Thu Aug 29 20:57:44 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Aug 29 20:57:44 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA15819; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 20:56:47 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <32260901.49D3BB38@repurk.mw.com>
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:50:44 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Accents
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2125

On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Alan Repurk  wrote:

>I have a relatively simple question regarding manuscripts.  If
>this group is not appropriate, please let me know.

If it involves manuscripts, I'd say it's appropriate. :-)

>Our Greek texts like Westcott & Hort and UBS all have accents on
>the words.  I understand that uncial manuscripts did not have
>accents.  I was told that miniscule manuscripts did have accents.

It's a little more complicated than that. It's true that the papyri
and early uncials have almost no accents, breathings, word divisions,
or punctuation (I say "almost no" accents because many have some
kind of mark for word divisions or breathings; they just don't *use*
them). But *late* uncials such as K will show most of those markings,
and some valuable minuscules such as 33 have relatively few accents
(if you look at the Nestle apparatus at a place where an accent
affects the interpretation -- for example, Rom. 3:6 -- you'll
notice that B** D** K L have accents, while 33 lacks them).

>In some cases the accents can affect translation.  Is the placement
>of accents up to the editors of the Greek text, are they taken
>from miniscules, or are the rules for accents unambiguous ?

The editors apply accents as they see fit. Usually there is no
question about accents or breathings; the editors will follow
the usage of Blass or some other authority. Sometimes this will
place them in conflict with the manuscripts (I remember that
there is an instance -- I don't remember what it is -- where
the only manuscript to support the UBS accent is 1506). Also,
there are places where scholars disagree on accents (see, for
example, the comments in the UBS3 commentary volume at Phil.
3:21, Col. 1:20).

To sum up: If you see a *very* strong reason to question word
division, accents, breathings, or (especially) punctuation,
you can alter it; these things have no strong manuscript basis.
However, what you see in the printed editions generally represents
scholarly consensus -- indeed, there is probably more agreement
here than on the original text!

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back