On Using Majuscule Numbers instead of Letters

Along with my principled resistance to using Gothic letters in textual criticism, I have for a while also been personally opposed to using letters for the majuscules. Instead, I have tried to restrict myself to the Gregory-Aland numbers. The reason for this is that the numbers are never duplicated and so avoid the confusion my students regularly experience between D in the Gospels and D in Paul, for example. My preference is, no doubt, influenced by my frequent use of the ECM, which only uses the numerical designations in the text volumes. Once I got used to the numbers, the letter designations began to fade.

However, this week, I have realized one (and only one?) benefit of using letters. What’s lost in restricting myself to the numbers alone is the connection between the Greek and Latin diglots. D F G often agree and are thought to have a shared ancestor. But, if the apparatus only lists them as 06 010 012 then it’s easy to miss the evidence of their Latin counterparts designated as the lower case d f g.

The easiest solution is to use both the numerical and letter designations (e.g., D/06). But that still gets a bit cumbersome.

It’s Time to Stop Using Gothic Letters in Textual Criticism

A week or so ago my carrel-mate here at Tyndale was stumped for who knows how long by a Gothic letter “C” that looked a whole lot like Gothic letter “T” for “targum.”

What finally gave it away was the superscript “Sa” which I thought had to be for “Sahidic.” That meant, of course, that the “T” must actually be a “C.” Sure enough it was. But comparing this “C” in the Hermeneia volume on Ezekiel to BHS’s “T,” you can see the obvious problem. All of this would be avoided if simple Roman letters had been used.

The offending Gothic “C” (left) and “T” (right)

Now, look, I enjoy the wonderful Gothic “P” for papyri as much as anybody. It looks cool and it adds gravitas to what are often scrappy manuscripts. But I say it’s time to banish Gothic letters from our writing and apparatuses for good. They’re bad for electronic searches, they don’t exist in most fonts, and whatever value they once had is gone. They only create confusion. So let’s get rid of them. Who’s with me?

Show your support:

A Primer to the Apparatus of "The New Field"

For my first post on ETC, I thought I would introduce my work by explaining the textual apparatus for the new edition of the Hexaplaric fragments, which the Hexapla Institute uses currently. Some changes to it may occur between this draft and the final draft, but this primer will provide the reader with a basic overview. I will use Job 32:1b as a model of the apparatus and I will comment on the function of each line below.

Job 32:1b

HT: כִּי הוּא צַדִּיק בְּעֵינָיו׃

LXX: ἦν γὰρ Ιωβ δίκαιος ἐναντίον αὐτῶν.

σʹ: διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν δίκαιον φαίνεσθαι ἑαυτῷ

Wit1: ↓C (= 250 3005) ↓cI^{–138 260 732} ↓cII ↓161 555

Wit2: αὐτῶν] –του O (Syh^txt) 55 68 157* 795 Aeth^A = M↓

Attr: σʹ] > 250 3006

Var: αὐτόν/δίκαιον] tr 161 | ἑαυτῷ] εαυτω(ν) 139 643; εαυτων 255 395 559 612; αυτων 740; εαυτον 680; επ αυτων cII 161 555 3006

NonGr: N/A

Notes:

1. The "HT" is the Hebrew text taken from BHS fifth edition. Though the Hexaplaric fragment does not always agree with this text, it is the base text used for the edition. All variants to this text are discussed in the "Notes" section at the end of each entry.

2. The LXX text is the text of Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta Iob, Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.

3. Line three contains the putative original text and attribution.

4. The "Wit1" line lists all of the available evidence for the fragment. In this case, only the catena mss (listed according to Rahlfs's numbers) preserve the text. C represents the oldest tradition of the Catena of Job and it is best preserved in mss 250 and 3005 among others. cI represents the earliest recension of C, and cII along with 161 and 555 represents the final recension of the catena of Job and is probably the work of Niketas. Unless noted otherwise, C and cI preserve these readings in the margin, while cII has preserved them in the commentary portion of the catena. The down arrows indicate that the witnesses will occur in one or more of the apparatuses below.

5. The "Wit2" line is used for any relevant variants from Ziegler's First Apparatus. Usually, if the Hexaplaric fragment has influenced or interfered with the transmission of the LXX text via the Hexapla, that data will be listed in Wit2.

6. The "Attr" line shows the preservation of the attribution in detail. In this case, mss 250 and 3006 are sine nomine or without attribution. All of the other witnesses from Wit1 contain an attribution to Symmachus as the author of the fragment.

7. The "Var" line shows any variants from the putative original text. In this case, ms 161 has transposed αυτον and δικαιον. I deemed ἑαυτῳ to be the original text on the basis of 250 3005 and 137 (corrected). The variants εαυτων and επ' αυτων arose through assimilation to the LXX lemma. Εαυτον arose through otacism from εαυτων. In this instance, the HT provides a control, since בְּעֵינָיו is singular. The data in Wit2 is from Ziegler's First Apparatus, and it is plausible that Symmachus or one of the other Three has influenced the reading of the O text (i.e. the best representatives of the fifth column of Origen's Hexapla, contained in La and Syh according to Ziegler).

8. The "NonGr" line would list readings from non Greek sources. There is no relevant material in the Arm La Syh or Co for this lemma.

9. The "Notes" section allows the editor to discuss textual decisions, the placement of these readings in individual mss, retroversions from the Versions, and the patristic sources from which these readings arose. For example at 32:1b, Ziegler's Edition posits that Olympiodorus ("Olymp") is the church father associated with this Symmachus fragment, yet after checking the critical edition of the Olympiodor Kommentar, ed. by Dieter Hagedorn, it is now clear that Olymp had nothing to do with this fragment and his association with this fragment occurred much later, since only the Niketas catena preserves this link; therefore, I did not place "(Olymp)" in the Wit1 line as Ziegler did.