Defect in Instant Details

[Enoch]

I am not sure if this is where to report this or to request a change in Instant Details. To me it is a bug. In the Instant Details on Mat 23:3b where the Textus Receptus is tagged (probably also the Byzantine text), Instant Details identifies the form τηρεῖτε as follows:

 

"τηρεῖτε τηρέω Verb pres act impera 2 plur to keep, to guard."

 

Actually the form τηρεῖτε is ambiguous, and it is (at least to me) a serious matter of interpretation as to whether the form is imperative or simply indicative. Is the Lord Jesus commanding persons to obey the teachings of the scribes & Pharisees (with which he was at loggerheads continually), or is He simply stating the fact that these Pharisees were being obeyed (but not endorsing it)?

 

Thus to be objective, Instant Details should be changed here to read:

"Verb pres act indicative or imperative 2 plur to keep, to guard"

The tagging on uncial manuscript W says,

"ⲧⲏⲣⲉⲓⲧⲁⲓ τηρέω Verb pres act impera 2 plur

ⲧⲏⲣⲉⲓⲧⲁⲓ τηρέω Verb pres mid indic 3 sing to keep, to guard."

 

Although I am not familiar enough with W to know if it regularly uses ⲁⲓ for ε (a variation akin to itacism) ,apparently the editors of NA27-T agree with my guess that

W here is using ⲁⲓ

as an alternative way to write the sound of ε (as in modern Greek)

since they list W as supporting the TR's reading: τηρειτε,

though visually one can see that W has alpha iota instead of epsilon.

 

 

Matthäus 23,3

 

⸂ ποιειτε και τηρειτε D ƒ1 700 pc co? ╎

τηρειτε και ποιειτε W 0102. 0107 ƒ13 33 M lat syp.h; Irlat ╎

ακουετε και ποιειτε syc ╎

ποιησατε ℵ✱ (Γ) pc sys ╎

τηρειτε Φ pc ╎

txt ℵ2 B L Z Θ 0281. 892 pc co? |

 

Thus the Instant Details for W should be changed to include this information:

"ⲧⲏⲣⲉⲓⲧⲁⲓ τηρέω Verb pres act indicative or imperative 2 plur. "

 

Likewise the Instant Details for GNT-Bez (D) should be changed to read:

 

 

"ⲧⲏⲣⲉⲓⲧⲉ τηρέω Verb pres act indicative or imperative 2 plur to keep, to guard."

Edited May 4, 2013 by Enoch

[Helen Brown]

We cannot indicate an "or" tag except by having alternate complete tags. I will pass this on, though, since you cannot send in your "corrections' by email.

[Martin Shields]

There are many forms throughout the Bible which are ambiguous in this way, although context usually resolves the ambiguity. Nonetheless, it would be useful in some places if words could have multiple tags indicating the range of possibilities. Does Accordance allow for multiple complete tags on single words?

 

Regarding Matt 23:3b, however, I think there are solid grounds for retaining Accordance's current parsing of the verb.

[Enoch]

Helen, you say, "We cannot indicate an 'or' tag except by having alternate complete tags."

 

I did not intend to suggest a specific format (or a change of format) for your Instant Details for ambiguous forms -- just the result.

 

There are instances where Accordance does provide alternative parsings for ambiguous forms. I think that is what you mean by alternative tags. Since by general rule the present active imperative 2nd person plural is the same in form as the indicative, one would think that every time an present active imperative is tagged, the alternative would also be supplied. I say this on the supposition that Instant Details is supposed to provide objective data instead of settle interpretations.

 

Incidentally, I think that often in Hebrew the imperfect has the same form as the jussive. Perhaps Instant Details for Hebrew should be including a lot of alternative parsings for imperfects when they could also be jussive.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Enoch

[Helen Brown]

We really don't want to clutter the Instant Details or the Parsing every time a form could possibly be parsed in two ways. I think the policy of the taggers (who are not under our control) is to offer an alternate reading only when it is very difficult to decide which is likely to be correct.

[Michael J. Bolesta]

We really don't want to clutter the Instant Details or the Parsing every time a form could possibly be parsed in two ways. I think the policy of the taggers (who are not under our control) is to offer an alternate reading only when it is very difficult to decide which is likely to be correct.

 

This is quite rational. All languages have ambiguity. Pointing out the more ambiguous words signals one to look more closely. It also reminds one to be open to questioning the less ambiguous words. It is the text that many of us hold to be inspired and sacred, not the tagging. Many thanks to those who have done the work of tagging, enriching the study of many.

[Enoch]

Clutter?

Giving all the possible parsings of a word is hardly clutter; it is valuable information.

Alternative parsings do not require uncomfortably long text, nor are they necessarily disorderly or impediments (clutter).

This has nothing to do with the doctrine of inspiration, nor is it a claim that the details are inspired. However, it could be viewed as an exercise of the spiritual gift of teaching. Also, suggesting improvement to Accordance does not insult those who have done the tagging.