Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, August 14, 2015

New Blog for Nazaroo





Nazaroo has a new blog to continue his old blog:

Old Blog : The Nazaroo Zone - http://nazaroo.blogspot.ca/

New Blog: The Nazaroo Zone II - http://nazaroo2.blogspot.ca/


Saturday, May 16, 2015

Matthaei's 1786 Critical GNT - John's Gospel: Rare Variants for Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11)

Recently Dr. Maurice Robinson has brought to attention the fact that some variants and even manuscripts are no longer available either directly or through modern 'critical editions' of the Greek NT, which either oversimplify or omit key data that might be of help in reconstructing an accurate text:

He commented on the Evangelical NT Blog the following brief note:
'There remain some gems in the older works, particularly in relation to MSS no longer extant or not currently available. Example: for the Pericope Adulterae, Matthaei's (reasonably complete) collations are all that remain available for GA MSS 238, 241, 242, 252, 258.'

In the interest of making those collations (readings published in the footnotes of Matthaei's Volume on John) available, we have taken screenshots and provide them here for researchers to ponder and make use of (pg 138-147 inclusive):














Monday, March 23, 2015

What were the Earliest New Testament Documents?




There is no way of knowing what the earliest document in the NT is,
but its very reasonable to pose that:


(a) Essential contents of the gospels were in written form before Paul was converted.

(b) In a literate community like the Jews of Judaea and Galilee,
a larger than average percentage of the population was literate,
because the whole religion centered around written documents,
an organized schooling system, and REQUIREMENTS that Jews
knew their own history and the Law, and participated.

Examples of the proof from the gospels are the fact that
although nominally the son of a carpenter,
Jesus Himself, took His turn in public reading of the synagogue,
including the reading of SCROLLS (i.e., Isaiah in Hebrew),
even in Galilee.


This means that most indigenous adult Jews could speak and even read
Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as converse in Greek and Latin for commerce.

It would be preposterous to suggest that a literate organized group like
the disciples and even their enemies would not keep any written records
of Jesus' teaching and important public events in His life.

We must presume that as Luke himself claimed, early "Nazarenes",
namely Jewish Christians and Messianists had written records
composed
before Jesus was even arrested and crucified. They would also have
copies of the O.T. Holy Scriptures, as indicated by the NT and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Therefore, the oldest written documents would NOT be Paul's letters,
but rather the gospels and other records in their earliest WRITTEN form.

Even Paul himself plainly quotes OLDER WRITTEN records,
such as the document regarding the LAST SUPPER which Paul quotes,
and confirms was in possession of the Christian community before he wrote
his own letters.   (cf. 1st Cor. 11:17-34)

Roman Catholic scholars also confirm this fact, because it is necessary
in order to establish the Eucharist ritual and its antiquity.


The oldest written records are therefore EMBEDDED in the surviving documents,
such as the gospels and Acts, as well as Revelation,
and predate Paul and his letters.

An obvious letter contemporary with Paul is 
James (Jacob) To the Twelve Tribes of Israel,
written while James was still alive and head of the Jerusalem Church.
It speaks plainly the Jewish Christian viewpoint on gospel and behaviour,
and is clearly an authentic NT writing predating most of Paul's letters.

The writings of Nicodemus preserved in John's Gospel also predate Paul
by a large margin (possibly decades), and being eyewitness accounts,
have far more authority and credibility than Paul.


In addition, there in fact was no recognized "New Testament"
until the Catholic Church formally canonized the Bible in the 4th century A.D.
---some three-and-a-half centuries later.


- Roman Catholic Apologist "Cruciform"

Another incredible load of nonsense by a Vatican supporter.

There are plain indications in the New Testament itself
that Paul, Barnabas and Luke had in their possession
copies of the Gospels,
probably very close in form and content
to the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, (and obviously Luke).

Paul in his letters refers to copies of "the scriptures"
which they are carrying with them,
and the context suggests strongly they are
referring to the very first copies of the early Gospels,
which they used to proliferate Jesus' teachings.


"When you come,
bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas,
and my scrolls, especially the parchments.
"

- 2nd Tim. 4:3


These could not be simply copies of Paul's letters,
many of which he had not written yet,

nor were they likely collected into a single book
until after his death.

Instead, Paul here refers to two sets of documents,


(1) the scrolls, his personal copies of probable gospels and sayings of Jesus, and

(2) O.T. parchments such as Isaiah, Daniel, and other books central to Christianity.

The Gospels themselves betray a form and structure
DESIGNED to hide them from Roman authorities,
which is why the Roman Catholic "church" today
doesn't even have copies of these early documents.


If the Roman Catholic Church were authentic,
they would have copies of these documents.


For instance, Matthew in scroll form would appear to be titled as "a Geneaology"
and the first two feet of the scroll would be a boring list of Jewish names:
This is precisely how to hide a Gospel under the Romans' noses.





"What you got there?"

"A family genealogy: See? It is a list of names of Jewish inheritance."

"Okay. You may go."



And that's how early Gospels were smuggled right past Roman idiot-guards.


Thursday, January 15, 2015

Islamic Bible Fraud: Lies about Slavery


In a recent defense of Islamic Slavery practices,
an online Islamic apologist made some gross misrepresentations
of both the Holy Scriptures and the position of both Judaism and Christianity.

In his explanation, he did not condemn slavery at all,
but made the lame (read indefensible) argument that slavery was okay
because both Jews and Christians thought it was okay!

This approach can only have been inspired by years of immersion
in one of the worst, and ungodly writings ever penned by an illiterate moron:
The Quran.

Leaving aside the morally shocking excusing of slavery inherent in his position,
he dares to pull a fast one and suggest that "Slavery" is not even in the New Testament!

The question he raises is what Paul actually said in 1st Tim 1:10.
He fraudulently suggests Paul never mentioned "slave traders" here.

To protect himself from an accusation of deception,
he involves himself in a chain of quotations as follows:

He quotes what Dr. Siddiqi said,
about what a pastor said,
about what Paul said,
about slavery.

In fact Dr. Siddiqi claims the pastor ADDED a word to the text of 1st Timothy,
and 'supports' this with a (mis)quote from the Revised Standard Version (RSV).

The unidentified pastor is not available to respond,
and the online apologist acts as if the case is proven.



Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America and Director of the Islamic Society of Orange County...states the following:

'The author claims that “the Bible condemns slavery” and “one who practices slavery contradicts right teachings.” In order to prove his point he even adds “the slave traders” in 1Timothy 1:10. There is no such word there in the Revised Standard Version.'

Actually in the whole Bible this word does not exist.




Did the pastor really add a word?
Does the RSV have a shorter text at 1st Timothy 1:10?

No.

There is no textual variant of significance regarding this verse here.

All the Greek texts (TR and Nestle/Aland etc.) have the same words.


1st Tim. 1:10
πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται,
'for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine' - NIV




The issue isn't the presence of a word, but the interpretation of that word.

Some popular renderings for ἀνδραποδισταῖς (andrapodistais) are:
'slave traders' - NIV, NLT, KJV 2000, World Eng.,

'slave dealers' - Weymouth,

'kidnappers' - NET, ISV, Holman, Darby RV, God's Word,

'enslavers' - ESV, Amer KJV,

'menstealers' - KJV, ASV, Douay-Rheims, ERV, Websters, YLT,
It is true that this particular word and form only appear once in the New Testament.

But its meaning is easily established because in secular literature
it is a very common word, with a clear meaning and usage in a wide
variety of contexts.

As a Compound Greek word it breaks into two simpler parts:

(1) ἀνδραποδα- ("andrapoda") = 'slave' i.e., as a result of war, capture, or breeding. This meaning rather than a mere (indentured) "servant"
or "footman" (hired squire etc.) is easily shown by its usage among many ancient authors.
(although etymologically formed from "man"(andros) and "foot"(poda),
it does not carry the English meaning of 'footman' or soldier.)



Thucydides - "sheltering runaway slaves", "onboard the ships were the slaves", "they sold the slaves", "20,000 slaves deserted", all using ἀνδραποδα.

All this word's cognates, derivatives, nouns and adjectives are
connected to slavery throughout the literature.

One can understand how the KJV translators (circa 1600)
arrived at 'menstealers', since more modern terms didn't exist.
'kidnapper' was popularized later in reference to pirates,
while 'slave' apparently came from 'Slav' i.e., Eastern Europeans
who were enslaved by muslim hoards after 630 A.D.

'enslavers' may describe part of what slave-traders do,
but its too narrow a word to carry the intended meaning of the Greek here.
Overall, 'Slave-traders' is the best fit for an English rendering of this word,
and the modern claim of our online Muslim apologist that it is
'not in the Bible' is simply smokescreening and hand-waving.

The general idea of the compound word is 'slavery', 'slave trading'.
One could use one form for making or buying a slave, and another for selling.

But there is no special notion of "making a free man into a slave".
This is wholly artificial, and interpreters who try to insert this meaning
here, do so for one of two reasons:

(a) To make the crime appear more wicked, i.e., a violation of Roman law,
and make it into essentially 'freeman-stealing' or 'kidnapping'.
This would make it harmonize better with other crimes
in Paul's list, to those inclined to view them worse than slavery.

(b) To excuse the 'legitimate' buying and selling of legal slaves, in an attempt to harmonize the verse with other statements by Paul,
who appears more tolerant of slavery in other passages.

Stealing was indeed expressed in Greek by klepto (κλεπτω),

The Greeks also used the word ανθρωπωκλεπτιας (literally man-stealer),
but reducing a (free) man to slavery was a different
and specialized legal idea entirely.

But a slaver was normally covered by Paul's choice of word.
Had Paul meant 'man-stealing' unconnected to slavery,
he would would have used analogous language.

Thus the word 'slaver', 'slave-trader' is indeed in the Bible,

where it is listed as a heinous crime, equivalent to bearing false witness,
adultery, etc., all death-penalty offences.

The Muslim claim that Paul approved of slavery is completely destroyed
by Paul's use of this word in this passage, listing heinous crimes.


(see Studies on Slavery: In Easy Lessons, By John Fletcher 1852, pg 566 fwd)


Saturday, November 22, 2014

Standard Apparatus: Latin Symbols and Lingo

 We have forwarded here Karl's helpful explanation of Textual Critical Apparatus for older Critical works, e.g., publications and classical books from the 19th and early 20th centuries.

 

Std. Apparatus


COMMONEST ABBREVIATIONS, SIGNS, ETC.
USED IN THE APPARATUS
TO A CLASSICAL TEXT

Karl Maurer, filokalos@aol.com
When I was in graduate school and first starting to use the apparatus criticus, I could nowhere find any list explaining common abbreviations; often I just had to guess what they meant, and this used to madden me.  So for students I here offer a small list; it is certainly very incomplete, but includes all the abbreviations (etc.) that occur to me.  I include also some whole words, which in textual criticism have a specialized meaning (see e.g. "ex").
If you cannot find an abbreviation here, you could try "Common Abbreviations in Latin Inscriptions Published in AE 1888-1993" which is online at:
http://asgle.classics.unc.edu < - - Click Here.
(Only beware -- on that splendid, gigantic list, most abbreviations will be useless, and many misleading.)
N.B.: when a Latin adj. is neuter -- e.g. 'alia' or  'alterum' -- it normally agrees with neuter 'verba' or 'verbum' that we supply in thought.



A B C (etc.) = the signs (sigla) of the "capital MSS", i.e. the most important MSS, usually described in the preface, & identified in a list that precedes the text.  E.g." δέ A B: τε C"   = "the capital MSS A and B have δέ and C has τε.  (" : " separates the readings).   But often a MS (in older editions, any; in recent editions, a rarely used MS, too unimportant to have a siglum) is represented not by a siglum but by an abbreviation of its name, e.g. Laur. = (codex) Laur(entianus), or Vat. 226 = codex Vaticanus 226.
a b c (etc.) = either (a) less important MSS, or else (b) families of MSS.  (In a "family", all its MSS tend to have the same or similar errors; so they seem descended from a common exemplar.)
α β γ (etc.) = (usually) lost "hyparchetypes" (alias "proarchetypes", alias "proexemplars"), i.e. conjectured lost MSS, from which the best ours seem to derive.   So e.g. perhaps A B D descend from α, F M from β -- etc.  (But sometimes--esp. in older editions--these Greek letters are also used for manuscript "families"; or every now and then even -- perversely! -- for extant MSS.  You have to read the editor's preface.)
A1 A2 A3 (etc.) = the main copyist's hand in A, a 2nd hand in A, a 3rd hand in A.  Such a 2nd or 3rd hand is usually that of a corrector; so A2 or A3 is sometimes called Acorr.
A1 A2 A3  (etc.)  Subscript numbers usually mean not mere correctors but actual copyists when there were more than one.  I.e. one can discern that A1 copied everything till a certain page; then A2  took over; etc.
Af   Bfm (etc.)  Superscript letters often refer to scholia (i.e. ancient notes on the passage: see below, "Σ"), and often they are named after the MSS in which they appear in their fullest form.  So e.g. "δέ codd.: τε Af" might mean that in this place all the MSS (including A) read δέ, but in A, the f scholia (i.e. the ancient notes which F has in their fullest form) quote our passage and have τε.  (But superscript letters often have quite other meanings -- you have to read the editor's list of sigla carefully.)
a.c. = ante corr. = ante correctionem = before correction; e.g. "δέ] τε A a.c." means: "all copies (including A) have δέ, but A has τε before correction".
ad  = "at" or "on". Usually used in citing ancient or modern commentary; so e.g. "Porfyrio ad Hor. c.4.29" = "see Porfyrio's commentary on Horace, Ode 4.29; there Porfyrio quotes our passage".
add. = addidit = added (tends to mean the same as "suppl.", on which see below)
addub. = addubitavit = "has doubted"
al = alii or = alibi = elsewhere
alii = others, i.e. (usually) other editors, or other manuscripts.
alii alia = "here some (conjecture) some (words); others, other (words)"--us. written when no conjecture seems right.
alterum τε = "the other τε�" = "the second of the two τε 's".  (For example, see under "del."  For its opposite see "prior".)
ante = before (both in time and space), e.g. "τε ante corr." = τε before correction.
ap. = apud = at.  See "ad"
a.r. = ante rasuram, before erasure.
ca. = circa = about, approximately. 
cf. = confer = compare.  "Cf." is often followed by the number of a passage, in which you will find a usage similar to that which the editor posits here.  (In old editions you sometimes see "cp." = "compare")
ci. = cj. = conj. (q.v.)
cod(d). = codex (codices) = mss. = manuscripts.  E.g. "τε codd." = all MSS have this, but it seems wrong.  Cf. "emend."
coll. = collato codice (pl. collatis codicibus) = lit. "with that MS collated" (i.e. after collating that MS); or else = collato loco (pl. collatis locis) = lit. "with that reading compared", (i.e. after comparing that place with this one -- for an example, see under "def.").
conj. = conicit (coniecit, conieci) = 'conjectures' ('conjectured', 'I conjecture').  So e.g. "te conj. Wil." = "Wilamowitz conjectured te".  Or e.g. "τε conieci" = "I have conjectured τε" (i.e. "τε is my conjecture").
cont. = contulit, compared.
corr. = correctio = correction.
deest or pl. desunt = (this word) is missing ([these words] are missing).  E.g. "τε deest L" = τε is missing in L.  (Compare "om."  "Om." is normally used when the modern editor feels certain that the omission was made in error; "deest", when he feels less certain of this.  Deest and desunt are used especially for inscriptions and papyri; see e.g. under "ll.")
def. = defendit = defends, or (perf.) has defended.  E.g. "τε def. Hude coll. 7.21.3" = "Hude defends τε here, comparing its use in that passage with its use here."  
del. = delevit = "deleted", or delevi = "I have deleted", e.g. "alterum τε del. Wil." = "Wil. deleted the 2nd τε"
dett. = deteriores (codices) = inferior MSS.
dist. = distinxit = has punctuated.  Often refers to a period; e.g. "post τε dist. Hude" = "Hude punctuates with a full stop after τε."
dub. = dubius = doubtful or dubiter = doubtfully.
e or ex = "from" or "on the basis of".  E.g. "ὅμως ὢν] ὁμοίως Leutsch e schol." = " the MSS have ὅμως ὢν.  Leutsch, unlike us, emends that to ὁμοίως on the basis of the scholium here" (i.e. because the scholium has, or implies, that reading here).  Or e.g. "-βρόντα ] -βρέντα conj. Snell e Pae. 12.9" = "Snell conjectures that -βρόντα , given by the MSS, is a corruption of the very rare form -βρέντα -- which occurs in Paean 12, line 9"
edd. = editores = editors.  edd. vett. = editores veteres = old (usually 15th or 16th-century, and Italian) editors or editions.  So e.g. "alterum τε del. edd.vett." = "earlier editors deleted the 2nd τε".  (These "edd. vett." are sometimes cited because they may have used good MSS now lost.)
em. = emend. = emendavit (emendat) = emended (emends).  Used when all the MSS are plainly wrong (see "codd.").  E.g. in his text an editor prints ... τε..., and in his apparatus says: "τε] δε codd. (emend. Wil.)" = "the best MSS have δε; the τε which I print is an emendation, probably right, by Wilanowitz".
exp. = expunxit: has deleted.
fort. or fors. = fortasse or forsan = perhaps; conceivably. (I.e. the editor stresses that he is guessing.)
fr. = fragmentum = fragment
γρ. or gr. = γράφεται (pl. γράφονται) = (lit.) "is written" ("are written") -- applies to variant readings which are labelled as such in the MS itself, usually by this same abbreviation."  So e.g. "δέ] τε γρ. �`2" means that next to δέ, the second hand in A (e.g. a corrector) has written "γρ. τε" (or "τε γράφεται"), meaning that he has seen that variant reading in another MS.  (When the variant is not thus labelled in the MS itself, our apparatus has not  "γρ."but  "v.l.", for which see below.)  Often the nature of these additions is discussed in the modern editor's Preface.
i.m. = in margine (see 'marg.')
inf. = infra = below.
init. = initium or ad initium = "near the beginning" (of the line, of the word, etc.)
inscr. = inscriptum (or -a) = written into
interl. = inter lineas = "this word is interlinear", written between the lines.
i.r. = in rasura (see "ras")
i.t. = in textu = in the text, in the text itself.
inf. = inferior = inferior, lower, later; or = infra = below.
ins. = inseruit = inserted
lac. = lacuna = lacuna, i.e. a gap in the transmitted text.
lect. = lectio = reading, i.e. (usually) the word(s) that a MS has in this place.
loc. = loco citato = in the passage cited
lit. or in lit. = in litura = "on top of an erasure", or a blot (see "ras.")
ll. = litt. = litterae = letters.  E.g. "desunt ca. 15 ll.", "about 15 letters are missing".
loc. = locum or locus = place (in a work), e.g. "ad locum" = "at (that) place", or loc. coll. = (lit.) "with (that) place compared".
m. = manus = hand, i.e. copyist
marg. or mg. = margen = margin.  "τε in mg." = "τε (was written) in the margin".
ms(s) = manuscripts (no difference between this and "codd.")
m.r. = manus recentior = a more recent copyist
mut. = mutavit = has changed
nonnulli = nonnulli editores = some editors
om. = omittit or omisit = omits or omitted.  E.g. "τε om. A" = τε is missing in A (lit. "A omits τε" -- but probably not deliberately). 
P. (PP.) = Π (pl. ΠΠ)  = Pap. (pl. papp.)  = papyrus.  E.g. "τε P. Berol." = "the Berlin papyrus has τε here", or e.g. "τε P.Oxy. 1356" = the Oxyrrhynchus papyrus 1356 has τε,  or "τε Πcorr " = "in the papyrus τε was written by the corrector".  (Good libraries have editions of all the papyri; and if a reading is important to you, it is sometimes worthwhile to look these up.  For a papyrus is usually an ancient copy of the text, usually 3rd c. B.C. to 3rd c. A.D.; and its modern edition usually has a commentary, in which the editor may give you his expert impression of what that copy is worth generally, and perhaps also offer his own, very acute opinions about the reading in question.)
p.c. = post correctionem = after correction (see under "a.c.").
p.r. = post rasuram, after an erasure
pler. = plerique = very many or most (editors or MSS).
plur. = plures = most (editors or MSS).
post = after
pot. qu. = potest quoque (?) = "it could be also"; e.g. (re a papyrus reading) "Ν] pot. qu. Λ" = "the letter seems to be a nu, but it might be a lambda."  (This abbreviation is often used by Snell.  The meaning of the whole expression is plain; but about "qu." I am only guessing.)
prius (or prior) = the earlier (of the two); e.g. "prius τε" = the first τε (for its opposite, see "alterum").
pro = instead of, in place of, e.g. "δε pro τε A" = "A has δε instead of τε".
prob. = (ad)probavit = has agreed, has approved (or = the present participle probante); e.g. "τε coni. Hude prob. Wil." = "Hude conjectured τε ; Wilamowitz agreed" (or abl. 'with Wil. agreeing').
ras. = in ras. = in rasura = on, on top of, an erasure, e.g. "τε in ras. A" = "A has τε (written) over an erasure".
recc. = recentiores, lit. "later (MSS)".  For Latin MSS this usually means 15th, 16th-century Italian; for Gk. it means late Byzantine.  The recc. are usually derivative (all copied from copies of the capital MSS), yet sometimes they alone preserve some ancient readings, which they got by collation (i.e. they took readings from good ancient MSS now lost).
recte = rightly.  Usually used when the editor is citing someone else's conjecture, which he thinks right.
rell. = reliqui = the other (MSS), the remaining (MSS)
schol. (pl. scholl.) = scholium (scholia), or (sometimes) scholiast.  (See below under Σ). 
scripsi = "I have written"; e.g. "τε scripsi: de codd." -- i.e. "τε is my emendation; the MSS have δε �".
s. = saec. = saeculum = century.
sc. = scil. = scilicet = no doubt, certainly.
s.s. = sscr. = suprascr. = suprascriptum (pl. suprascripta) = this word (or words) written above the line.
s.l. = supra lineam = above the line (in effect, means the same as "s.s.")
secl. = seclusit = has bracketed as corrupt (usually, but not always, refers to actual square brackets which an editor has put round a corrupt place)
sim. = similia = similar (words); see "vel sim."
sq. = sequens (pl. sequentia) = following; e.g. (a note by Snell, referring to a blank space in line 3 of a papyrus): "3 sq. fort. ς" = "the following letter perhaps is ς."
subscr. = subscriptum (pl. subscripta) = this word (or words) is written below the line.
sup. = supra = above, or superior.
suppl. = supplevit (or supplet) = in effect "supplied".  E.g. in my text I print in diamond brackets a word that the MSS omitted, e.g. "<τε>", and my apparatus says "τε  suppl. Wil." = "τε supplied by Wil."
suprascr. -- see "s.s."
s.v. = sub voce = under the word or heading; e.g "τε Suda s.v. Ἀρχέλαος", i.e. the Suda (a Byzantine encyclopedia) has τε where it quotes this passage in its entry for Archelaos.
tent. = tentavit = (lit.) attempted, tried.  "tent." marks a conjecture that  could be right, but is very uncertain.
transp. & transt. = transposuit & transtulit = transposed (i.e. changed the word order or line order).
vel = or.
vel sim. = vel simile, pl. uel similia (or -es) = "or some similar word(s)"; "or some similar conjecture(s)" (usually applied to mere conjectures that are plainly not worth much).
vett. = veteres (codices | editores | editiones)  = old (MSS | editors | editions)  (See above under "edd.")
vd. = vide = see (imperative).
vid. = videtur = seems; usually in the form "ut vid." = as it seems; apparently.
v. (pl. vv.) = versus = verse(s).  Often used not for "verse" in our sense but just for a "line" of writing.
v.l. (pl. vv.ll.) = varia lectio (variae lectiones) = variant reading(s) in the MSS.  Usually they are rather unimpressive variants that look like mere conjectures, perhaps ancient, perhaps Italian renaissance.  (There is a difference between this and "γρ." on that see "γρ.").
vit. = vita = life, referring to an ancient biography; e.g. "vit. Thuc. 3" referring to the third paragraph of the ancient life of Thucydides.
vox (pl. voces) = word(s).  (In classical Latin, this is the normal word for "word".)
vulg. = vulgo = commonly.  Often refers to the corrupt, and much contaminated, 'vulgate' text of the rennaissance.
X sometimes = Σ.
Σ (pl. ΣΣ) = scholium (pl. scholia), i.e. Hellenistic or Byzantine note(s) on this passage.  Many of these notes originated in ancient commentaries, which were published separately from the text and resembled modern commentaries.  In the early middle ages, they ceased to be copied (so that hardly any survive, except in a few papyrus fragments); but in the early middle ages, many remarks taken from them were written in the margins of the texts themselves.  So modern editors always scrutinize the scholia, because some quote or reflect the text as it was in ancient times, perhaps in a purer state. 
:     colon in the apparatus separates different variants and / or conjectures
]     single square bracket in the apparatus separates the reading printed in the text (= usually that given by most MSS) from the variants and conjectures.  For examples, see under "e or ex" and "emend."



Signs in the Text Itself


[...Square brackets, or in recent editions wavy brackets "{...}", enclose words etc. that an editor thinks should be deleted (see "del.").
[...] Square brackets in a papyrus text, or in an inscription, enclose places where words have been lost through physical damage.  If this happens in mid-line, editors use "[...]".  If only the end of the line is missing, they use a single bracket "[..."   If the line's beginning is missing, they use "...]"  Within the brackets, often each dot represents one missing letter.
[[...]] Double brackets enclose letters or words deleted by the medieval copyist himself.
(...) Round brackets are used to supplement words abbreviated by the original copyist; e.g. in an inscription: "trib(unus) milit(tum) leg(ionis) III"
<...> diamond brackets enclose words etc. that an editor has added (see "suppl.")
   An obelus (pl. obeli) means that the word(s etc.) is very plainly corrrupt, but the editor cannot see how to emend.  If only one word is corrupt, there is only one obelus, which precedes the word; if two or more words are corrupt, two obeli enclose them.  (Such at least is the rule--but that rule is often broken, especially in older editions, which sometimes dagger several words using only one obelus.)  To dagger words in this way is to "obelize" them.
A dot under a letter (used for papyrus texts, inscriptions) means that  an "a", for example, seems to be an "a", but the traces are very faint and it could conceivably be some other letter.



 POSTSCRIPT: Why even today is an apparatus usually written in Latin?  Mainly for brevity.  Latin can be made more laconic than any modern language; and over the centuries, the abbreviations themselves have evolved into a sort of sign-language, extremely clear yet of great subtlety.

But why should one ever look at the apparatus?  I have known full professors at "major research institutions" who never did, and even in hard places, seemed hostile to all speculations about the text.  But the truth is that every classical text (even the soundest, like that of Vergil, for example) is to some extent a construction by modern editors.  Often, at any given place, each particular MS has actually nothing but gibberish; and modern editors could construct a text only because each seemed to show part of the truth.  And though, on the whole, they often did a splendid job, and arrived at a text that really must be very close to what Thucydides, or Vergil, or Cicero wrote, not one is perfect; and every now and then the lost truth, hidden in the gibberish offered by the MSS, is still recoverable.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Articles Page Links are now fixed!

Sorry about delay correcting this, but the Articles page is now repaired
so that the links should take you to copies of each article on the PA website.

Try and see, and let us know if any other links are outdated!

Thanks

Mr. Scrivener


Thursday, March 27, 2014

New Links: TC Articles Online Page Restoration

Our apologies for the dead links on the  TC Articles Online Page (top tab).

Until we fix that page, here are working live links to the relevant articles.





General Articles - textual criticism, canons
Text-Types - proposals, origins, background
Key Passages - special cases, analysis



Articles by Topic



General Textual Criticism:

Michaelis (1802): Conjecture merits & limits
W. Milligan (1873) Lachmann's method - sales job
Dean Burgon (1896) Updated! - in modern language
A. Harnack (1897): 19th Cent. Criticism: & skepticism
Lowe/Rand (1922): Dating Uncials: features of age
C. S. Lewis (1950) NT Textual Criticism - & credibility
T.Finney (/96) Missing MSS - copy-center displacement?
M. Robinson (/06) Majority Method - D.Black Interview
J. Snapp Jr. (/10) Majority Method - NET talk
Nazaroo (2010) Base-Texts - & Maj.Text
J. Snapp jr.: 'Equitable Eclecticism' new!
E.M.Thompson (1893): Tachygraphy new!

TC Canons: ...text-critical rules
Bengel (1742) - early canons
Griesbach (1796) - 13 Canons (xlat./Notes:Alford)
Gerrard (1823) - cases, rating variants
Lachmann (1842) - 6 TC Canons
Milligan (1873) - 7 TC Canons, 3 Internal
Hort (1882) - canons extracted by G.Fee
Lias (1893) - abstracted canons
Burgon (1896) - 7 TC Principles
K.Aland (1989) - 12 Rules, 'reasoned eclecticism'
D.A. Black (1994) - 4 Views/Methods

Critical Greek Texts: ...modern reconstructed NTs
Printed Greek Texts - Articles on Text-Critical Editors
Errors in Greek Texts - Changes in the Printed Text

In-House: John 8:1-11 etc.
The Missing MSS for John 8:1-11 - early recycling?
True Meaning of 'Critical Marks' - NOT relevant!
Ten Defenders of 8:1-11 - 10 famous scholars & PA






Articles on Text-Types





General Articles:
M. Stuart (1836) Text-Types: state of knowledge 1830s
Strong (1877) Text-Types: the view by 1879 new!

Byzantine Text:
Scholz (1830) Byzantine text - clear & pragmatic
J. Newman (1839) on Scholz - 2 text-types
J. Burgon (1883) 'Syrian' Recension - re-assessed
Montgomery (1929) Lucianic Revision - O.T. info
B. Metzger (1963) Lucianic Recension - its existance
G. Fee (1993) Majority Text - vs. Hodges
M. Robinson (2001) Byzantine Text - its priority
Snapp/Warner (2006) Lucian Recension - its existance
Snapp/Nazaroo (2010) Majority Text - origin, methodology
R. Frazier (2011) "Harmonizations" - in Byz. text? new!

Western Text:
F. Hort (1882) Western Text - inferior but ancient
R. Harris (1891) Western Text - and the PA
J. Robinson (1893) Western Text & the PA
K. Lake (1908) Western Text - current theories
W. Strange (1992) Western Text - its nature

Other Text-types:
F. Kenyon (1936) Caesarean Text - families, groups
C. M. Martini (1980) Alexandrian Text - a history
L. Hurtado (1981) pre-Caesarean Text - an assessment




 Articles on Key Passages




Key Passages: Readings & Variation Units


verseyearauthorcomment
Matt. 9:34 1992G.N. Stanton - deliberate omission
Matt.21:28-31 1886FHA Scrivener & PA: Hort's smokescreen
Luke 22:19-20 2006B. Billings Syriac & the PA!
John 1:18 2010Nazaroo - flaws in methodology
John 5:3-4 1889FHA Scrivener - intro to variant
Acts 8:37 1857J.A. Alexander - inclusion vouched
Acts 15:34-35 2010Nazaroo Haplography & mod. versions
Rom. 11:6 2011Daniel Buck Haplography UBS text
1 Cor. 9:2 2010Earlham U. Haplography Codex A
1 Cor. 10:28 2010Nazaroo Haplography & mod. versions
2 Cor 8:4 2010J. Krans - famous error
1 Jn 5:7 1821T. Burgess - classic defence