Where they have data, the
Text und Textwert (TuT) volumes are invaluable. They are not, however, without the occasional mistake. At other times, their data is open to interpretation. Case in point: Eph 5.22.
The TuT Paul volumes list a number of readings not given in your NA28/UBS5 hand editions. For
the variation involving the verb, the TuT gives us two additional variants. These are ὑποτασσέσθω in 228, 522, 664, 1315, 1874C and ὑποτασσόμαι in 1851. 1874 is also listed under ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (as 1874L; L = marginal reading) and ὑποτάσσεσθε (as 1874T; T = text reading).
The problems here are that 228 actually has ὑποτάσσεσθε, 1851 actually reads ὑποτασσόμεναι (cf. 5.21; 1 Pet 3.1) and 1874 probably only evidences two readings not three. This last one may be debatable. See for yourself.
 |
| 228 |
 |
| 1851 |
 |
| 1874 |
1874 looks like a scribal correction of υποτασσεσθε to υποτασσεσθω, with the addition of σαν in the margin.
ReplyDeleteIs there a place online which could list errata for TuT? (Maybe there already is and I'm unaware of it.) Seems like that could be helpful with the use of TuT.
ReplyDeleteTwo of the more egregious errors I've spotted were in Mark. At Mk 1:41, 1358 has σπλαγχνισθεις (not οργισθεις as TuT lists)... οργισθεις is a singular reading in Greek... and a very famous one at that.
Also, in Mk 13:2, 032/W is in agreement with 05/D by including 8 extra words at the end of the verse (και δια τριων ημερων αλλος αναστησεται ανευ χειρων), even though TuT indicates this is a singular reading in Greek found only in 05/D.
I hate to point these out because I mean no disrespect towards the thousands of hours that went into compiling this data in these volumes. But it would be helpful if there was an errata list that could be updated as other errors are found.
*these data :-)
Delete