Friday, July 20, 2018

New Articles in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism

2
The first installation of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism volume 23 (2018) is complete with three articles and a number of reviews. Three or four additional articles will follow in the second installation in November. Notably, two of the articles are written by two PhD students, Jonathan Hong (ISBTF Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel), who is working under Martin Karrer on the text of the Psalms in a German project concerned with the reconstruction of the oldest text form of the Septuagint (Old Greek) and its linguistic and theological characteristics; and Jesse R. Grenz (Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge), who is studying the scribal habits in Codex Vaticanus under supervision of our co-blogger Dirk Jongkind.

Volume 23 (2018)

Articles

Garrick V. Allen, “There Is No Glory and No Money in the Work”: H. C. Hoskier and New Testament Textual Criticism
Abstract: Focusing on the work and life of H. C. Hoskier, this article explores the broader intellectual context of late nineteenth and early twentieth century textual criticism. This examination illuminates the deep context of current trends in textual scholarship on the New Testament, arguing that the discipline has much to learn from the dark corners of the tradition. Though seemingly dry and laborious work (and of a truth it is the latter to a large extent) some of the most wonderful truths, some of the most interesting problems present themselves to his mind as letter by letter, line by line, and page by page the patient collator toils along slowly at his task.
Jonathan Hong, In Search of the “Old Greek” in the Septuagint Psalter: A Case Study of LXX Psalms 49 and 103
Abstract: Till today Rahlfs’s edition from 1931 is the standard text when it comes to the Greek Psalter. However, important discoveries were made after 1931, for example the Psalm scrolls from Qumran and early Greek manuscripts. This article includes the new material and argues that the original text of the Septuagint has been a freer translation than the text reconstructed by Rahlfs. It also shows that the new Greek manuscript findings of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV (Ra 2110) and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5101 (Ra 2227) attest to a particularly strongly Hebraized text-form.
Jesse R. Grenz, Textual Divisions in Codex Vaticanus: A Layered Approach to the Delimiters in B(03)
Abstract: In this article, I am concerned with the various delimitation markers found in Codex Vaticanus. While some scholars have assumed an overall coherence between these markers, I argue that they must first be examined on their own to determine their function and relation to one another. This is done first by understanding textual delimitation as a part of transmission and scribal habit. After examining the spacing, ektheses, paragraphoi, and Greek section numerals, I conclude: (1) only the spacing and ektheses are original to the work of the scribes; (2) the paragraphoi were later additions for the purpose of reading, and sometimes correct the original divisions of the scribes; and (3) finally, the later additions of Greek section numerals were for ease of reference and can both agree and disagree with previous division markers. The data presented below has implications for any further conclusions about the purpose and relationship of these divisions to the larger textual tradition.

Reviews

Marietheres Döhler, Acta Petri: Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Actus Vercellenses (Thomas J. Kraus, reviewer)
Liv Ingeborg Lied and Hugo Lundhaug, Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology (Marcus Sigismund, reviewer)
Alan Mugridge, Copying Early Christian Texts: A Study of Scribal Practise (Michael Dormandy, reviewer)
Ernst Würthwein and Alexander Achilles Fischer, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica (Andrew W. Dyck, reviewer)

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Fragmentarium: Digital Laboratory for Medieval Manuscript Fragments

1
The Fragmentarium website seems like a great idea and one that could be useful for Biblical manuscripts as well. (Note Tommy’s post from a few years ago.)
Fragmentarium enables libraries, collectors, researchers and students to publish images of medieval manuscript fragments, allowing them to catalogue, describe, transcribe, assemble and re-use them.

On her blog, Lisa Fagin Davis gives more detail:
The recently-launched Fragmentarium project (based in Fribourg) combines IIIF with a powerful mySQL database to allow for the cataloguing of individual fragments and leaves and the virtual reconstruction of parent manuscripts in a shared canvas workspace. Brought to you by the incredible team behind e-codices, Fragmentarium uses a flexible and well-designed data model that is fragment-centric and follows international standards of authority and data modeling. It is the culmination of decades of development on the technical side and of metadata design on the scholarly side. Several institutions are already working on Fragmentarium case studies, uploading images (if they don’t already have IIIF purls), cataloguing them, and creating virtual reconstructions.
Besides the obvious examples of Codex Sinaiticus and P46, what examples come to mind that could use this in NT studies? 

Monday, July 16, 2018

The New Edition of Acts – Listing the Differences between ECM and NA28

6
At this year’s British New Testament Conference, the Acts group organises a panel discussion on the new Acts volumes in the Editio Critica Maior series (ECM). I thought I share some of my boring preparation so that others need not go through the same tedium (warning, nearly 1,500 words; mainly lists).

1. Differences

At first sight it ought not to be difficult to list the differences between the Editio Critica Maior of Acts and NA28, right? In fact, it is not a straightforward exercise. NA28 presents readings in square brackets, so what is the status of text presented there? And ECM has split text lines, in which two or three options are given, without clear preference for any of the splits; are these equal to the use of brackets? Still, when presenting a split guidance, ECM rejects any other variants not given in the splitted options, so something of a choice has been made, and therefore a split guidance is not identical to a ‘lacuna’. Things get even more complicated if we have a bracketed text in NA28 and ECM presents the two possibilities as a split guideline. Are NA28 and ECM equivalent in such cases or not? And what if ECM presents one of the options of NA28 as suggested by the brackets, but adds another not covered by NA28 (as actually happens)?
The best way of coping with all these complications is simply leave them as they are, without tying ourselves into knots trying to enforce the blanket category of differences. What we do below is present a layered approach, and leave it to you to accept what constitutes a difference, and what doesn’t.

2. ‘Pure’ changes

The first list constitutes the changes where the ECM has a different text from an unbracketed NA28. I count 34 of these, and these are all part of the table found on ECM I,34-35*. These break down into the following categories.


Articles


NA28
ECM
2:20b
-
τήν
14:10
-
τῇ
15:17
-
15:37
τόν1
-

Prepositions


NA28
ECM
2:5
εἰς
ἐν
9:21
εἰς
ἐν
15:4
ἀπό
ὐπό

Particles and Conjunctions

1:15
ὡσεί
ὡς
2:20a
-
16:11
δέ
οὖν
20:6
ὅπου
οὗ
23:5
ὅτι
-

Pronouns

1:26
αὐτοῖς
αὐτῶν
9:8
οὐδέν
οὐδένα
19:14
τινος
τινες
10:9[1]
ἐκείνων
αὐτῶν

Nouns

1:10
ἐσθήσεσιν λευκαῖς
ἐσθήτι λευκῃ
18:7[2]
Τιτίου
Τίτου
25:18
πονηρῶν
πονηράν
20:21
-
Χριστόν

Verbs

5:26
ἦγεν
ἤγαγεν
5:33
ἐβούλοντο
ἐβουλεύοντο
7:7
δουλεύσουσιν
δουλεύσωσιν
8:31
ὁδηγήσει
ὁδηγήση
13:11b
ἔπεσεν
ἐπέπεσεν
16:17
κατακολουθοῦσα
κατακολουθήσασα
20:5
προελθόντες
προσελθόντες
23:10
γινομένης
γενομένης
28:5
ἀποτινάξας
ἀποτιναξάμενος

Word Order

16:28
μεγάλῃ φωνῇ
φωνῇ μεγάλῇ

23:1
ὁ Παῦλος τῷ συνεδρίῳ
τῷ συνεδρίῳ ὁ Παῦλος
27:8
πόλις ἧν
ἧν πόλις

‘Complex’

2:3
καὶ ἐκάθισεν
ἐκάθισέν τε
16:13
ἐνομιζομεν προσευχήν
ἐνομιζετο προσευχή

In addition, there is a change where there is a bracket in NA28, but where the change in ECM is bigger than the constraints of the original brackets.

16:12
πρώτη[ς] μερίδος τῆς
πρώτη τῆς μερίδος

In 16:12 ECM has abandoned the conjecture of NA28 and moved to a reading better supported in the Greek tradition (note that ECM forgot the final τῆς of NA28 in its table). Compare the similar case of 17.3 below in the table where ECM has a split guidance at a place where NA28 has a bracketed text
Also, I have split up the variant unit of 16:28, which is in the Textual Changes table in ECM given as

16:28
μεγάλῃ φωνῇ [ὁ]
φωνῇ μεγάλῇ ὁ

Two things are going on. First the word order difference, and secondly the bracketed article before the name ‘Paul’. The change from a bracketed to unbracketed article appears further below.
Thus in this section we have 35 differences.

3. Bracketed Readings in NA28

NA28 has by my count 78 bracketed readings, though 16:12 is already dealt with above. There are four ways in which the ECM relates to these readings: 1) ECM equals NA28 but without the brackets, 2) ECM has the text of NA28 but omits the text in brackets,  3) ECM has a text different from the bracketed text of NA28 without a split guidance; 4) ECM has a split guidance that – at least in part – overlaps with the bracketed reading of NA28. I take it that each of these four categories constitutes a change from NA28 to ECM, since the ECM does not know the category of brackets.

3.1 ECM has the bracketed text of NA28

There are 36 cases where ECM presents the bracketed text of NA28 but now without any indication of indecisiveness. Again I have attempted to make the list less boring by grouping the variants into categories.


NA28 – ECM without [ ]

Articles
2.34
[ὁ] κύριος
4.4a
[ὁ] ἀριθμὸς
7.13
[τοῦ] Ἰωσήφ
9.22
[τοὺς] ουδαίους
11.13
[τὸν] ἄγγελον
16.9
[τῆς] νυκτὸς
16.28
[ὁ] Παῦλος
16.29
[τῷ] Σιλᾷ
17.22
[ὁ] Παῦλος

Articles (II)
11.23
[τὴν] τοῦ θεοῦ
19.8
[τὰ] περὶ
23.30
[τὰ] πρὸς
26.4a
[τὴν] ἐκ

Prepositions
1.8
[ἐν] πάσῃ
7.3
[ἐκ] τῆς  (2)

Prefixed Prepositions
1.11
[ἐμ]βλέποντες
3.25
[ἐν]ευλογηθήσονται
13.14
[εἰσ]ελθόντες

Particles and Conjunctions
12.21
[καὶ]
13.31
[νῦν]
16.1
[καὶ]
19.40
[οὐ]

Pronouns
4.30
[σου]
7.25
[αὐτοῦ]
7.43
[ὑμῶν]
10.36
[ὃν]
12.17
[αὐτοῖς]
16.36
[τούτους]
23.6
[ἐγὼ]
25.17
[αὐτῶν]
26.26
[τι] τούτων
26.31
[τι] πράσσει

Nouns
18.26
[τοῦ θεοῦ]
27.41
[τῶν κυμάτων]

Verbs
2.38
[φησίν,]
15.24
[ἐξελθόντες]

3.2 ECM leaves out the bracketed text of NA28

The second way in which ECM is different to NA28 is when it omits the bracketed text. This happens in the following 16 places.

NA28
ECM

Articles

9.12b
[τὰς] χεῖρας
Omit
12.11
[ὁ] κύριος
Omit
15.41
[τὴν] Κιλικίαν
Omit
16.27
[τὴν] μάχαιραν
Omit

Articles (II)

5.31
[τοῦ] δοῦναι
Omit

Prepositions

7.22
[ἐν] πασῇ
Omit
10.40
[ἐν] τῇ τριτῇ
Omit
14.3
[ἐπὶ] (2)
Omit

Particles and Conjunctions

2.33
[καὶ]
Omit
19.15
[μὲν]
Omit

Pronouns

13.33
[αὐτῶν]
Omit
27.23
[ἐγώ]
Omit

Nouns (Noun phrases)

3.13(bis)
[ὁ θεὸς] Ἰσαὰκ καὶ  [ὁ θεὸς] Ἰακώβ
Omit
9.12a
[ἐν ὁράματι]
Omit

Verbs

11.22
[διελθεῖν]
Omit

 3.3 ECM has a different text from the bracketed NA28


NA28
ECM
4.4b
[ὡς]
ὡσει
23.23
[τινὰς] δύο
δύο τινὰς

At 4.4b the apparatus of NA28 is slightly ambiguous, as it is not perfectly clear whether the omission is preferred as the main alternative or the reading ὡσει. Looking at the evidence I think the omission is seen as the alternative.
The same is true for 23.23, where the brackets might indicate either the alternative word order or the omission.

3.4 ECM has a split guidance where NA28 has brackets

The fourth categoryBrackets and the split guidance are not identical categories of uncertainty. Whereas brackets still represent a choice on behalf of the editors, a split guidance presents full alternatives. Below is the list of these 23 ‘changes’

NA28
ECM
3.6
[ἔγειρε καὶ]
ἔγειρε καὶ
♦ -
4.28
[σου]
σου
♦ -
5.28
[οὐ]
οὐ
♦ -
6.13
[τούτου]
τούτου
7.10
[ἐφ᾿]
ἐφ᾿
♦ -
7.18
[ἐπ᾿ Αἴγυπτον]
ἐπ᾿ Αἴγυπτον
♦ -
7.19
[ἡμῶν]
ἡμῶν
♦ -
7.35
[καὶ]
καὶ
♦ -
8.5
[τὴν] πόλιν
τὴν πόλιν
πόλιν
8.33
[αὐτοῦ]
αὐτοῦ
♦ -
9.37
ἔθηκαν [αὐτὴν]
ἔθηκαν αὐτὴν
αὐτὴν ἔθηκαν

Two-way split between NA28-text and 3rd alternative
10.19
[αὐτῷ] τὸ πνεῦμα
αὐτῷ τὸ πνεῦμα
τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῷ

Two-way split between NA28-text and 3rd alternative. 3rd alternative not even mentioned in NA28.
10.39
[ἐν]
ἐν
-
12.3
[αἱ] ἡμέραι
αἱ ἡμέραι
ἡμέραι
13.10
[τοῦ] κυρίου
τοῦ κυρίου
κυρίου
13.20
[τοῦ] προφήτου
τοῦ προφήτου
προφήτου
13.38
[καὶ]
καὶ
♦ -
17.3
ὁ χριστὸς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς
χριστὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς
χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς
χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς
19.1
[κατ]ελθεῖν
κατελθεῖν
λθεῖν
19.6
[τὰς] χεῖρας
τὰς χεῖρας
χεῖρας
26.4b
[οἱ] Ἰουδαῖοι
οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι
Ἰουδαῖοι
26.16
εἶδές [με]
εἶδές με
εἶδες
26.21
[ὄντα]
ὄντα
-

10.39 is not mentioned in the list in ECM I.35*-37* but is found in the print edition. In the online edition (accessed at time of writing) there is no split (no longer?). It is a bit puzzling that some information found in the print edition is missing in the online version. If we assume that the online version is the most up-to-date, the printed list of split readings is based on a later version of the printed text.

In all but three cases the split guidance of ECM reflects the two options suggested by the use of brackets in NA28, the bracketed text is present or absent.

However, in 9.37 and 10.19 ECM has opted for an alternative that is not indicated by the brackets in NA28. In both these cases the question of presence / absence that was posed by NA28 has become a choice between two word orders in ECM. In 10.19, NA28 does not even mention the second word order alternative of ECM (which shows the limitations of a pocket edition).

4. Split Readings in ECM without Corresponding Brackets in NA28

ECM gives a list of 155 split readings in ECM I.35*-37* (or should it be 156 if we include 10.39?). If we subtract the 23 passages dealt with in the previous section it follows that ECM has at 132 places a split guidance where NA28 presented an unbracketed text. The split readings are normally two-way splits, but there are a number of three-ways (in addition to 17.3 listed above under 3.4).

5. Summary

All this leads to the following numbers, taking the maximalist approach:

‘Pure’ differences
35
NA28 brackets; normal text in ECM
36
NA28 brackets; omitted in ECM
16
NA28 brackets; different, normal text in ECM
2
NA28 brackets; split guidance in ECM
23
NA28 normal text; split guidance in ECM
132
Total number of ‘differences’
244

[edited 19.vii.2018 to move 23.23 from section 3.1 to 3.3, HT Tony Pope]