Evangelical Textual Criticism

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

A Primer to the Apparatus of "The New Field"

For my first post on ETC, I thought I would introduce my work by explaining the textual apparatus for the new edition of the Hexaplaric fragments, which the Hexapla Institute uses currently. Some changes to it may occur between this draft and the final draft, but this primer will provide the reader with a basic overview. I will use Job 32:1b as a model of the apparatus and I will comment on the function of each line below.

Job 32:1b

HT: כִּי הוּא צַדִּיק בְּעֵינָיו׃

LXX: ἦν γὰρ Ιωβ δίκαιος ἐναντίον αὐτῶν.

σʹ: διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν δίκαιον φαίνεσθαι ἑαυτ

Wit1: C (= 250 3005) ↓cI138 260 732cII 161 555

Wit2: αὐτῶν] του O (Syhtxt) 55 68 157* 795 AethA = M↓

Attr: σʹ] > 250 3006

Var: αὐτόν/δίκαιον] tr 161 | ἑαυτῷ] εαυτω(ν) 139 643; εαυτων 255 395 559 612; αυτων 740; εαυτον 680; επ αυτων cII 161 555 3006

NonGr: N/A

Notes:

1. The "HT" is the Hebrew text taken from BHS fifth edition. Though the Hexaplaric fragment does not always agree with this text, it is the base text used for the edition. All variants to this text are discussed in the "Notes" section at the end of each entry.

2. The LXX text is the text of Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta Iob, Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.

3. Line three contains the putative original text and attribution.

4. The "Wit1" line lists all of the available evidence for the fragment. In this case, only the catena mss (listed according to Rahlfs's numbers) preserve the text. C represents the oldest tradition of the Catena of Job and it is best preserved in mss 250 and 3005 among others. cI represents the earliest recension of C, and cII along with 161 and 555 represents the final recension of the catena of Job and is probably the work of Niketas. Unless noted otherwise, C and cI preserve these readings in the margin, while cII has preserved them in the commentary portion of the catena. The down arrows indicate that the witnesses will occur in one or more of the apparatuses below.

5. The "Wit2" line is used for any relevant variants from Ziegler's First Apparatus. Usually, if the Hexaplaric fragment has influenced or interfered with the transmission of the LXX text via the Hexapla, that data will be listed in Wit2.

6. The "Attr" line shows the preservation of the attribution in detail. In this case, mss 250 and 3006 are sine nomine or without attribution. All of the other witnesses from Wit1 contain an attribution to Symmachus as the author of the fragment.

7. The "Var" line shows any variants from the putative original text. In this case, ms 161 has transposed αυτον and δικαιον. I deemed ἑαυτῳ to be the original text on the basis of 250 3005 and 137 (corrected). The variants εαυτων and επ' αυτων arose through assimilation to the LXX lemma. Εαυτον arose through otacism from εαυτων. In this instance, the HT provides a control, since
בְּעֵינָיו is singular. The data in Wit2 is from Ziegler's First Apparatus, and it is plausible that Symmachus or one of the other Three has influenced the reading of the O text (i.e. the best representatives of the fifth column of Origen's Hexapla, contained in La and Syh according to Ziegler).

8. The "NonGr" line would list readings from non Greek sources. There is no relevant material in the Arm La Syh or Co for this lemma.

9. The "Notes" section allows the editor to discuss textual decisions, the placement of these readings in individual mss, retroversions from the Versions, and the patristic sources from which these readings arose. For example at 32:1b, Ziegler's
Edition posits that Olympiodorus ("Olymp") is the church father associated with this Symmachus fragment, yet after checking the critical edition of the Olympiodor Kommentar, ed. by Dieter Hagedorn, it is now clear that Olymp had nothing to do with this fragment and his association with this fragment occurred much later, since only the Niketas catena preserves this link; therefore, I did not place "(Olymp)" in the Wit1 line as Ziegler did.

10 comments:

  1. Thanks for introducing the exciting work done on reconstructing the Hexapla. Can you share your experience with the web interface and the electronic database and how the digital medium shapes the work that you are doing?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks John,
    That is a good first post. Now we know you are serious about this stuff. And in order to get the comments going I have a couple of comments/questions about this:
    a) if Wit2 is an apparatus to the LXX text wouldn't it be clearer if it were situated directly underneath the LXX text?
    b) it might be better/clearer if the Var. information came directly underneath the Wit1 since, as your notes show, you've chosen the text line for Symm. at this point from these variants.
    c) why give the Attr via a negative apparatus? Wouldn't it be simpler to list the positive evidence of attribution? (And why not drop this below Var.?)
    d) For NonGr I wonder if it would be better to give the information that you know does not contribute - this could help future researchers if they find a non-Greek version that is relevant. Maybe anyway?
    e) Looking at this I wondered whether 3005 and 3006 were different manuscripts or a typo. On checking in Rahlfs-Fraenkel I can't find either of them!
    f) In the Var. collection I don't find the information re 139 and 643 very clear: EAUTW(N) - what are these parentheses signifying here?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very nice, but i don't understand the need to perpetuate the highly abbreviated style in the online version that a printed app.crit. requires.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Friends,

    Thanks for your comments and questions. I wondered whether to launch out with a post like this one, since there is some prolegommena, which is necessary to know. I posted it anyway, thinking that I would have ample space to treat these matters in the comments.

    Ulrich Schmid - I am not in a position to share my experience with the technical side of the project at this time. There is a database set up, but not all of the editors have made use of it yet. Since I am at the beginning of my work, I have not made use of the database yet. I will plan a post for when I do begin to use it. Sorry to disappoint.

    G.W. Schwendner, I'm not quite sure what your comment is communicating. Would you please explain what you mean by the "highly abbreviated style" and how that relates either to the print edition or the on-line one?

    Peter, thanks for your questions and comments. I will do my best to answer them in order.

    a) The Wit2 line may be clearer if placed directly below the LXX text. The reason why the three texts are placed on top of each other is to facilitate comparison between them. If there is an apparatus between the texts, would that not interfere with this end? Furthermore, there will not be a Wit2 line for every fragment. It is only used when influence on the LXX text history is perceived. Its function will be clearly described in the introduction to the edition. Does this help?

    b) This is a fair suggestion. Currently, the apparatuses are arranged in order. The Attribution comes first, and then the lemma. The attribution line comes first, and then the variant to the lemma line.

    c) This is a very good suggestion, and one that I already employ when I work through the texts, which are sub asterisk. In these problems the Greek mss are very inconsistent in their preservation of the attribution. Here, since the Arm, La, Co and many of the individual Greek mss (catena or otherwise) do not usually preserve the attribution, I list only the mss which preserve it along with the Syh, which usually preserves it. Currently, for these types of problems, it is easier to subtract the few witnesses which do not preserve the attribution than to list the ones that do.

    Is it not clear that 250 and 3006 should be subtracted from the witnesses in the Wit1 line?

    to be continued

    ReplyDelete
  5. And we are back...

    d) In the Introduction, the Versions associated with the Hexapla will be described in detail. I'm still thinking through your suggestion, and I can't imagine a way to accomplish it. The marginal note is either there in Syh (Ceriani) or it's not? It's either in Claude Cox's collation of Arm mss or it's not. The presence of a Greek fragment in 32:1b should alert future researchers to check their new ms finds at these places to see if the other versions confirm the lemma or provide a variant etc.

    Have a I misunderstood you?

    e) You have really done your homework! The readings of 3005 and 3006 (and those beyond 3000) come to me through Ursula and Dieter Hagedorn, Nachlese zu den Fragmenten der juengeren griechischen Uebersetzer des Buches Hiob, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. The Hagedorns have supplied their own mss, and left the following note in the introduction: for the manuscripts, which do not appear in Rahlf's Verzeichnis, R. Hanhart has decided the Sigla 3005ff. for the Goettingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen (3). These are mss, which the Hagedorns used for their extensive research, which have not been officially catalogued by the Unternehmen. Again, this will be made clear in the introduction. For your information, ms 3005 is Genuensis Durazzo-Giustiniani A I 10 (9/10 century). It is ms U in the Hagedorn's edition of the catena of Hiob (De Gruyter, vol. I, 1994). Ms 3006 is Sinaiticus gr. 3 (11 century).

    f) For these readings I am using the Hagedorn's Kollationen. I believe they use parentheses to signify that the last letter is incurtem, but I will check with Professor Hagedorn about this. I will probably use vid or inc after the said ms in order to indicate the exact nature of the problem with the reading.

    Sorry for the confusion here.

    Thanks again for the feedback. I enjoy the dialogue already.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Update: Professor Hagedorn clarified his use of (ν), which stands in 139 and 643. The symbol stands for the ligature for -ῶν in those mss. He sent me the image of 139, and I concur that this is indeed the case. Therefore, 139 and 643 should be (and have already been in my apparatus) grouped with the genitive plural variant.

    Thanks for the good question, Peter!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Re: abbreviations, i just mean items such as
    Wit1
    Wit2
    σʹ:
    ↓C

    etc. which make sense in print, where there is a premium on space, but not online.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I second the post about abbreviations. Please avoid them where possible

    ReplyDelete
  9. Re abbreviations:

    The post was introducing the format of the apparatus of the print edition. Using and explaining the abbreviations was essential for this purpose. I will avoid them in the future.

    The σ΄ "abbreviation" is essential to the history of the fragment and is not an abbreviation. The mss preserve the reading to Sym often using a sigma prime; thus the siglum is included as part of the lemma.

    ReplyDelete