Talk:Novum Testamentum Graece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Corrections Needed

"every textual variant . . . is meticulously noted in the apparatus"

This is simply incorrect. Major variants are noted, but it is not possible to note every divergent reading of a single manuscript. Willy Arnold 14:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"the 'critical text'. That is, the oldest fragments of New Testament texts that have been found."

This is inaccurate as well. The critical text is not simply a collection of the oldest texts, but is an eclectic text decided upon by a translation committee. The age of a given text is only one of a number of factors that are considered. Willy Arnold 14:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minuscules vs. Unicals

"Other scholars claim that the minuscule texts more accurately reflect what was originally penned."

This is so weasely as to beg deletion. Any examples of real, published scholars and SBL members who hold this view? I'm sure they exist, but my impression is the TR position is a fringe one associated with fundie "King James only" types. Correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, I'm deleting those statements. Josh 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well for the most part, yes. But there are a very small handful of people who, while primarily are theologians or non-sholars, do a fairly well job at outside scholarship (maybe along the lines of G.A. Wells), namely Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (well really, just two books dealing with the majority text). I agree that this sentence is weasely. However, I do not agree it should be removed. It should be qualified and contextualized. I suggest saying "A some theologians suggest..." or something similar. "Some authors outside of the field of textual criticism suggest". --Andrew c 17:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll edit it along those lines and see if it flies. Josh 17:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publishing Date

See page 44 of NTG27, Introduction - the first date published was 1898 by Wurttemburg Bible Society. 1913 is the date of death for Eberhard Nestle. I will make the correction. Sean Mills.

[edit] Missing source

The book The Comprehensive New Testament is listed as the primary source of the "Influence" section of the article. I have been unable to locate the book. It is not found on either Amazon or Barnes & Noble, even though it is listed with a 2007 publication date. It is not found with a Bookfinder search, and not listed anywhere in a Google search except in this article. So can anyone provide a clue to this source? --Blainster 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The book is being published by Cornerstone. I have a prepublication copy and got permission to use material from it, but it shouldn't be available on Amazon until the summer. Tim 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The forthcoming book looks to be very interesting. I do not question the information you present, but I urge you to consider the usefulness (not to mention consideration of Wikipedia guidelines) of using unpublished references that cannot be checked. I admit that it is enticing to use whatever you have in hand, but until it is generally available, it leaves the rest of us at a disadvantage. I tried to look up Cornerstone to see when the book might be expected, but there are a number of publishing concerns using that name. Could you be more specific about which one it is? --Blainster 17:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the gap between now and when it's public. Should I remove the information until it's more commercially available? The company is Cornerstone Publications, in Clewiston Florida. There is another source I know online that lists "translatable" differences in the different texts. I could either 1) leave the information in with as much linkage to other sources as I can locate, or 2) remove the information until the book hits Amazon. Suggestion? Tim 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Usually these questions arise over disputes between two editors, one of whom is challenging the reliability or veracity of a particular source, but that is not the case here. So I will leave it up to your judgment. Here are the Wikipedia policy and guideline resources which may help: WP guidelines on citation state one of the reasons for using them is to assist users not only in checking content but also in finding other information. There is also a policy page covering statements on future events which may enter into the equation. --Blainster 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give them a thorough read this weekend. Unless I'm convinced otherwise by what I read, I'll probably remove the section tomorrow (Sunday) until the book hits Amazon. If it's good information today, it will be good information in a few months. And there are other things from public sources that I have on hand that would be helpful to expand here. I can always add them in the meantime. I appreciate your help! Tim
Okay, I just read the guidelines, and you're right -- the information has to be something that can be cross checked by anyone here. I'll remove the text until I see the book listed on Amazon. Thanks again. Tim 00:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editions

I made some big changes to the "editions" section. I separated it into "current" and "historic." Current includes the two editions mentioned previously as well as several diglots of interest to English-speaking readers. Historic editions includes a summary of the most important editions derived from the introduction to Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine 27 (probably identical to the introduction to NA27 proper).

Potential improvements: Do we really need both the ABS and Hendrickson "editions" listed? We could probably get away with mentioning that there are several NA publishers, there is some variety to ISBN numbers, but the text is the same. We could also mention the difference between editions and printings; i.e. more recent printings have been updated to reflect papyri that were not available for the first printing of NA27. (At least, that is what I'm getting from the copyright page.)--VAcharon 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P45 readings in Novum Testamentum Graece

Kenyon's edition of the Greek text of the Chester Beatty Papyrus 45 gives in Acts 7:58, 9:24, 11:30 and 13:7 the indeclinable form of the apostle's name σαουλ' instead of forms of σαυλος, as in later manuscripts (e.g., σαουλ']σαυλου cett.). However, I cannot find these readings in the Novum Testamentum Graece apparatus. I would greatly appreciate if someone could advise me on this matter: whether the readings are actually given in NA27, or not considered valid anymore, or something else is the case?--Constantine Sergeev (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll check when I get home tonight. Bear in mind that even the NA27 is not comprehensive. It's hard to do in a single volume.Tim (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, it's not comprehensive, but P45 is, as far as I know, the earliest known manuscript of Acts, deserving thus special attention, and the reading itself seems to be important taking into account its implications for the Saul/Paul problem.--Constantine Sergeev (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
My edition (NA26) definitely doesn't have those variants. Given that P45 is one of the 'constant witnesses' for Acts, any variants at all should have appeared in the apparatus. (I did double-check the verses you cite in the table of contents of the codices in the back of the book.) The conclusion would be that there are no variants known to the editors in those places (which appears to contradict what you've just cited). This is probably a case where you should consult Metzger's Textual Commentary to see if he has anything to say. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the delay. I wasn't able to get to this last night, but I definitely intend to do so.Tim (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Constantine -- a thousand apologies for the delay. Yes, these variants are not in the NA27. There is no explanation given. My suspicion is that they will be in the Edito Critica Maior. The NA27 is about as compact as can be done in a single volume.Tim (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to get the Editio Critica Maior.--Constantine Sergeev (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! But you may have to wait a bit for Acts to come out. Right now they only have the Catholic Epistles published. NA28 and UBS5 will eventually incorporate the changes in the ECM. Also, I just realized that Codex Bezae may be crowding out P45 in Acts because of the volume of changes in the narrative. Even the Comprehensive New Testament translation -- with its 15,000 variant readings -- didn't cover every permutation in Acts. Metzger's commentary devotes a third of the entire text to that one book alone.Tim (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian E Wilson's comment about ciphers

A quick question: in http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brenda.wilson99/rome.doc, Brian E Wilson states: "P75 represents the number twelve in cipher format in Lk 8:42, 8:43, 9:1m 9:12)..."

In consulting Nesle on this point, there is a reference to P75 at 8:42, but the words 'sine acc' are near it.

If this means 'without the accent' is that why the alphabetic numeral form wasn't listed in the apparatus - if "sine acc" was indeed referring to the number, not having the stroke above it? Do other verses have the 'sine acc' written as sa? Is this why P75 is listed with the absurd exclamation mark in sources? Finally, if this is all true, and it is true that nearly 50% of numbers in Luke of p75 are ciphers, is this the case with any other papyri?

Thanks Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think (in better light) that the apparatus don't refer to the number twelve, which makes it even more mysterious to me why p75 isn't cited? Does the 7,12! refer to the seventh word?

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, does the abbrevieate form of Kyros with the line above it, appear in any text in Luke 4:19?

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This link seems to say that Nestle spells out numbers, for ex 666, whereas they are numerals in the manuscripts. http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Mathematics.html

See par starting with 'it should be remembered'. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a chance to look at Lk 8:42. Here are a few answers (as I see them!)
The apparatus in NA is very condensed. A close reading of the explanatory matter is necessary.
The verse in question has three different variations pointed out in the apparatus. They are separated by a vertical bar. P75 is cited for the third variant, for the word αυτη. A series of mss. are grouped by parentheses with the comment sine acc. so that the comment applies to all those sources.
P75, along with several other early sources, is identified with the exclamation mark to indicate its importance, "because they were written before the III/IV century, and therefore belong to the period before the rise of the major text types." (From the Introduction to NA26.)
The marginal comments don't refer to the text, but are pointers to parallel passages. Here, you're being referred to Luke 7:12. The ! tells you that further references are in the margin at that verse.
Revalation 13:18 does indeed spell out the Number in the principal NA text. (εξακοσιοι εξεκοντα εξ -- you'll have to imagine the breathing mark.) The Greek numerals (χξς') are noted as appearing in the majority of the minuscule manuscripts, as well as the very early P47. The numbers are spelled out in Codex Sinaiticus, with a minor variation in spelling. This looks to me like an editorial decision, probably with the thought that reading Greek numerals isn't necessary to reading the NT text.
Hope this helps. I think that if you want to follow up on the issue further, you'll have to talk to an NT expert, or find out at a university library how to get a microfilm of the manuscript in question. -- BPMullins | Talk 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)