Why Does USB4 Put Some Uncials in Square Brackets?

[Enoch]

In the Introduction to USB4, they kindly list manuscripts cited.  Some of the Uncial Mss are listed in USB4 in brackets, though I don't think the apparatus notes cite them bracketed. For example K has this listing "[K 018]."  The Master List of Abbreviations does not explain this use of brackets.  Does anyone know why the brackets around some uncials?

[Rick Bennett]

If you have this in Accordance you can hover over the brackets and see this…

 

[Enoch]

If you have this in Accordance you can hover over the brackets and see this…

 

http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/public/style_images/master/attachicon.gifScreen Shot 2015-06-16 at 11.12.01 AM.png

Yes, Rick.  I was aware of those 2 uses of brackets.  But those 2 uses do not cover the use in "[K 018]."  Those brackets do not follow "Byz", but brackets are employed in the long list of manuscripts in the introduction.

 

In the UBS4 list of unicials you find:

 

Manuscript3 Contents Location Date

ℵ 01 eacpr London: Sinaiticus IV

A 02 eacpr London: Alexandrinus V

B 03 eacp Città del Vaticano: Vaticanus IV

C 04 eacpr Paris: Ephraemi Rescriptus V

D 05 ea Cambridge: Bezae Cantabrigiensis V

D 06 p Paris: Claromontanus VI

[E 07] e Basel VIII

E 08 a Oxford VI

[F 09] e Utrecht IX

F 010 p Cambridge IX

[G 011] e London; Cambridge IX

G 012 p Dresden IX

[H 013] e Hamburg; Cambridge IX

 

Why "[E07]" etc. ?

Edited June 17, 2015 by Enoch

[Rick Bennett]

 

Yes, Rick.  I was aware of those 2 uses of brackets.  But those 2 uses do not cover the use in "[K 018]."  Those brackets do not follow "Byz", but brackets are employed in the long list of manuscripts in the introduction.

 

In the UBS4 list of unicials you find:

 

Manuscript3 Contents Location Date

ℵ 01 eacpr London: Sinaiticus IV

A 02 eacpr London: Alexandrinus V

B 03 eacp Città del Vaticano: Vaticanus IV

C 04 eacpr Paris: Ephraemi Rescriptus V

D 05 ea Cambridge: Bezae Cantabrigiensis V

D 06 p Paris: Claromontanus VI

[E 07] e Basel VIII

E 08 a Oxford VI

[F 09] e Utrecht IX

F 010 p Cambridge IX

[G 011] e London; Cambridge IX

G 012 p Dresden IX

[H 013] e Hamburg; Cambridge IX

 

Why "[E07]" etc. ?

 

 

I'm pretty sure they are indicating that they are Byzantine witnesses, that is, the same as if they were preceded by Byz in the apparatus.

[Enoch]

I'm pretty sure they are indicating that they are Byzantine witnesses, that is, the same as if they were preceded by Byz in the apparatus.

Byz [E P] in the apparatus is saying that the reading is supported by the Byzantine type text and here are 2 examples of that.  But the use in the manuscript list is not syntactically equivalent.  Τhe brackets are not used in that list as an explanatory parenthesis for something preceding.  But thank for for your hypothesis; I don't know any better explanation than yours.  But I note that while some of Alexandrinus (the gospels) has been deemed Byzantine, I see no brackets employed with it.  

Edited June 18, 2015 by Enoch

[Timothy Jenney]

Enoch,

 

Please remember that we do our best to reproduce the text (and apparatus) as intended by the publisher. We don't make these kinds of decisions internally. Your question is intriguing and we can speculation why the editors chose to do it that way, but ultimately we are in the same boat as you.

 

Have you considered asking the editors themselves? Or directing your question to the publisher?

 

I think a number of us would be interested in the answer, if you can get one.

 

Thanks!

[Douglas Fyfe]

I've heard of USB2.0 and USB3.1 - looking forward to USB4 

 

apologies for the dad joke - i did hear it's father's day elsewhere in the world 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hey Enoch,

 

  This one is a bit odd. I don't really understand the number system for these docs, except that there is 12 of them ! But apart from my whining aside, here's a theory.

 

  In your post about there is a 3 next to "Manuscript". If you mouseover on that in the apparatus you get this :

 

3 Bracketed manuscripts are uncials with a Byzantine text. As representatives of this text type they are regularly cited following the group symbol Byz.

 

  So indeed I think the [ ] are Byzantine. In fact the whole system seems that way Anyhow, there appear to be inconsistencies also. So if you do a search of the Manuscript field for

 

Byz .[ E .]

 

  you get hits which when you mouseover them show this :

 

E 08    a    Oxford    VI

 

  And sure enough going back to the list at the top E 08 has no brackets. [E 07] though does. This is perhaps because E 07 is considered Byzantine completely or very largely, where E 08 apparently is a mixture of text types including Byzantine - yes I got that from that from wikipedia - perhaps not the most solid TC source but I wouldn't know - it is backed up by http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/which I don't know anything about either. But it should do for now. Thus I assume that E 08 would appear in both Byzantine and non-Byzantine contexts in the apparatus. I wonder .... and indeed it does :

 

    6 55 {B} Ἰωσήφ ℵ1 B C N O Θ Σ ƒ1 13 33 700c 892 ℓ 184 ℓ 387 ita, aur, b, c, f, ff1,2, g1, h, l, q✱ vg syrc, s, hmg, pal copmeg, bopt geo slavmss Origen2/3 Eusebius Basil; Jerome Augustine // Ἰωσῆς (see Mk 6.3) L W Δ 0106 ƒ13 180 205 565 597 1241 1243 1342 Byz Lectpt, AD itk, qc syrp?, h? copsa, bomss, fay arm ethro? Chrysostom // Ἰωσῆ 157 700✱ 1006 1010 1071 1292 syrp?, h? copbopt ethTH slavmss // Ἰωάννης ℵ✱vid D E G 28 579 1424 1505 Lectpt itd vgmss Origen1/3 // Ἰωάννης καὶ Ἰωσῆς 1344 (vgmss Iohannes et Ioseph)


Barbara Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament (4th Rev.; Accordance electronic ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 61*.

 

 

It's in the middle of the second to last line of the apparatus fragment.

 

  So that's my theory - it's not bracketed in the list of manuscripts because it's not entirely Byzantine in text type. But when the Byzantine bits are referred to in the apparatus it is bracketed.

 

Thx

D