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

Re: Why are there brackets in the NA27 text of 1 Cor 10:20?

Expand Messages
  • rslocc
    Precisely! They are documenting (by way of brackets) their uncertainty of word order. Namely, whether Thuousin should follow after Daimoniois ( as; D F G
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 17, 2012
      Precisely! They are documenting (by way of brackets) their uncertainty of word order. Namely, whether 'Thuousin' should follow after 'Daimoniois' ( as; D F G K Byz. Epiph. Euseb. ms. Ambrosias. Chrys. Italic Vulg. Pesh.) or 'Thew' (as; Aleph A B C P 33 Marcion acc. to Epiph. Orig.lat. Euseb. Cop.sah.). The latter is the method of Lach., Treg., Alf., W.&H., etc. I personally see no reason to divert from the common text and word order here (as usual). I must agree with Jan that the brackets are 'unhappy' in this place, for in nearly all instances they indicate omission/interpolation (not word order) and this inconsistency was surely the cause of the initial question by Mr. Jongkind.
      > -Matthew M.Rose


      >

      > On 16 Jun 2012, at 04:25, Jan Krans wrote


      > > Perhaps a reading without the second ??????? would be a conjectural emendation. I somehow like the idea. However, that is not what the brackets mean here, if you read the NA27 Introduction, p. 49* (p. 7* in the German original): they signal the uncertainty in word order.
      > >
      > > BTW: in my view, such use of square brackets is unhappy; compare ECM, which has a far better uncertainty marker.
      > >
      > > Jan Krans
      > >
      > > From: Dirk Jongkind <dj214@...>
      > > Reply-To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Date: Friday, 15 June 2012 16:16
      > > To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Subject: [textualcriticism] Why are there brackets in the NA27 text of 1 Cor 10:20?
      > >
      > >
      > > Dear list,
      > >
      > > Is there any documentary justification for the brackets around the second QUOUSIN in 1 Cor 10:20? I cannot find one in the apparatus or in Metzger's Commentary.
      > > And would the absence of evidence make this into a conjectural emendation?
      > >
      > > Best
      > > Dirk
      > > --
      > > Dirk Jongkind, PhD
      > > Deputy Senior Tutor, St. Edmund's College
      > > Research Fellow in New Testament Text and Language
      > > Tyndale House
      > > 36 Selwyn Gardens
      > > Cambridge, CB3 9BA Phone:(UK) 01223 566603
      > > United Kingdom Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Dirk Jongkind
      Thanks for the clarifications. Frankly, before posting I had only checked the Latin explanation of the critical signs at the back of my NA27 (easier to access
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 18, 2012
        Thanks for the clarifications. Frankly, before posting I had only checked the Latin explanation of the critical signs at the back of my NA27 (easier to access than the Intro), which I read as suggesting that brackets indicated that the 'presence of' the enclosed words in the NT text could be questioned. I shouldn't have filled in the blanks.

        [ ] ita includuntur verba etc, quae num de textu N.i T.i sint dubitari potest

        Thanks, all helpful.

        Dirk




        ... I must agree with Jan that the brackets are 'unhappy' in this place, for in nearly all instances they indicate omission/interpolation (not word order) and this inconsistency was surely the cause of the initial question by Mr. Jongkind.

        > -Matthew M.Rose

        >

        > On 16 Jun 2012, at 04:25, Jan Krans wrote

        > > Perhaps a reading without the second ??????? would be a conjectural emendation. I somehow like the idea. However, that is not what the brackets mean here, if you read the NA27 Introduction, p. 49* (p. 7* in the German original): they signal the uncertainty in word order.
        > >
        > > BTW: in my view, such use of square brackets is unhappy; compare ECM, which has a far better uncertainty marker.
        > >
        > > Jan Krans
        > >
        > > From: Dirk Jongkind <dj214@...>
        > > Reply-To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Date: Friday, 15 June 2012 16:16
        > > To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Subject: [textualcriticism] Why are there brackets in the NA27 text of 1 Cor 10:20?
        > >
        > >
        > > Dear list,
        > >
        > > Is there any documentary justification for the brackets around the second QUOUSIN in 1 Cor 10:20? I cannot find one in the apparatus or in Metzger's Commentary.
        > > And would the absence of evidence make this into a conjectural emendation?
        > >
        > > Best
        > > Dirk
        > > --
        > > Dirk Jongkind, PhD
        > > Deputy Senior Tutor, St. Edmund's College
        > > Research Fellow in New Testament Text and Language
        > > Tyndale House
        > > 36 Selwyn Gardens
        > > Cambridge, CB3 9BA Phone:(UK) 01223 566603
        > > United Kingdom Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >


        -- 
        Dirk Jongkind, PhD
        Deputy Senior Tutor, St. Edmund's College
        Research Fellow in New Testament Text and Language
        Tyndale House
        36 Selwyn Gardens
        Cambridge, CB3 9BA		Phone:(UK) 01223 566603
        United Kingdom			Fax:  (UK) 01223 566608
        
        


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