A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
No versional evidence in the apparatus. No patristic evidence in the apparatus. No talisman evidence in the apparatus.
And the story of the adulteress will be in a footnote, not in the text. (What do you do with Houghton's recent apparent confirmation of the PA in the Latin Gospels in the 200's?)
We say in the introduction that the significance of this edition is the text, not the apparatus. Our text unashamedly privileges what is best attested in early mss and has support from our knowledge of scribal habit, but that does not mean that as editors we are expressing certainty that readings without this support are secondary. After all, we're only editors. We don't preclude the possibility that Byzantine readings only in late mss are original, nor that conjectures could be original. We're only saying that it's not our job, as we understand our editorial role, to print them. This is an edition in which anything you see, from paragraph to accent to spelling is among the earliest multiply attested readings of its type.
PW: “Our text unashamedly privileges what is best attested in early mss” --
So the THEGNT favor the readings in MSS which survived the longest, thanks to whatever factors (mainly better weather – the low humidity in Egypt) contributed to their survival. Meanwhile patristic evidence -- frequently older than MS-evidence -- and versional evidence are not even cited.
PW: “We're only saying that it's not our job, as we understand our editorial role, to print them.”
One more thing. As someone who's spent much of his professional life as a versionalist, I ask myself this question: is there ever an occasion in the NT where knowledge of the versions would change my editorial choice? Sorry, can't think of one. Maybe I should know of one. Moreover, versional citations have often been wrong.
Its BEAUTIFUL! It was all I could do to stop myself from spending the rest of the morning reading the sample just for the sheer joy of it. So thrilled about the audio version as well! Who will be doing the reading? What pronunciation system will be used? (If it is produced by Bible Mesh, I'm hoping it will match their lovely vocabulary system) Can't wait to finally hold a copy in my hands!
James, our apparatus is incomplete, as we say, but it's a start (2nd edition DV in 5 years will have more minuscules). But our apparatus does seek to be complete in representing mss from the early centuries, including providing details on lacunae you won't find in other apparatuses. The apparatus does not provide the entire evidence for our decisions, but it does bring together information in a way we hope will be useful for some people.
Of course, mss in southern Egypt have benefited from the weather, but you'll see plenty of recourse to mss which are not known to have come from Egypt.
In editing, I've constantly been asking myself, what the most methodologically conservative thing to do is. Of course, many of the church fathers are in late mss, and they may or may not be citing from memory. Early versions need retroversion. Manuscripts, on the other hand, especially those long enough for us to know their scribal habit, seem to be the most conservative place to start.
Looking at the sample from Mark, I can already see some paratextual details that look like they were inspired by the early manuscripts (e.g., the first line of new paragraphs is indented outward rather than inward, and the ending has a preface found in some MSS); very nice!
In the apparatus, do the diamonds represent differences from NA28?
Mark 3.32 seems like a good case of where the preference for the earliest evidence conflicts with the emphasis on the evidence of scribal habits. καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαί σου could easily be omitted by parblepsis (+ harmonization). I think these types of readings where the editorial criteria conflict are the ones I'm most interested in hearing about from the editors.
You win the prize for starting our errata list. I proofed the main text more times than I can remember and we ran consistency checks throughout the apparatus. Sadly things slip through and we'll get this fixed. Thanks.
Dr. Williams, Will there be a textual commentary? Just at a glance, there appears to be some inconsistency in allowing the early manuscripts to be primary. Granted, these may be places where knowledge of the scribal tendencies were decisive. Certainly, a monumental achievement!
Dirk will be preparing a commentary in the next few years. Yes, it's not a mechanical decision based on earliest testimony. We've weighed rather than counted evidence. Also, commentary should explain some of the minutiae behind which a lot of work lies, e.g. the rough breathing on Isaiah in Mark 1:2, the accent ὀσφῦν in 1:6, or the spelling ἁλεεῖς in 1:16, etc. So it will be rather different from Metzger's, because it will address everything from significant semantic exegetical variants, to paragraphing, spelling, punctuation, etc.
Dr. Williams, First, thanks for the information on the commentary. Second, Is the inclusion of the comment found in minuscule 1intended to indicate that the editors were not sure if the longer ending belongs to Mark originally or does the inclusion of the text of 9-20 mean that the editors consider this original to Mark? Tim
Pete, my Greek 1 students have been asking lots of questions about orthography and where we get it from the last few weeks. This edition will do a great job of opening that decision-making process up for them. I'm eager to show them some of these spellings and accents next week now that I have my copy.
None in particular. We've just covered accents in class. And in the past we've talked a little about where other matters of orthography in the manuscripts. Some of them are very curious about the process behind our printed orthography. So any examples would be good for them at this point especially if you have any light to shed on how we got to what's in NA vs. what's now in TH.
Peter Williams (and DJ), I'm still curious about how you approach Houghton's recent apparent confirmation of the PA in Latin Gospels in the 200's, especially since that would pre-date most of of the MSS cited in the apparatus.
Does the apparatus /ever/ mention versional or patristic evidence?
James, I'm delighted if anyone finds early evidence of the PA. I'd be happy to see an early Greek papyrus of it turn up. We don't ever mention versional or patristic evidence. Here's the full quotation from p. 507 of our edition.
"Other New Testament editions have a much fuller apparatus, but we believe that this edition’s chief significance, like that of Westcott and Hort, lies not in its apparatus but in the text itself. The limited apparatus is designed primarily to illustrate the decision-making process, which has focussed on Greek witnesses of the first millennium. We recognize, of course, that versional and patristic witnesses add significantly to our knowledge of the history of the transmission of the New Testament text. Nevertheless, we have not felt that at any point their witness was strong enough to change the decisions we made on the basis of the Greek manuscripts. We are also aware that our focus on early Greek manuscript testimony differs from recent trends shown in the editing of the Catholic Epistles in the Editio Critica Maior produced under the auspices of the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster. We acknowledge that at times a late manuscript may contain a text that is logically prior to and ancestral to that in the earliest extant manuscripts. However, our aim has been to produce a text with a high degree of directly verified antiquity so that users of this edition will have the benefit of knowing that any reading printed in this text rests on early testimony. Throughout the text, the editors sought to consider the most ancient Greek testimony wherever feasible. This has included seeking ancient testimony for several different features of the text, including paragraphing, spelling, breathings, and accents."
This is great news! All the signs are that this edition will present much new, valuable research and consideration and will stimulate much healthy discussion in the field. Thanks go to all those involved in the project!
Dr. Williams, It appears that when 01 and 03 together add or omit they are relegated to the apparatus. Is this based on scribal habits unique to these manuscripts? Tim
In Mark much more so than in Matthew. In Matthew we have readings in the main text based on Vaticanus and one of the first correctors of 01. It is a consequence of assessing the manuscripts in the contexts of the book. Also, the apparatus is indicative, not exhaustive. In the actual decision making a much wider range of evidence was considered.
Dr. Jongkind, First, thanks, I wondered if this was unique to Mark or broader. As to the apparatus, hopefully this will be filled out by your commentary when available. Also, if I may, I am confused, this happens often😎, about how to understand the longer ending of Mark in your edition. The comment from minuscule 1 sets it off from the rest of the text. Does this indicate doubt as to authenticity? Tim
Yes, but we're only editors :-) We hope that this presentation of the evidence shows the different documentation from the PA, which is in a footnote. Also some who view vv 9-20 as secondary, might still claim these verses as scripture or canonical. We don't see the need to express an opinion on such issues. The note from ms 1 flags up the doubt in the main text.
Heard that digital version is available free for students and those interested. we in third world suffer from an unkind exchange rate in currency. Wonder whether we scholars in Malaysia can get the digital version. From Dr Anthony Loke. Stayed in Tyndale House from Feb to June 2006 for OT doctoral research. Almost same time as Dr Lim Kar Yong, my ex colleague from Seminari Theoloji Malaysia.
Great to see! I like the font and layout.
ReplyDeleteNo versional evidence in the apparatus.
ReplyDeleteNo patristic evidence in the apparatus.
No talisman evidence in the apparatus.
And the story of the adulteress will be in a footnote, not in the text. (What do you do with Houghton's recent apparent confirmation of the PA in the Latin Gospels in the 200's?)
Hmm.
We say in the introduction that the significance of this edition is the text, not the apparatus. Our text unashamedly privileges what is best attested in early mss and has support from our knowledge of scribal habit, but that does not mean that as editors we are expressing certainty that readings without this support are secondary. After all, we're only editors. We don't preclude the possibility that Byzantine readings only in late mss are original, nor that conjectures could be original. We're only saying that it's not our job, as we understand our editorial role, to print them. This is an edition in which anything you see, from paragraph to accent to spelling is among the earliest multiply attested readings of its type.
ReplyDeletePeter Williams,
DeletePW: “Our text unashamedly privileges what is best attested in early mss” --
So the THEGNT favor the readings in MSS which survived the longest, thanks to whatever factors (mainly better weather – the low humidity in Egypt) contributed to their survival. Meanwhile patristic evidence -- frequently older than MS-evidence -- and versional evidence are not even cited.
PW: “We're only saying that it's not our job, as we understand our editorial role, to print them.”
Why have such an incomplete apparatus at all?
One more thing. As someone who's spent much of his professional life as a versionalist, I ask myself this question: is there ever an occasion in the NT where knowledge of the versions would change my editorial choice? Sorry, can't think of one. Maybe I should know of one. Moreover, versional citations have often been wrong.
ReplyDeleteChange is probably too strong, Pete. They must influence your choices at some (many) points, no?
DeleteI'm happy with influence.
DeleteI like Mark 1.1
ReplyDeleteI like all the Scriptures. :-)
ReplyDeleteTouché!
DeleteIts BEAUTIFUL! It was all I could do to stop myself from spending the rest of the morning reading the sample just for the sheer joy of it. So thrilled about the audio version as well! Who will be doing the reading? What pronunciation system will be used? (If it is produced by Bible Mesh, I'm hoping it will match their lovely vocabulary system) Can't wait to finally hold a copy in my hands!
ReplyDeleteThe audio reading will be by monks from the Monastery of the Transfiguration, Nafpaktos.
ReplyDeleteJames, our apparatus is incomplete, as we say, but it's a start (2nd edition DV in 5 years will have more minuscules). But our apparatus does seek to be complete in representing mss from the early centuries, including providing details on lacunae you won't find in other apparatuses. The apparatus does not provide the entire evidence for our decisions, but it does bring together information in a way we hope will be useful for some people.
ReplyDeleteOf course, mss in southern Egypt have benefited from the weather, but you'll see plenty of recourse to mss which are not known to have come from Egypt.
In editing, I've constantly been asking myself, what the most methodologically conservative thing to do is. Of course, many of the church fathers are in late mss, and they may or may not be citing from memory. Early versions need retroversion. Manuscripts, on the other hand, especially those long enough for us to know their scribal habit, seem to be the most conservative place to start.
Looking at the sample from Mark, I can already see some paratextual details that look like they were inspired by the early manuscripts (e.g., the first line of new paragraphs is indented outward rather than inward, and the ending has a preface found in some MSS); very nice!
ReplyDeleteIn the apparatus, do the diamonds represent differences from NA28?
Diamonds were for cases where it was harder to call.
ReplyDeleteMark 3.32 seems like a good case of where the preference for the earliest evidence conflicts with the emphasis on the evidence of scribal habits. καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαί σου could easily be omitted by parblepsis (+ harmonization). I think these types of readings where the editorial criteria conflict are the ones I'm most interested in hearing about from the editors.
ReplyDeletePeter Williams,
ReplyDeleteThe apparatus at Mark 2:17 appears to contain an error. D does not read AUTOIS.
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/561
You win the prize for starting our errata list. I proofed the main text more times than I can remember and we ran consistency checks throughout the apparatus. Sadly things slip through and we'll get this fixed. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteDr. Williams,
ReplyDeleteWill there be a textual commentary? Just at a glance, there appears to be some inconsistency in allowing the early manuscripts to be primary. Granted, these may be places where knowledge of the scribal tendencies were decisive.
Certainly, a monumental achievement!
Tim
Dirk will be preparing a commentary in the next few years. Yes, it's not a mechanical decision based on earliest testimony. We've weighed rather than counted evidence. Also, commentary should explain some of the minutiae behind which a lot of work lies, e.g. the rough breathing on Isaiah in Mark 1:2, the accent ὀσφῦν in 1:6, or the spelling ἁλεεῖς in 1:16, etc. So it will be rather different from Metzger's, because it will address everything from significant semantic exegetical variants, to paragraphing, spelling, punctuation, etc.
ReplyDeleteDr. Williams,
DeleteFirst, thanks for the information on the commentary. Second, Is the inclusion of the comment found in minuscule 1intended to indicate that the editors were not sure if the longer ending belongs to Mark originally or does the inclusion of the text of 9-20 mean that the editors consider this original to Mark?
Tim
Pete, my Greek 1 students have been asking lots of questions about orthography and where we get it from the last few weeks. This edition will do a great job of opening that decision-making process up for them. I'm eager to show them some of these spellings and accents next week now that I have my copy.
ReplyDeleteWhat word do they want to know about? I'll start posting about a few on the THGNT blog.
ReplyDeleteNone in particular. We've just covered accents in class. And in the past we've talked a little about where other matters of orthography in the manuscripts. Some of them are very curious about the process behind our printed orthography. So any examples would be good for them at this point especially if you have any light to shed on how we got to what's in NA vs. what's now in TH.
ReplyDeleteI just put a little piece about Abraham over here.
ReplyDeletePeter Williams (and DJ),
ReplyDeleteI'm still curious about how you approach Houghton's recent apparent confirmation of the PA in Latin Gospels in the 200's, especially since that would pre-date most of of the MSS cited in the apparatus.
Does the apparatus /ever/ mention versional or patristic evidence?
James, I'm delighted if anyone finds early evidence of the PA. I'd be happy to see an early Greek papyrus of it turn up. We don't ever mention versional or patristic evidence. Here's the full quotation from p. 507 of our edition.
ReplyDelete"Other New Testament editions have a much fuller apparatus, but we believe that this edition’s chief significance, like that of Westcott and Hort, lies not in its apparatus but in the text itself. The limited apparatus is designed primarily to illustrate the decision-making process, which has focussed on Greek witnesses of the first millennium. We recognize, of course, that versional and patristic witnesses add significantly to our knowledge of the history of the transmission of the New Testament text. Nevertheless, we have not felt that at any point their witness was strong enough to change the decisions we made on the basis of the Greek manuscripts. We are also aware that our focus on early Greek manuscript testimony differs from recent trends shown in the editing of the Catholic Epistles in the Editio Critica Maior produced under the auspices of the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster. We acknowledge that at times a late manuscript may contain a text that is logically prior to and ancestral to that in the earliest extant manuscripts. However, our aim has been to produce a text with a high degree of directly verified antiquity so that users of this edition will have the benefit of knowing that any reading printed in this text rests on early testimony. Throughout the text, the editors sought to consider the most ancient Greek testimony wherever feasible. This has included seeking ancient testimony for several different features of the text, including paragraphing, spelling, breathings, and accents."
Exciting!
ReplyDeleteThis is great news! All the signs are that this edition will present much new, valuable research and consideration and will stimulate much healthy discussion in the field. Thanks go to all those involved in the project!
ReplyDeleteVery intersting indeed(not only for the light on the oldest data, but also in order to avoid ideological confrontations)
ReplyDeleteDr. Williams,
ReplyDeleteIt appears that when 01 and 03 together add or omit they are relegated to the apparatus. Is this based on scribal habits unique to these manuscripts?
Tim
In Mark much more so than in Matthew. In Matthew we have readings in the main text based on Vaticanus and one of the first correctors of 01. It is a consequence of assessing the manuscripts in the contexts of the book. Also, the apparatus is indicative, not exhaustive. In the actual decision making a much wider range of evidence was considered.
DeleteDr. Jongkind,
DeleteFirst, thanks, I wondered if this was unique to Mark or broader. As to the apparatus, hopefully this will be filled out by your commentary when available. Also, if I may, I am confused, this happens often😎, about how to understand the longer ending of Mark in your edition. The comment from minuscule 1 sets it off from the rest of the text. Does this indicate doubt as to authenticity?
Tim
Yes, but we're only editors :-) We hope that this presentation of the evidence shows the different documentation from the PA, which is in a footnote. Also some who view vv 9-20 as secondary, might still claim these verses as scripture or canonical. We don't see the need to express an opinion on such issues. The note from ms 1 flags up the doubt in the main text.
DeleteHeard that digital version is available free for students and those interested. we in third world suffer from an unkind exchange rate in currency. Wonder whether we scholars in Malaysia can get the digital version. From Dr Anthony Loke. Stayed in Tyndale House from Feb to June 2006 for OT doctoral research. Almost same time as Dr Lim Kar Yong, my ex colleague from Seminari Theoloji Malaysia.
ReplyDelete