19 replies to this topic

[Julie Falling]

Hey - I could sure use more help with the CNTTS.  Dr J's podcast #29.2 is excellent, but there is a lot going on in the module he didn't not have time to cover.  

 

I would really like a detained, step-by-step, explanation of what it all means.  Would some merciful soul out there who really knows how to use this resource please take a verse or two (with a variety of variant types), and go through and explain what it all means?  What the "loose scraps of Greek" mean?  (See Mt 1:1-0.)  A downloadable paper or downloadable notes would be great.  I've read the intro material, but, frankly, it's a bit thin for a non-academic non-scholar. 

 

I have no problems decoding the other apparatus, and most of the time, they give me the info I need.  But the CNTTS is a wonderful tool I'm not using to its full potential because it is so very confusing.

 

Thanks.

Edited by Julie Falling, 15 March 2013 - 12:11 PM.

[J. T.]

Julie:

 

I believe the intro to CNTTS is rather extensive in explaining its methodology. Have you read it?

 

Scratch that: I see that you did mention you read it. I could show you how to use it, but I don't have time to write something. Perhaps if you would  like to screen share, I could walk you through a variant reading.

Edited by James Tucker, 15 March 2013 - 01:57 PM.

[Julie Falling]

That sounds good, James.  If you could pick a time that would be good for you next week, that would be great.  I can work around your schedule.

 

Working through an entry or two would really help.  Between now and then, I will reread the intro again (most of it does make sense).  I greatly appreciate the offer.

[Matthew Burgess]

Hi Julie,

 

What do you mean by "loose scraps of Greek"?  I've looked through the apparatus at the verse you mentioned, but I can't seem to find that phrase.  

[Julie Falling]

Matthew - They don't use it - the phrase is my invention and is apparently not very descriptive.  

 

I think I've figured out part of it.  I did as Dr J recommended in one of his podcasts - opened a second copy of a resource (in this case, CNTTS), so that I can put the introductory explanations right next to the apparatus.  What seemed to be "loose scraps"  in Mt 1:1- 0 now makes sense.  What is given under the lacunae of P¹ is actually what the reading looks like, right?  The bracketed words are the text that is missing?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

OK.  I've read the intro stuff in CNTTS yet again, and watched Dr J's podcast yet again, and I think I'm getting it.  The fog is lifting.

 

Thank you, James and Matthew, for your willingness to help.  I know you guys have been steeped in this stuff since college (if not before?).  At that point, I was steeped in chemistry, calculus, and physics.  I came "late to the party" but I love Koine Greek and what I'm able to learn about God's word using Accordance.  I'll keep plugging along and come back to the forums when I get stuck.

 

I think we can cancel the screen share, James.

 

Thanks, again, guys.

 

 

 

 

[J. T.]

Great to hear that you are venturing into the joy of discovery! 

 

Under Matt 1:1-0 the lacunae of for P¹ κ.τ.λ. lists the various Mss that cannot support any reading due to fragmentary nature of the respective Manuscript. But yes, the General format is to list a value judgment (Variation Type) on the reading (S, I, Z, L), then categorize the variant with A, M, R, T. Since the base text was NA27^th when a reading agrees it's said to be equivalent to the Base Text (0). Words in brackets are reconstructed forms, and the "Scraps" are the readings that are witnessed in the following Ms list. Lexemes with strikes above the characters are abbreviated forms (to say they are Nomina Sacra is theological statement and thus an interpretation; it's best just to say abbreviated form).

Edited by James Tucker, 16 March 2013 - 11:49 AM.

[Julie Falling]

James - In Rev 22:14 there is a major variant with which you are familiar, I am sure, where the TR & MajText deviate from the NA27th.  The variant is both textually and theologically significant.  Yet at Rev 22:14-0  L   0 both eclectic texts are listed as supporting the base text.  Does it mean rather that both have something to say about the that particular verse?  That the verse is present in both texts?  It certainly cannot mean that they read the same as the NA27th, because they do not.

[J. T.]

Julie:
 
This is where TC work for me is so much fun! Textual critical work isn't just detailed work, but it's details about the details!
 
What's happening is that Μακάριοι is witnessed in the Majority Text and Textus Receptus, but the variant between these two (with reading A: οι πλυνοντες] B οι ποιουντες) is collated differently. The MT TR witnesses the later, whereas 01, 02, and 1006 witness the former.
 
Thus taking the base of NA27^th we have:

• 
  Μακάριοι οἱ ⸂πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν⸃, ἵνα ἔσται ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν εἰσέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν.

Reading A Reconstructed would be:

• 
  Μακάριοι οἱ πλυνοντες κ.τ.λ.
• 
  MS Support: 01, 02, 1006

Reading B Reconstructed would be:

• 
  Μακάριοι οἱ ποιουντες
• 
  MS Support: 424 1773 1854 1957 2494 2495 2845 MT TR

Edited by James Tucker, 16 March 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[J. T.]

The even more interesting question—the very question of my thesis at least with the Great Isaiah Scroll—is not only what the variants tell us about the text, but also what the variants of each codex tell us about the scribe! 

Edited by James Tucker, 16 March 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[Julie Falling]

James - Does that mean that the first line Rev 22:14-0  L  0 is giving us a list of mss that support only the first word of the verse, Μακάριοι?

 

I am able to sort out the variations and in which mss they occur, but I thought the very first entry (Rev 22:14-0  L  0) gave the mss that supported either the entire verse (which I see can't be right) or mss in which the verse can be found.  But it's not either of these?  The CNTTS is listing word by word (or sometimes phrase by phrase) support?  The fog may actually burn off completely.

 

I am so grateful for of all of the folks who are continuing to study the huge number of manuscripts available to us.  With excellent digital images & the internet, you don't have even to get on a plane or boat or train (or camel) and then breathe the dust to do it!  And the scribes - some were pros.  Some not so much, right?

[Julie Falling]

And what does κ.τ.λ. mean?  Remember, my formal education is in chemistry, not Greek.

[J. T.]

Julie, I believe the number joined to the verse reference is location of the reading according to Line. Thus, Rev 22:14-0 means the variant of discussion is on the same line as that of the reference (also remember that most older Manuscripts don't have the same conventions for Reference as we do). Thus, it's not saying the entire verse, but what line that word is on in relationship to the reference (which might be helpful for dittography, haplography, etc.)

 

Ah, you've never read Eadie or Ellicot? The κ.τ.λ. is a greek convention for saying et cetera (latin). Thus, greek κατα τα λοιπα.

[Julie Falling]

Aah!  Nope.  Haven't read those guys.  Remember, I'm not a scholar, just a serious student.  I'm also the one who does the cooking, cleaning, and laundry around here.  And the one who does most of the garden designing, and plants the annuals.  And feeds the dog.  And helps with Weds night supper.  And teaches SS.  And does the Scripture slides, and half the hymn slides, for Sunday worship.  And I play the keyboard.  I have to work to make the time to study, and never have as much time as I would like.

 

According to Dr J's podcast, the 0 here - Rev 22:14-0  L  0 (in bold) - is the variant number, or the "0th" variant in the verse.  So Rev 22:14-4 would give us the 4th variant [Podcast #29.2 @ 3:25 minutes].  Going by his explanation, the line discussing the "0th" variant, Rev 22:14-0  L  0, would not be discussing a variant at all, right?  This is exactly why I've been a bit confused!  

[J. T.]

Julie:

 

I believe I mis spoke about the variant reference pertaining to line, upon a closer look. Perhaps it was my desire that Line evidence would also be accorded in the database. The variant reference, however, doesn't seem to accord well with a numeration of issues within each verse either. Once I get a little more time, I will come back to this and figure out exactly how the reference numbers are being used.

[Matthew Burgess]

Each verse begins with a listing of the witnesses that have survived and support the base text (unless otherwise indicated in the apparatus), and the witnesses that are lacunose (witnesses that preserve another part of the biblical book, but do not contain this verse because they are fragmentary or illegible).  This is explained in the "Overview of CNTTS Textual Database Symbols," under the explanation for the symbol "L": "this variation unit appears at the beginning of each verse and shows all manuscripts that are partially extant or not extant for this verse or passage."

 

So, the discussion of Revelation 22:14 begins by showing you that Codex Sinaiticus (01), Codex Alexandrinus (02), and various minuscule manuscripts (the three-digit and four-digit numbers) include this verse, and follow the base text unless otherwise indicated.  Conversely, the papyri, Codex Ephraemi (04), some additional uncial manuscripts (the numbers beginning with zero) and various other minuscules do not include this verse.  This is especially helpful when you're dealing with important fragmentary manuscripts, such as Codex Ephraemi... you can see right away that the verse is not preserved in the manuscript. 

[Julie Falling]

Matthew - Thanks.  This is basically what I stated above:

 

• "I thought the very first entry (Rev 22:14-0  L  0) gave the mss that supported either the entire verse (which I see can't be right) or mss in which the verse can be found."  

 

The first entry (Rev 22:14-0  L  0) gives me all the mss that have the verse even if it doesn't read like the NA27.  

 

Then under     Rev 22:14-0  _  99 are the mss that may contain bits and scraps, but not the entire verse.  Or they may contain vs 15 & 16, but none of 14, etc..

 

When we get to Rev 22:14-4  S  0 we have first the mss that support the reading οι πλυνοντες found in the NA27.  

Right below that in the same entry is then listed the mss that support the replacement οι ποιουντες - a bunch of minuscules, mostly, if not all, Byzantine.

 

So from the 2nd entry, we know that, with the exception of the two uncials, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and a solitary 11th century Byzantine minuscule, the rest of the extant mss support the replacement reading.  So there is absolutely no early support for the replacement.  (In school, my professors always emphasized that mss & readings are weighed, not counted.  All my reading since then says the same thing.)

 

If I'm off-base here, please let me know.  The one thing that remains a bit obscure is the non-hyperlinked number [Rev 22:14-4  S  0].  I do want to learn what it means, but it's not as critical as nailing down the very first entry.  

 

 Rev22.png   14.52K   20 downloads

 

 

The mss in the blue box have the verse.  They do not all have the same reading as NA27.

The mss in the red box either do not have the verse at all, or have only scraps of it.  Right?  Off-base?

 

[Matthew Burgess]

The mss in the blue box have the verse.  They do not all have the same reading as NA27.
The mss in the red box either do not have the verse at all, or have only scraps of it.  Right?  Off-base?

 
Essentially, I think this is right.  The one possible exception would be manuscripts that are partially extant in a particular verse (manuscripts that contain "scraps").  Based on the introduction to the apparatus, I'm not sure how these are treated.  The introduction states that lacunae "are coded with a 99 (90-99 technically, but at present all are simply listed as 99, although in the future some classifications will be made among these)."  This seems to imply that eventually the codes will distinguish between manuscripts that contain a portion of a verse and manuscripts that don't.
 

So from the 2nd entry, we know that, with the exception of the two uncials, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and a solitary 11th century Byzantine minuscule, the rest of the extant mss support the replacement reading.  So there is absolutely no early support for the replacement.  (In school, my professors always emphasized that mss & readings are weighed, not counted.  All my reading since then says the same thing.)

 
Here I would add a couple of caveats.  First, the CNTTS apparatus is restricted to Greek and Latin manuscript witnesses; other ancient versions and patristic citations of the New Testament aren't consulted significantly, if they're consulted at all.  When we look at the N-A apparatus, we see that the Latin (as found in the medieval Codex Gigas), the Syriac, and the Bohairic Coptic also attest to the variant.  The Syriac and Bohairic Coptic were early translations that may date back to the second-third centuries.  Also, the N-A apparatus includes Tertullian as a witness to the variant.  Tertullian died in the early third century, meaning that his testimony actually precedes all of the manuscript witnesses for this verse.  (Tischendorf also includes additional patristic support for the variant, including Cyprian, but for some reason his discussion of this verse has been omitted from the Accordance module.  I think this is just an error due to a page turn in the original edition.)  
 
Finally, it should be noted that the manuscript tradition of the book of Revelation is different than that of the rest of the New Testament.  In part this is because a smaller number of manuscripts have survived; of the nearly six thousand manuscripts that contain some portion of the New Testament, only some three hundred contain any part of Revelation.  Most of these are late; the few papyri are very fragmentary, as is one of the most important uncials (Codex Ephraemi).  The result is that later manuscripts play more of a role in the textual criticism of this book than some other biblical books.  I say all of this not to argue in favor of a particular reading, but simply to call attention to some of the other aspects of the textual situation of 22:14 and the book as a whole.  While the CNTTS is an excellent resource, it should probably used in tandem with other excellent resources available in Accordance!      

Edited by Matthew Burgess, 16 March 2013 - 06:44 PM.

[Julie Falling]

Thanks, Matthew.  The CNTTS was never to stand on it's own, I guess.  Wonder if there are any plans to include lectionaries, the fathers, or versions besides the Latin in the future?  I know from the introductory material that more Gk manuscripts will be included as they are studied and the variants documented.  Since they've already included some Latin, I supposed we can expect more there, too.

 

I noticed, too, the dearth of witnesses for Revelation.  Thanks for the input there.  And for the reminder to look beyond just the Greek mss, though they do carry more weight than the lectionaries, fathers, and versions.  Where the mss are few or ambiguous, it does make sense to put more weight on the other resources.  Good point.

 

Both Metzer's and Comfort's commentaries strongly support the NA27 reading.  I'm going to have to bow to the experts, here.  Have you had a look at NA28 yet?

 

And I can't help wondering what made Ephraem think that his treatises/commentaries were of more value than a manuscript of the Bible.

[Matthew Burgess]

Thanks, Matthew.  The CNTTS was never to stand on it's own, I guess.  Wonder if there are any plans to include lectionaries, the fathers, or versions besides the Latin in the future?

 

Sadly, I don't have answers for any of these questions, despite their importance.  However, I suspect that the apparatus will incorporate more Greek manuscripts before any of the other types of witnesses, because the others will require much more work.  A critical edition of the lectionary text has never been completed, and a comprehensive analysis of patristic quotations is hampered by a lack of manpower and a huge amount of data (at least 500,000 quotations, according to some estimates).  Analysis of the versions is limited because so few scholars possess the necessary language skills.  However, work is progressing on a new edition of the Old Latin version, and I would expect to see those results incorporated into future critical editions and tools like the CNTTS.

 

And for the reminder to look beyond just the Greek mss, though they do carry more weight than the lectionaries, fathers, and versions. 

 

While I agree that this is usually the case, I don't think I would accept it as absolute rule... perhaps because I'm not sure there are absolute rules in textual criticism!  ;-)  Occasionally the patristic evidence suggests that the state of the manuscript tradition in the early church was much different than it is today... for example, Jerome's comment that "nearly all Greek books" lack the "Long Ending" of Mark when only a few do so today.  In my opinion, the patristic evidence is often overlooked or undervalued, and versional evidence frequently suffers the same fate.  With this in mind, I would encourage the reader to carefully weigh all of the external and internal evidence for each variant before reaching a decision (and Accordance provides an incredible set of tools that allow the reader to do so).  Of course, this is my own method of choice... I understand that others may wish to go a different route!

 

Both Metzer's and Comfort's commentaries strongly support the NA27 reading.  I'm going to have to bow to the experts, here.  Have you had a look at NA28 yet?

 

I would agree with Metzger and Comfort here.  In addition to the possibility of "those who wash their robes" as the more difficult reading or the reading that best explains the others (common guidelines in textual criticism), it's important to note that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus share this reading.  Since these two manuscripts are generally regarded as witnesses to different forms of the text of Revelation, their combined support is very weighty.  Among the minuscules, 1006 and 2050 have also been identified as witnesses to an early form of the text, so their support adds even more weight.  However, as you've pointed out elsewhere, it's helpful to have CNTTS, since it cites more manuscripts individually; using the N-A apparatus alone we wouldn't be able to see that 1854, which has also been identified as a witness to the early form of the text, supports the variant.  

 

I haven't seen N-A 28 yet; I'm waiting for an electronic edition.  However, I expect that this reading would remain unchanged in the new edition.   

 

 

And I can't help wondering what made Ephraem think that his treatises/commentaries were of more value than a manuscript of the Bible.

 

Ephraem didn't do this himself; the manuscript was scraped and rewritten with his discourses around the twelfth century, centuries after his death.  You raise an interesting question, though, especially since pandects (manuscripts containing both the Old and New Testaments) seem to have been very rare!

[Julie Falling]

I haven't seen N-A 28 yet; I'm waiting for an electronic edition.  However, I expect that this reading would remain unchanged in the new edition.   

 

I think you're right.  I'm new to this stuff, and will never be a scholar, but even I can see that the evidence, as it now stands, very strongly supports the chosen reading.

 

Ephraem didn't do this himself; the manuscript was scraped and rewritten with his discourses around the twelfth century, centuries after his death.  You raise an interesting question, though, especially since pandects (manuscripts containing both the Old and New Testaments) seem to have been very rare!

 

Very interesting.  I didn't know that.  So it wasn't the hubris of Ephraem.  That's good.  But someone certainly showed poor judgment in defacing the manuscript!

Edited by Julie Falling, 17 March 2013 - 07:06 AM.