Wed Aug 21 15:34:52 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Aug 21 15:34:52 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA26586; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:33:57 -0400
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:30:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Collation
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19960821102136.27473ba4@mail.sunbelt.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2266



On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Jim West wrote:

> The necessity of important manuscripts in every researcher's hand can be
> demonstrated by a brief comparison of  the apparatus of NA27 with P75 (at
> Luke 24:51- John 1:16)
> 
> NA27 does not note the (apparent?) change of spelling for skotia in verse 5
> (P75 has skoteia); nor does it mention that P75 has martyrion for its
> martyrian.  Likewise there is no notice that kekragen in NA27 is kekrage in
> P75. (the moveable nu is absent).
> 
> True enough, these are "orthographic" differences.  But such items are of
> interest, and are in fact textual variants.
> 
> This brief sample could be multiplied many times over, if only the papyri
> were completely included in a critical apparatus.

On the contrary, items such as these -- whether itacistic variation,
spelling errors/variants, or movable nu and sigma which in no way affect
the translation or exegesis of the text or even the interpretation of near
variants -- are basically irrelevant for textual criticism, and should
_not_ appear in a general critical apparatus.  Even a vast and
comprehensive apparatus such as that of Von Soden does not waste its time
with mere itacism, let alone movable nu or sigma (although it does list
variations between the generally insignificant "all" and "alla"). 

Of course, if someone is presenting a full collation or exact
representation of the complete unaltered text of a MS, items such as these
should be included.  But this is a completely different item from that
which should properly appear in a critical apparatus. 

The only real significance among the variants cited for P75 is the
indication regarding certain tendencies toward itacism and spelling errors
on the part of the scribe of P75.  If these continually recur, then P75
would be marked as an untrustworthy witness in variant readings where its
testimony might be merely due to accident rather than as a reflection of
the original text of its exemplar.  

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back