigh ...

        Respectfully,

        Dave Hindley
        Newton Falls, Ohio USA


        1a. Re: Error in UBS4 apparatus for Mark 6:33
        Posted by: "Richard Mallett" 100114.573@... richardmallett2001
        Date: Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:08 pm ((PST))

        Reply to : James Snapp
        > Richard,
        >
        > Disregard what I said about Swanson; he does list it explicitly as agreeing
        with the majority-text reading (the citation is crammed together a bit so I
        missed it at first. Byz is supported, in Swanson, by K M U Pi 118 2 157 and
        1071 and the TR). So I would bet a 5th Avenue candy bar that 157 does indeed
        have the Byz reading here in Mk 6:33.
        >
        > Yours in Christ,
        >
        > James Snapp, Jr.
        >
        >
        and
        > Richard,
        > That's a mistake in UBS-4, all right. I don't know which entry is correct but
        I suspect that it's the second one, since if Hort had thought that 157 agreed
        with Aleph and B here, he almost certainly would have listed it as doing so in
        Introduction (par. 134) where he discusses the passage.
        >
        > Also, Swanson (p. 93) does not list 157 as agreeing with Aleph and B, and does
        not list it separately, which should mean that it agrees with the majority-text
        reading there.
        >
        > Yours in Christ,
        >
        > James Snapp, Jr.
        >
        >

        Many thanks for those two replies. I will inform the INTF that it should
        probably be cited as a witness for the longer reading.

        --
        --
        Richard Mallett
        Eaton Bray, Dunstable
        South Beds. UK







        Messages in this topic (4)





        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Yahoo! Groups Links



        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      • bucksburg
        ... 1) *kai prohlqon autous* [01, 03, 157] 2) kai proshlqon autois [037, 038] 3) kai sunhlqon autou [05] 4) kai hlqon autou [f1, 565 ] 5) *kai prohlqon autous*
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 5, 2011
          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "David C Hindley" wrote:

          >>take a look at the 6 variants in the order presented in NA27:
          1) *kai prohlqon autous* [01, 03, 157]
          2) kai proshlqon autois [037, 038]
          3) kai sunhlqon autou [05]
          4) kai hlqon autou [f1, 565 ]
          5) *kai prohlqon autous* >>kai sunhlqon pros auton<< [p84vid, 02, f13, 157]
          6) (omit) [032]

          If you look closely, minuscule 157 actually does support *both* of those readings you cited.

          The shorter reading of Mark 6:33-34 (without "and they came together to him") is cited as a likely case of haplography occasioned by the tendency of "early amateur copyists" to end lines on KAI (indicating beginning of a new clause).<<

          No, actually, the cited tendency is to *begin* lines on KAI. Thus the resultant homoioarcton.

          <<The "scare quotes" are there because this is part of the rhetoric of "Alexandrian only" proponent "Nazaroo",>>

          Nazaroo proposes no such thing as text based exclusively on Alexandrian manuscripts. The UBS comes a lot closer to fitting such a label, but labels are something this discussion could do without.

          << who cites this variant as an example of the arrogance of modern critics, followed "moronically" by "almost all modern versions [except the KJV]",>>

          The KJV is "modern" only in the sense that "modern English" dates back to its era. The KJV didn't follow the Alexandrian text, naturally, because it wasn't based on such.

          << who stubbornly just don't get the obvious truth.>>

          Other than 'obvious,' these are your own words.

          <<"Nothing is really lost by the adoption of either reading," he says,>>

          I can see his point. The missing phrase hardly comes through in translation when it is put back in, except in a fairly literal version.

          << "except of course the reputation of the Alexandrian scribes, and the credibility of modern Bible editors.">>
          > http://adultera.awardspace.com/SUPLEM/UBSgaffs.html#Mark01 <

          Daniel Buck
        • Richard Mallett
          Reply to : David Hindley ... Yes, it all depends on how finely one breaks down the component parts. I remember reading somewhere that, depending on how finely
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 7, 2011
            Reply to : David Hindley
            > Hi Richard,
            >
            > Ahh, the old Compuserve forum days (mid 1990's), when everyone
            > identified themselves and carried on civil discussions. I learned quite
            > a bit about astronomy from you as well.
            >
            > Yes, I saw your follow-up post to Steven Avery, and looked at Tim
            > Finney's web pages, although I'm not yet sure what they signify.
            >
            > My concern here is that variant #5 below is a compound variant (I may
            > have just invented that phrase). The phrase "kai sunhlqon pros auton" is
            > added to another specific variant "kai prohlqon autous" (#1). The
            > additive words are not paired with the other variants #2 "kai proshlqon
            > autois", #3 "kai sunhlqon autou", #4 "kai hlqon autou", or #6 simply
            > omit any of variants #1-#4. There is nothing to have prevented the
            > additive phrase from appearing without any of the first 4 variants
            > appearing at all, but it does not.
            >
            > So, my guess would be that minuscule 157 reads variant #5 below, and
            > serves as a witness for both #1 and for the addition of the phrase "kai
            > sunhlqon pros auton" after varient #1 and variant #1 alone.
            >
            > Respectfully,
            >
            > Dave Hindley
            > Nerton Falls, Ohio USA
            >
            Yes, it all depends on how finely one breaks down the component parts.
            I remember reading somewhere that, depending on how finely one breaks up
            the component parts, some NA readings are not supported by any MS (of
            course, the same would apply to the TR for example)

            Sorry my Greek typing didn't come through (at least for me) - it does in
            emails, but obviously not in Yahoo. II will have to transliterate in
            English letters. Thanks also to the mods for correcting the subject
            line for me :-)

            --
            --
            Richard Mallett
            Eaton Bray, Dunstable
            South Beds. UK
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.