Monday, May 19, 2008

NA27 and UBS4 Orthographic Differences

Although the text of NA27 and UBS4 is supposed to be identical, apparently some inconsistencies remain.

Perhaps this has been caught previously, but I noticed today in 1Cor 9:1 that EWRAKA is read by UBS4 (also BYZ/TR), while EORAKA is read by NA27 (also WH), the orthography varying according to the "Attic" versus the "normal" form.

Was this an oversight in one or the other Muenster-based editions? Can we expect it to be corrected in the next edition (whichever one will be held to reflect the original orthography)? Are there any other cases of textual (not punctuational) difference between NA27 and UBS4?


Jan Krans said...

This is my list (hopefully the unicode works well):
NA26-27 / GNT3-4
1. Acts 17:7 πράσσουσιν / πράσσουσι
2. Rom 11:25 ἄχρι / ἄχρις
3. 1 Cor 6:3 μήτι γε / μήτιγε
4. 1 Cor 9:1 ἑόρακα ἑώρακα
5. 1 Cor 11:26 ἄχρι / ἄχρις
6. 2 Cor 8:5 ἀλλά / ἀλλ᾽
7. 2 Cor 11:25 ἐρραβδίσθην / ἐραβδίσθην
8. Heb 9:19 ἐρράντισεν / ἐράντισεν
9. Heb 9:21 ἐρράντισεν / ἐράντισεν
These differences actually go back to earlier editions.

Tommy Wasserman said...

I remember there is also a difference in the spelling of Satan/satan somewhere.

Richard Wilson said...

A few more differences of varying importance:

Mt 14:27 NA ὀ; UBS ὁ (a typographical error)
Mt 27:37 NA βασιλεὺς; UBS βασιλεῦς (probably a typo)
Acts 7:16 NA, UBS3 Ἐμμὼρ; UBS4 Ἑμμὼρ (no doubt a typo)
Acts 7:47 NA Σολομὼν; UBS Σολομῶν (probably a typo)
Rom 15:9 NA ὀνόματί; UBS ὀνοματί (typo)
Rom 16:7 NA Ἰουνίαν; UBS Ἰουνιᾶν

What always seems strange to me is the concentration in Acts-2Cor. Anyway, most of these differences can be found at doing a "Compare Manuscripts" search typing NA as Manuscript 1 and UBS as Manuscript 2.

maurice a robinson said...

RW: Rom 16:7 NA Ἰουνίαν; UBS Ἰουνιᾶν

My copies of UBS4 and NA27 both have Ἰουνιᾶν. Perhaps there is a typo in the electronic text?

TW: I remember there is also a difference in the spelling of Satan/satan somewhere.

The UBS uniformly capitalizes Satan, whereas NA retains lowercase, if that is what you mean (there also exists a variant in 2Co 12:7 where Byz differs from NA/UBS in relation to an indeclinable form).

Other than those, the lists as given are very helpful; thank you all. The greater question remains: does Münster intend to regularize all divergent forms in the next edition (mere typos I'm sure will be corrected)?

Timo Flink said...

umm, I have UBS4 third reprinting and 1 Cor 9:1 reads ἑόρακα, not ἑώρακα

Jan Krans said...

Some remarks and precisions:
- new editions of GNT and NA will be published as part of the IGNTP/INTF collaboration; I assume the small differences will then disappear (with NA "winning", so to speak)
- in many cases, it will be impossible even to guess the "exact" spelling used by the "original" authors; our editions contain a modern editorial layer, based on tradition and "best practice" (more could be said on this)
- in general, one should reckon with the phenomenon that GNT and NA often introduce minor changes in the various printings of an edition
- in Mt 14:27 the typo ὀ (NA27) has finally been corrected in the most recent, 9th printing of NA27 (2006)
- in Acts 7:16 the reading Ἑμμὼρ (GNT4) (with rough breathing) is also found in WH, and seems to be intentional (my files suggest that it also occurs in GNT3, but I do not have the edition here to verify that)
- in Rom 16:12 Ἰουνιᾶν (masculine) is found in GNT3, NA26 and earlier printings of GNT4 and NA27; Ἰουνίαν (feminine) is introduced in the 1998 printings of GNT4 and NA27; the reading was extensively discussed by Epp (and others)
- there are many differences in the accents on Aramaic and Hebrew words; the general rule seems to be that Aramaic or Hebrew words are not accented (names are), except when they are seen as Greek loan words
- Σολομὼν and Σολομῶν are both acceptable, but GNT4 is indeed inconsistent in having the latter only in Acts 12:47 and not in Mt 1:7; 6:29 and Lk 12:27

Randall Buth said...

Jan Krans--
...based on tradition and "best practice" (more could be said on this)

i.e., modern tradition and 20th century practice--which gets us back to WH and their more text-based spelling plus Pete Williams' SBL paper last year.

Anonymous said...

A word of caution to the UBS4 editors when they uniformly capitalize Satan. Doubtless he is a personal entity, but his modus operandi and attributes that he displays are equally significant, i.e, DIABOLOS, PONHPOS, etc. An explanatory comment might be warranted in either NA27 and UBS4.


Daniel Buck said...

It appears that doesn't have the "newest and best" editions of both NA and UBS, thus some of the discrepancies.

One would have thought, in this day of electronic publishing, that a text would no longer vary from one printing to the next in any particulars.

Either that, or the process of weeding out scribal errors takes so long that only the "newest" manuscripts can be considered to be the "best."

It looks like we are already up to as many editions of the Textus Politicus Correctus as there are of the Textus Receptus.

Anonymous said...

Daniel Buck wrote:

"It looks like we are already up to as many editions of the Textus Politicus Correctus as there are of the Textus Receptus."

Ha, ha, ha, Daniel, but are you above or below the line. There are references to the apparatus in the text of NA27 but no textual evidence.

Are the scribes at INTTF intellectually more in tune with their God given intellect that the computer generated type-setter can't keep up? Some think the "beast" is a computer - but lets not go there.