Tue Apr 23 18:09:42 1996

From majordom  Tue Apr 23 18:09:42 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA15076; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:09:42 +0500
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:06:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: IGNTP John TR vs OLB TR
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 4520
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

 
 Vincent Broman wrote on 22 April 96:
 
 >My thanks also to Bruce Morrill for making the IGNTP John TR available.
 
 Mine as well. Please note comments below regarding the differences
 noted between the two texts.
 
 > Seeing the recent discussion on differences between TRs, I tried
 > comparing the IGNTP John TR with the OnLine Bible Stephanus 1550 from
 > Robinson.  Aside from a large number of movable nu's and sigma's
 > present only in the OLB John...
 
 My own electronic version of the Stephens 1550 TR reflects that 
 commonly available in the reprint edition of George Ricker Berry's 1897 
 Interlinear Greek NT, which in turn followed the identical Stephens 
 1550 TR as printed in the earlier Bagster Interlinear (ca.1850).  In 
 the orthography of those editions the movable nu's and sigma's were 
 always present, and my edition followed suit. I also have run a 
 comparison between the two texts, and find no differences other than 
 those Vincent mentioned.
 
 > I found seven significant differences
 > between them, one grave.  These differences should be authoritatively
 > checked in order to ensure the integrity of future (and past) IGNTP
 > collations.
 
 Let the reader note that for IGNTP purposes, ONLY their specific Oxford
 1873 TR edition should be used for collation purposes.  Other editions
 (including my own) which claim to reproduce a Stephens 1550 TR text
 should always specifically be noted if used for collation purposes.
 
 In general, apart from IGNTP work itself, the Stephens 1550 TR in the
 Berry interlinear edition is the _only_ edition still commercially
 available in reprint form, and would probably be _de facto_ the one
 used for most non-IGNTP collation work.  My electronic version in the
 Online Bible format reproduces Berry's text exactly (though without
 accents, breathings, punctuation, and capitalization).
 
 
 >In the IGNTP copy of Jn 1, verse 38 was accidentally split between
 >AUTOIS and TI and consequently the following verses in the chapter
 >are numbered one too high.
 
 This is covered in Bruce's post, so no need to comment regarding verse-
 division matters.  For the remaining differences, I have consulted my
 own Scrivener 1872 reprint, also claiming to be of Stephens 1550
 (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co.).  That Scrivener 1872 TR in theory
 should be quite close to the IGNTP Oxford 1873 edition. Where
 differences remain, the printed IGNTP needs to be checked by Bruce to
 make sure the IGNTP electronic version is not skewed.
 
 ======================================================================
 Loc     IGNTP              (TLG encoding)       OLB
 =======================================================================
 
 04:50   EIPEN AUTW O                            EIPEN AUTW
 
                  Scrivener 1872 reads with OLB.
 
 
 08:04   KATELHFQH                               KATEILHFQH
 
   Scrivener's 1872 TR reads with IGNTP; however, Scrivener has a 
   footnote which says that the _original_ Stephens 1550 reads as does
   the OLB (Scrivener likely altered Stephens 1550 here for orthographic
   reasons).
 
 08:09   KAQEIS                                  KAQ EIS
 
   This is an orthographic matter of word division alone.  Scrivener 1872 
   reads with IGNTP.
 
 13:30   OTE OUN ECHLQE              OTE ECHLQEN
 
   Scrivener 1872 TR reads with OLB.
 
 16:33   ECETE                                   EXETE
 
   Scrivener 1872 TR reads with IGNTP; however, Scrivener adds a 
   footnote, as well as an addendum (on p.599) which points out that 
   although the Stephens 1550 text reads ECETE, it is with a _smooth_ 
   breathing, which implies that the _wrong_ letter was chosen from the
   font box, and that Stephens actually had intended EXETE [Scrivener's
   words with accenting added are ")/EXETE legere videtur pro )/ECETE,
   quo ex fonte manavit (/ECETE apud B[eza] E[lzevir] &c."]
 
 19:07   UION TOU                                UION
 
   Scrivener 1872 TR reads with OLB.
 
 ======================================================================
 
  I trust that the above material will be of some help to all.
 
 _________________________________________________________________________
 Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
 Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 
 

Back