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

RE: [textualcriticism] NA28 is there

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Two general observations on the apparatus: What is interesting is that they omitted the notation pc and al completely. Whatever one may think about this
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 20, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Two general observations on the apparatus:

      What is interesting is that they omitted the notation "pc" and "al"
      completely. Whatever one may think about this decision, one has to keep this
      in mind. There can be at times a lot more manuscripts supporting a reading.
      They keep "pm" though, which indicates that the Byzantine text is split.

      They also have removed references to Byz manuscripts supporting txt. Only
      manuscripts listed in the appendix are cited "occasionally". This means that
      NA28 has removed existing evidence from the apparatus.
      Examples:
      2:18 NA27 lists 0250 for the short form, NA28 omitted this reference.
      3:6 NA27 lists 0233 for txt, NA28 omitted this reference.
      8:10 NA27 lists 0287 for txt, NA28 omitted this reference.
      Etc. etc.

      Btw. the font seems to be the same but it is thinner than the old one. I
      like the old one better. The new is too faint. But it's not really a
      problem.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
    • Roger
      Wieland, I wonder why Codex Schøyen was excluded? What was Jim Leonhard s thesis on? - Roger ... From: Wieland Willker Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 21, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Wieland,
         
        I wonder why Codex Schøyen was excluded?
        What was Jim Leonhard's thesis on?
         
        - Roger
         


        Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:55 AM
        Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] NA28 is there

         

        > That sounds terrific! How is the proofreading thus far? I
        > know

        that NA28 includes the latest papyri (P56, P100-
        > P127), but does it
        also include / consider Majuscules
        > 0307- 0320, Minuscules 2857- 2903,
        and Lectionaries l
        > 2404- l 2445?

        I am currently working my way through Matthew. Have found already some
        errors.
        I think all of the latest manuscripts have been covered.
        What is strange though, they did not include Codex Schoyen.
        Btw, is Jim Leonhard's thesis available online?

        Stephen Carlson gets a mention for his discovery of the forgery of 2427.

        Best wishes
        Wieland
        <><
        --------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        Textcritical commentary:
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

        Please check out the TC forum:
        http://tcg.iphpbb3.com

      • Roger
        Hmm. I heard that they removed pc and al from the critical apparatus from somewhere (someone?) else. Are pc and al replaced with a list of these few
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 21, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hmm. I heard that they removed pc and al from the critical apparatus from somewhere (someone?) else. Are pc and al replaced with a list of these 'few witnesses' and 'others' (respectively), or did NA28 leave them out altogether? If they left them out altogether, then I hope they will reconsider their decision for NA29. It's unfortunate that NA28's apparatus also removed references to Byzantine mss supporting text (with occasional exceptions). Granted, I would prefer having a more exhaustive apparatus--- ideally (in addition to what already appears) where pc and al are replaced with a list of these 'few witnesses' and 'others', where supporting Byzantine (and other) texts are listed, and where the papyri / majuscules / minuscules / lectionaries / etc. where the nomina sacra does and does not appear are also listed.
           
          The publishers likely believed that the thinner font would help reduce the number of pages? (I used to do that when writing papers for my B.A. and M. Div.)
           
          - Roger
           


          Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:28 AM
          Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] NA28 is there

           

          Two general observations on the apparatus:

          What is interesting is that they omitted the notation "pc" and "al"
          completely. Whatever one may think about this decision, one has to keep this
          in mind. There can be at times a lot more manuscripts supporting a reading.
          They keep "pm" though, which indicates that the Byzantine text is split.

          They also have removed references to Byz manuscripts supporting txt. Only
          manuscripts listed in the appendix are cited "occasionally". This means that
          NA28 has removed existing evidence from the apparatus.
          Examples:
          2:18 NA27 lists 0250 for the short form, NA28 omitted this reference.
          3:6 NA27 lists 0233 for txt, NA28 omitted this reference.
          8:10 NA27 lists 0287 for txt, NA28 omitted this reference.
          Etc. etc.

          Btw. the font seems to be the same but it is thinner than the old one. I
          like the old one better. The new is too faint. But it's not really a
          problem.

          Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><
          --------------------------
          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          Textcritical commentary:
          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

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