Subject: Collation

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:23:35 -0400 (EDT)

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.

So, ENTMP, I encourage your work and hope it can soon be completed.

Jim West

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:30:29 -0400 (EDT)

> 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~