tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post7529007486232672641..comments2024-03-29T00:57:56.876+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: NA27 and UBS4 Orthographic DifferencesP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-6231095972619430552008-05-20T21:43:00.000+01:002008-05-20T21:43:00.000+01:00Daniel Buck wrote:"It looks like we are already up...Daniel Buck wrote:<BR/><BR/>"It looks like we are already up to as many editions of the Textus Politicus Correctus as there are of the Textus Receptus."<BR/><BR/>Ha, ha, ha, Daniel, but are you above or below the line. There are references to the apparatus in the text of NA27 but no textual evidence. <BR/><BR/>Are the scribes at INTTF intellectually more in tune with their God given intellect that the computer generated type-setter can't keep up? Some think the "beast" is a computer - but lets not go there.<BR/><BR/>MalcolmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-30965196201127810132008-05-20T20:22:00.000+01:002008-05-20T20:22:00.000+01:00It appears that http://www.laparola.net/greco/ doe...It appears that http://www.laparola.net/greco/ doesn't have the "newest and best" editions of both NA and UBS, thus some of the discrepancies.<BR/><BR/>One would have thought, in this day of electronic publishing, that a text would no longer vary from one printing to the next in any particulars.<BR/><BR/>Either that, or the process of weeding out scribal errors takes so long that only the "newest" manuscripts can be considered to be the "best."<BR/><BR/>It looks like we are already up to as many editions of the Textus Politicus Correctus as there are of the Textus Receptus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38963902739133663202008-05-20T19:31:00.000+01:002008-05-20T19:31:00.000+01:00A word of caution to the UBS4 editors when they un...A word of caution to the UBS4 editors when they uniformly capitalize Satan. Doubtless he is a personal entity, but his modus operandi and attributes that he displays are equally significant, i.e, DIABOLOS, PONHPOS, etc. An explanatory comment might be warranted in either NA27 and UBS4.<BR/><BR/>MalcolmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-19722609912598967342008-05-20T11:12:00.000+01:002008-05-20T11:12:00.000+01:00Jan Krans--...based on tradition and "best practic...Jan Krans--<BR/>...based on tradition and "best practice" (more could be said on this)<BR/><BR/>i.e., modern tradition and 20th century practice--which gets us back to WH and their more text-based spelling plus Pete Williams' SBL paper last year.Randall Buthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07790556357991321207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75964999707817688602008-05-20T07:46:00.000+01:002008-05-20T07:46:00.000+01:00Some remarks and precisions:- new editions of GNT ...Some remarks and precisions:<BR/>- new editions of GNT and NA will be published as part of the IGNTP/INTF collaboration; I assume the small differences will then disappear (with NA "winning", so to speak)<BR/>- in many cases, it will be impossible even to guess the "exact" spelling used by the "original" authors; our editions contain a modern editorial layer, based on tradition and "best practice" (more could be said on this)<BR/>- in general, one should reckon with the phenomenon that GNT and NA often introduce minor changes in the various printings of an edition<BR/>- in Mt 14:27 the typo ὀ (NA27) has finally been corrected in the most recent, 9th printing of NA27 (2006)<BR/>- in Acts 7:16 the reading Ἑμμὼρ (GNT4) (with rough breathing) is also found in WH, and seems to be intentional (my files suggest that it also occurs in GNT3, but I do not have the edition here to verify that)<BR/>- in Rom 16:12 Ἰουνιᾶν (masculine) is found in GNT3, NA26 and earlier printings of GNT4 and NA27; Ἰουνίαν (feminine) is introduced in the 1998 printings of GNT4 and NA27; the reading was extensively discussed by Epp (and others)<BR/>- there are many differences in the accents on Aramaic and Hebrew words; the general rule seems to be that Aramaic or Hebrew words are not accented (names are), except when they are seen as Greek loan words<BR/>- Σολομὼν and Σολομῶν are both acceptable, but GNT4 is indeed inconsistent in having the latter only in Acts 12:47 and not in Mt 1:7; 6:29 and Lk 12:27Jan Krans-Plaisierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289844886277555959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53588612884863502492008-05-20T06:55:00.000+01:002008-05-20T06:55:00.000+01:00umm, I have UBS4 third reprinting and 1 Cor 9:1 re...umm, I have UBS4 third reprinting and 1 Cor 9:1 reads ἑόρακα, not ἑώρακαAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-3507185019828256912008-05-19T23:46:00.000+01:002008-05-19T23:46:00.000+01:00RW: Rom 16:7 NA Ἰουνίαν; UBS ἸουνιᾶνMy copies of U...RW: Rom 16:7 NA Ἰουνίαν; UBS Ἰουνιᾶν<BR/><BR/>My copies of UBS4 and NA27 both have Ἰουνιᾶν. Perhaps there is a typo in the electronic text?<BR/><BR/>TW: I remember there is also a difference in the spelling of Satan/satan somewhere.<BR/><BR/>The UBS uniformly capitalizes Satan, whereas NA retains lowercase, if that is what you mean (there also exists a variant in 2Co 12:7 where Byz differs from NA/UBS in relation to an indeclinable form).<BR/><BR/>Other than those, the lists as given are very helpful; thank you all. The greater question remains: does Münster intend to regularize all divergent forms in the next edition (mere typos I'm sure will be corrected)?maurice a robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207682737855397058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-6140298390389900112008-05-19T22:49:00.000+01:002008-05-19T22:49:00.000+01:00A few more differences of varying importance:Mt 14...A few more differences of varying importance:<BR/><BR/>Mt 14:27 NA ὀ; UBS ὁ (a typographical error)<BR/>Mt 27:37 NA βασιλεὺς; UBS βασιλεῦς (probably a typo)<BR/>Acts 7:16 NA, UBS3 Ἐμμὼρ; UBS4 Ἑμμὼρ (no doubt a typo)<BR/>Acts 7:47 NA Σολομὼν; UBS Σολομῶν (probably a typo)<BR/>Rom 15:9 NA ὀνόματί; UBS ὀνοματί (typo)<BR/>Rom 16:7 NA Ἰουνίαν; UBS Ἰουνιᾶν<BR/><BR/>What always seems strange to me is the concentration in Acts-2Cor. Anyway, most of these differences can be found at <A HREF="http://www.laparola.net/greco/" REL="nofollow">http://www.laparola.net/greco/</A> doing a "Compare Manuscripts" search typing NA as Manuscript 1 and UBS as Manuscript 2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-20574355092314909932008-05-19T22:41:00.000+01:002008-05-19T22:41:00.000+01:00I remember there is also a difference in the spell...I remember there is also a difference in the spelling of Satan/satan somewhere.Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-27284264685590161412008-05-19T22:08:00.000+01:002008-05-19T22:08:00.000+01:00Maurice,This is my list (hopefully the unicode wor...Maurice,<BR/>This is my list (hopefully the unicode works well):<BR/>NA26-27 / GNT3-4<BR/>1. Acts 17:7 πράσσουσιν / πράσσουσι<BR/>2. Rom 11:25 ἄχρι / ἄχρις<BR/>3. 1 Cor 6:3 μήτι γε / μήτιγε<BR/>4. 1 Cor 9:1 ἑόρακα ἑώρακα<BR/>5. 1 Cor 11:26 ἄχρι / ἄχρις<BR/>6. 2 Cor 8:5 ἀλλά / ἀλλ᾽<BR/>7. 2 Cor 11:25 ἐρραβδίσθην / ἐραβδίσθην<BR/>8. Heb 9:19 ἐρράντισεν / ἐράντισεν<BR/>9. Heb 9:21 ἐρράντισεν / ἐράντισεν<BR/>These differences actually go back to earlier editions.Jan Krans-Plaisierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289844886277555959noreply@blogger.com