Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Notes on Luke 22: P75, NA27 & Sinaiticus

Yesterday we had some fun with P75 in an MPhil seminar. The basic assignment was to read page 53 (containing Luke 22.38-56). Among the many things we noticed were the following:
  1. For the last word of v41 P75 reads PROSEUXATO (not PROSHUXATO as NA27 app. suggests) - a reminder that the NA apparatus is somewhat an approximation and can't be guaranteed to present sufficient evidence to reconstruct readings of manuscripts in detail. We wondered whether it would be better to place P75 in parentheses in the apparatus (I think it probably would be better).
  2. For the omission of 22.43f NA27 app. refers to the first corrector of Sinaiticus - from NA27 one would think that the original of Sinaiticus has the verses, the first corrector (in the scriptorium) deletes; and a later corrector restores them. But the Sinaiticus project web page now attributes the deletion to the Ca corrector, and the restoration to the Cb2 corrector - which places the action much later than the first corrector. I guess/hope that the next revision of NA (NA28) will incorporate the results of the Sinaiticus Project in the apparatus.
  3. For the same variant NA27 cites for the addition (among other things): Ju[stin] Ir[enaeus] Hipp Eus Hier. Immediately one wants to know the reference in Justin so as to assess whether Justin knows the text as part of Luke or (possibly) as an independent floater. This is such a general problem with patristic references in our small editions that I began to wonder about how big an appendix - which provided a reference for each patristic citation in the apparatus - would actually be, especially for second and third century writers. In my imagination it would be about as long as the appendices for minor variants and differences between the editions, and would be just as valuable than either of those. What do you think?
  4. In 22.47 P75 reads PROSHRCETO (NA27 txt: PROHRCETO). Here it is a helpful outcome of reading the manuscript that one realises it is more than a simple one letter variant, since the reading of P75 suggests a different referent for the following AUTOUS - it would refer to the disciples and Jesus (v45); whereas for the NA27 reading it presumably refers to the OCLOS mentioned earlier in the verse (but pluralised). Just an example of how textual criticism helps close reading of the text.
  5. We noted that NA27 doesn't offer any evidence in support of the txt reading for 22.19b-20, which would suggest that the editors were completely (IMO overly) satisfied with the originality of the longer reading here. Or is it more a by-product of the decision to take such a large unit as v17-20 for the variants - for such a long unit listing support for the txt reading would involve a lot of parentheses no doubt.

6 Comments:

Peter Rodgers said...

Peter, On point 3, I think such an appendix would be a very valuable addition to the edition...Great to see you at SBL. Peter

Peter M. Head said...

I wasn't offering to do it!

Peter Rodgers said...

what a pity!

James E. Snapp, Jr. said...

See Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, 103:8.

Also, for an example of apparatus-like notes in which patristic sources are specifically identified, see my Greek Uncial Archetype of Mark, at the Textexcavation website. (There are, alas, some typo's in the work.)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Peter M. Head said...

This morning I was wondering about actually compiling such an appendix as an ETC wiki. One assumes there is probably a master file at Munster with all the answers in (but one might be wrong).

Tommy Wasserman said...

Yes, I have seen master files in Münster ... (the old card index, which I am certain is now digital).

There is a typo par. 5 where you refer to "NA28".