Wednesday, September 10, 2008

What sort of textual critic are you?

1. You can define 'hermeneiai' and discuss their significance.

2. You know what 'vid' means.

3. You have an opinion on whether P4, P64 and P67 are from a single manuscript.

4. You know why 1739 is more important that 1738 and 1740.

5. You probably own more Greek New Testaments than any of your immediate colleagues.

6. Before you travel to a new town you check to see what manuscripts are there.

7. You have studied a load of languages (although some of us can't remember all the vocab).

8. You just know that dots are difficult to date.

9. You regularly consult and refer to books that are more than a hundred years old.

10. Even your academic friends think some (all?) of your publications are obscure and technical.


  1. Well not to spoil the question (I guess some of those apply and some don't)- the most pressing question and one I've not seen answered anywhere, and I've been looking, is-

    How did Peter do in the Olympics with his speed walking????

  2. 11. You know the colors of the Swanson volumes by heart.

    12. When you hear the word "umlaut" you think of Vaticanus.

    13. You know who Peter M. Head is.

  3. Anyway, I came 42nd. No disgrace there.

  4. Based on these questions, I'm apparently no sort of TC at all.
    Bummer. Oh well, perhaps a few more years of study and some more languages and we'll check back.

  5. heh, 12 out of 13 hits. I don't travel that much :)

  6. I confess that I had never noticed that the Swanson volumes are colour-coded. Is there a memorable rationale?

  7. Heh. Hits on 1, 2, 3, 4 (although it's not always used to signify the same thing in the UBS apparatus), 5, and 8.

    James Snapp, Jr.

  8. I plead guilty only to #2. Interestingly enough, it's the one characteristic pretty essential to following most of the discussions here--oops, same for #13 in the Willker logion.

    I associate ümläüt with other things than Vaticanus, but I'm surprised that a German wouldn't.