5 replies to this topic

[Julie Falling]

Hey – I'm writing a paper for class and want to make sure I'm decoding CNTTS properly. I've read the intro material several times, and watched Dr. J's podcast several times, but could use some help here to make sure I haven't missed the boat. (The hyperlinks in the module are really helpful.)

Shot 1 – I'm examining Lk 22:43-44. Are the texts listed after Luke 22:43-0 L 0 the ones that are extant or partially extant so that the reading can be determined? Is that right? Does the F09 manuscript contain only a scrap of v43, not including the Gk enclosed in the brackets? Does the second 99 entry mean that the texts (mostly papyri) are missing all or part of the section of Scripture because a part of the mss is physically missing or severely damaged?

Shot 2 – Under Luke 22:43-1 S 0 [[22:43-44]], the texts listed are the ones that include the bracketed words, right? Wrong? Are texts listed after M 2 OM the ones that omit the bracketed verses?

All the other entries under 22:43-44 (except the initial Luke 22:44 L 0 – Shot 3) show the variant readings found in the texts that have all or part of the verses, right? Seems obvious, but I've been wrong about "obvious" stuff before.

Do I sound confused? It's because I'm a bit confused.

Thanks for any help you can offer. I don't want my paper full of misinformation!

Edited by Julie Falling, 19 April 2012 - 01:59 PM.

[Outis]

Shot 1 – I'm examining Lk 22:43-44. Are the texts listed after Luke 22:43-0 L 0 the ones that are extant or partially extant so that the reading can be determined? Is that right? Does the F09 manuscript contain only a scrap of v43, not including the Gk enclosed in the brackets? Does the second 99 entry mean that the texts (mostly papyri) are missing all or part of the section of Scripture because a part of the mss is physically missing or severely damaged?

Yes, that's a good question. It would seem that the first citation ( #0 ) is always the manuscripts the CNTTS folks are working with for that verse. What usually follows is a list of manuscripts which don't have the verse at all (lacunæ). They evidently didn't know what to do with F09 since there wasn't enough of the verse to know whether to include it as data or not. You'll notice though, I use the word, seem. This seems to be their modus. I can see how it would be confusing.

Shot 2 – Under Luke 22:43-1 S 0 [[22:43-44]], the texts listed are the ones that include the bracketed words, right? Wrong? Are texts listed after M 2 OM the ones that omit the bracketed verses?

The first line ( O, with the double brackets) has manuscripts which add vss. 43-44.
The second line has manuscripts which OMIT the verses (OM)
The third line cites manuscripts which have lacunæ.

I usually don't use the CNTTS tool by itself. I use the NA apparatus first and then go to the CNTTS. The NA apparatus usually does a decent job of letting you know when there are variants worth looking at. And it also includes the lectionaries and church fathers. But when there is a variant worth looking at in more depth, the CNTTS helps give more details than the NA Apparatus.

Actually, I wasn't aware of this variant. In the english versions it seems like only the HCSB lets you know that there's a variant there worth looking into.

Edited by Outis, 19 April 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[Julie Falling]

Pastor Bauer - Thanks for your reply. The amount of information in the CNTTS can be overwhelming. However, it does mention variants the others leave out. Take a look at Acts 3:20. The TR and NA27 have different participles. No mention of the variant in the apparatus of the UBS4 or NA27. The only witness given in CNTTS is the TR! No single apparatus is complete, it seems. Metzer's commentary will give witnesses that none of the others have, too.

By the way, the NASB & NAS95 notes say that the verses aren't in the earliest manuscripts. There are probably others that do the same. The RV leaves the verses out, the NRSV puts them in brackets - the best solution in this case, I think.

Thanks, again.

Edited by Julie Falling, 19 April 2012 - 05:42 PM.

[Outis]

Hmmm. Yes, and even stranger still is that my GNT-BYZ text shows the same variant as the TR (προκεκηρυγμένον) eventhough the CNTTS lists that the MT has a different reading, the same reading as the others (προκεχειρισμένον). This is not good.

[Julie Falling]

Yeah - I thought it was very weird when I found it. The reading seems to be unique to the TR. Looks like an error of hearing. Odd that we don't see the reading anywhere else, however.

[Jonathan C. Borland]

All the GNT-BYZ errors of this nature have already been reported and will come out in the next update.