Re: [textualcriticism] NA and UBS omission of majority consistent witnesses, including uncials
For the UBS 4th edition—in which the apparatus has been revised, and therefore differs from the apparatus of the first three editions—the introduction reads as follows:
“Uncials with a Byzantine text … are represented by the group symbol Byz, along with all other Byzantine manuscripts. The most important Byzantine uncials are represented in brackets [ ] after the symbol Byz as individual witnesses to this text type: in the Gospels the uncials so cited include E F G H N O P Q Σ; in Acts L P, in Paul K L P, and in the Catholic Epistles K L. The full range of the Byzantine text-type, which especially in the earlier manuscripts is not characterized by complete uniformity, is documented in this way.” (UBSGNT, 4th edition , “Introduction,” p. 4*).
Thus at Mark 7:19, the UBS4 apparatus presents (to cite just the elements relevant to this point): for the masculine, Byzpt [ E F G H]; for the neuter, Byzpt [Σ].
Whenever an apparatus offers a representative selection of witnesses, there is the risk that users will misunderstand the presentation of the evidence. Usually misunderstanding arises from one or more of three primary causes: (a) not reading the introduction to the apparatus; (b) misunderstanding the introduction, or (c) an introduction that is unclear or difficult to understand.
Hope this is of some help,
Mike HolmesOn Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Steven Avery <stevenavery@...> wrote:
On the TWeb forum we were looking at the UBS apparatus of :
Because it entereth not into his heart,
but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught,
purging all meats?
Thread: Mark 7:19, is "Jesus declared all foods clean" in the original Greek manuscripts?
(picture of the three variants on the page)
You can see a more complete apparatus at LaParola, please compare the neuter TR uncial evidence, that will be our focus.
(picture of the neuter variant on the page)
kaqarizon - KAQARIZON
Notice that the UBS apparatus does not list even the uncials given in LaParola.
(Four are shown, there are actually a total of nine uncials, and this may be updated in LaParola in the future.)
So I researched about my UBS does not show any uncials for the neuter kaqarizon . Apparently NA has a discussion in the introduction about "consistent witnesses" in the introduction to the UBS, where some manuscripts are omitted if they are the same as the majority text reading. And that UBS may follow the same methods
Could anybody here give a full explanation of this methodology? And, if possible, quote one of the introductions. Apparently there were some later changes in this in NA-28 as well.
If you see the TWeb thread you will see that the people posting the UBS info were fooled by this methodology into thinking that the Greek ms evidence was almost entirely for the masculine Critical Text. So it is not just an academic issue.
Plus, I wonder how that could possibly work, knowing that the reader does not know offhand if a particular uncial has text for a particular verse. And how often people get fooled by the missing information, as happened on TWeb. The individual who posted the information actually has been writing on textual matters for years.
Here was the Burgon list of uncials:
Causes of the Corruption - (1896) John William Burgon
kaqarizon uncials - - pic of 8 uncials)
Y can be added to that, and the full count is 9 for the neuter kaqarizon Received Text, 14 for masculine Critical Text.
Any help appreciated.