tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post6102374370663252040..comments2024-03-28T15:48:18.205+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Where Orthography Affects the New Testament TextP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-30681894008371132822018-08-23T15:26:58.727+01:002018-08-23T15:26:58.727+01:00Two more: In Questions and Rhetoric in the Greek N...Two more: In <i>Questions and Rhetoric in the Greek New Testament</i>, 21-22, Douglas Estes turns Jn 2:4b into a question. The International Standard Version (and the Stephanus TR? So at least in BibleWorks) decline to put a comma at the end of 1 Thes 2:14, which potentially has implications for the scope of Paul's assignment of blame. (I think on this second point there's more scholarly literature, but I don't have any sort of bibliography on it at this point.)Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-52560625268848931872018-08-22T20:47:22.996+01:002018-08-22T20:47:22.996+01:00Thanks Stephen, this one as well will be included ...Thanks Stephen, this one as well will be included in the October instalment of the Amsterdam Database.Jan Krans-Plaisierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289844886277555959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24258882879118685392018-08-22T12:54:46.951+01:002018-08-22T12:54:46.951+01:00What about Tregelles' proposal (in his An Acco...What about Tregelles' proposal (in his <i>An Account of the Printed Text etc.</i> for 1 Cor 15:29? He moved the question mark from the first νεκρων to βαπτιζομενοι (note that one should de-capitalize ει on this account if it is captilized in the edition one is looking at). Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-90505020152509331802018-08-21T21:59:46.992+01:002018-08-21T21:59:46.992+01:00A nice candidate for the Amsterdam Database! There...A nice candidate for the Amsterdam Database! There must be many more such proposals, so do not hesitate to let me know.Jan Krans-Plaisierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289844886277555959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-54165216533696717732018-08-21T20:15:38.046+01:002018-08-21T20:15:38.046+01:00ThanksThanksStephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86977278540696174882018-08-21T19:17:47.345+01:002018-08-21T19:17:47.345+01:00Sorry: in v. 4 the full stop should be after εστιν...Sorry: in v. 4 the full stop should be after εστιν in both instances.John C. Poiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76924292517632331862018-08-21T18:55:45.919+01:002018-08-21T18:55:45.919+01:00John 9:2-5 is typically punctuated and divided som...John 9:2-5 is typically punctuated and divided something like this:<br /><br />2 και ηρωτησαν αυτον οι μαθηται αυτου λεγοντες, ραββι τις ημαρτεν ουτος η οι γονεις αυτου ινα τυφλος γεννηθη:<br />3 απεκριθη ιησους, ουτε ουτος ημαρτεν ουτε οι γονεις αυτου, αλλ ινα φανερωθη τα εργα του θεου εν αυτω.<br />4 ημας δει εργαζεσθαι τα εργα του πεμψαντος με εως ημερα εστιν ερχεται. νυξ οτε ουδεις δυναται εργαζεσθαι. 5 οταν εν τω κοσμω ω φως ειμι του κοσμου.<br /><br />This punctuation assumes that αλλ ινα φανερωθη τα εργα του θεου εν αυτω is intended as an explanation for why the man was born blind. I suggest an alternative punctuation:<br /><br />2 και ηρωτησαν αυτον οι μαθηται αυτου λεγοντες, ραββι τις ημαρτεν ουτος η οι γονεις αυτου ινα τυφλος γεννηθη:<br />3 απεκριθη ιησους, ουτε ουτος ημαρτεν ουτε οι γονεις αυτου.<br />[New start:] αλλ ινα φανερωθη τα εργα του θεου εν αυτω, 4 ημας δει εργαζεσθαι τα εργα του πεμψαντος με εως ημερα εστιν ερχεται. νυξ οτε ουδεις δυναται εργαζεσθαι. 5 οταν εν τω κοσμω ω φως ειμι του κοσμου.<br /><br />This punctuation assumes that αλλ ινα φανερωθη τα εργα του θεου εν αυτω is intended as the desired goal for "working the works of him that sent me". Note how the theme of "being seen" (φανερωθη) dovetails with the theme of "while it is day"—viz., this work must be done in the day *so it can be seen*. (Among other things, this relieves the text of the troubling notion that God made the man blind just so Jesus could come by, at some point in the man's early adult life, and heal him.)<br />John C. Poiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61058262504283489622018-08-21T17:08:52.267+01:002018-08-21T17:08:52.267+01:00Can you post type in Greek or describe the propose...Can you post type in Greek or describe the proposed change here?Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-14175374076310425182018-08-21T15:08:29.779+01:002018-08-21T15:08:29.779+01:00More than 20 years ago, I argued that the punctuat...More than 20 years ago, I argued that the punctuation in John 9:3 is wrong in all the printed editions: "'Day and Night' and the Punctuation of John 9.3," New Testament Studies 42 (1996) 288-94. I improved slightly on my argument in two subsequent pieces: "'Day and Night' and the Sabbath Controversy of John 9," Filología Neotestamentaria 19 (2006) 113-20; "Another Look at the 'Man Born Blind' in John 9," Journal of Religion, Disability, and Health 14/1 (January-March 2010) 60-65.John C. Poiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46371133511932733422018-08-21T05:43:07.537+01:002018-08-21T05:43:07.537+01:00The Remarks in the Amsterdam Database explain what...The Remarks in the Amsterdam Database explain what is going on: “Westcott and Hort print αὑτῆς, without further discussion. It is an editorial alternative of the variant reading αὐτῆς.<br />The idea is mentioned in all Nestle editions up to NA25.”Jan Krans-Plaisierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289844886277555959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-80407260781860113932018-08-20T18:22:51.104+01:002018-08-20T18:22:51.104+01:00Can you explain in English how the Greek words ἑαυ...Can you explain in English how the Greek words ἑαυτῆς and αὑτῆς in Matt 6:34 differ only diacritically?The White Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06732782601569135839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-69690372397100618182018-08-18T20:04:44.682+01:002018-08-18T20:04:44.682+01:00Thank you, Jan.
I had inferred from Gurry's m...Thank you, Jan.<br /><br />I had inferred from Gurry's mention of those examples that the alternative orthographies must have had some notable support somewhere. If that's not the case, then it's completely understandable that the database wouldn't include them.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-91208190047439805462018-08-18T08:33:41.688+01:002018-08-18T08:33:41.688+01:00Well, “purely conjectural” in the case of editoria...Well, “purely conjectural” in the case of editorial alternatives only concerns lack of attestation in later manuscripts. Since we are talking about the interpretation and disambiguation of uncial text, any editorial choice is in a way attested and allowed (with a proper defence). For that reason, (1) editorial alternatives are always marked as attested in the Amsterdam Database, and (2) I will be happy to include Bockmuehl's opinion in the next instalment.Jan Krans-Plaisierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289844886277555959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-4007262791123993792018-08-17T22:13:18.537+01:002018-08-17T22:13:18.537+01:00This list doesn't account for similar situatio...This list doesn't account for similar situations where it is not purely conjectural, but a different division has some manuscript support. For example, whether Col 4.3 (NA: δι᾽ ὃ) should be read as διό (M. Bockmuehl, 'A Note on the Text of Colossians 4:3' JTS 39 (1988), 489-494) - not completely conjectural, since acc. Bockmuehl following Wettstein there is manuscript support for διό.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-67548076401876331432018-08-17T19:43:04.516+01:002018-08-17T19:43:04.516+01:00Any similarity with 2 Cor. 8. 23?Any similarity with 2 Cor. 8. 23?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07388547285773054250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37577393836409243432018-08-17T19:28:49.636+01:002018-08-17T19:28:49.636+01:00Great list! I vote for Rom 5:5Great list! I vote for Rom 5:5Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44451342912255811732018-08-17T18:39:32.434+01:002018-08-17T18:39:32.434+01:00Of course the Amsterdam Database is a work in prog...Of course the Amsterdam Database is a work in progress, as it should be, but that is not the main reason some examples have not (yet) been included.<br />First, the focus of the database is on conjectures proper and less on editorial alternatives. The origin of the list as it is now lies in the many instances marked with “comm” in Nestle editions before NA26; and sicne in most cases only “comm” (= “commentatores”) is given, you can imagine the amount of work (and fun) we had in finding the earliest sources and elements of reception history … Other instances, not mentioned in the Nestle editions, were added as we came across them, but we did not do a systematic search.<br />Second, the criterion for inclusion is scholarly opinion, not mere imaginable ambiguity, or evidence that some version actually reflects an alternative way of reading uncial scriptio continua text. In other words: once we find a critic who supports an editorial alternative, we include it in the database. Indeed, every conjecture and reception history record in the database is a scholarly opinion on a reading (sometimes these opinion go back as far as patristic times).<br />By the way: many instances of αὑτοῦ etc. reflect sixteenth-century editorial practice instead of a real difference in meaning; perhaps Nestle included such examples precisely because they illustrate that practice.<br />In conclusion: give me a commentary that supports ἄλλοις in Mark 10:40, or ἐσμέν in 1 John 3:1, and I will be happy to include it in the database.<br />In fact, I just added the punctuation proposal concerning σήμερον in Luke 23:43; it will be published in October, with the next instalment.Jan Krans-Plaisierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289844886277555959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-64567467209970568962018-08-17T16:54:43.523+01:002018-08-17T16:54:43.523+01:00I think Ewald may be right on Eph 3.13
I think Ewald may be right on Eph 3.13<br />Daniel B. Wallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11895936457186272041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46703564513119348312018-08-17T15:08:59.631+01:002018-08-17T15:08:59.631+01:00"There are, of course, examples not listed he..."There are, of course, examples not listed here (e.g., ἀλλ’ οἷς vs. ἄλλοις in Mk 10.40 or the accenting of ἐσμεν in 1 Jn 3.1)."<br /><br />Why are these examples not listed? Is it because the database is a work in progress, or some reason they would not count?Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.com