Critical apparatus

[Juan Ortega]

Greetings to all

Someone could say if the BW 7.0, has the critical apparatus of the old and new testament, or that way, I could see it.

Update

Greetings to all

I wonder if BW, plans to include the critical apparatus of the Greek and Hebrew Bible, in a forthcoming update.
I also think that some of the forum do not see either the device critic of the Bible, I rise to a question, that way I can be closer to the original Hebrew and Greek, if not for the critics now close our eyes to the findings of the past 60 years.

In advance appreciate your feedback and participation.

Sincerely

Juan Ortega
jortegaus@yahoo.com

[Mark Eddy]

BibleWorks does not contain the critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland New Testament, nor does it contain the apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica. However BibleWorks 7 contains Tischendorf's entire book on textual criticism, which is more throrough than N-A, though it lacks any references to papyri. But you can purchase an add-on (Comfort & Barrett) which contains transcriptions of many papyri. There is also a critical apparatus for the New Testament made available as a userdatabase, but I have never tried it.
There is nothing currently available for Old Testament text criticism in BibleWorks.
Mark Eddy

[MGVH]

Don't forget that BW7 comes with Metzger's Textual Commentary for the NT.

Then, be sure to check out the files listed on "Textual Criticism" over on the BibleWorks Blog. In addition to a number of manuscripts and the Aleppo Codex, there is also a link into the excellent resources provided by Wieland Willker: Textual Commentary on the Gospels (compiled by Pasquale Amicarelli).

[Adelphos]

Unfortunately, most everyone who uses critical apparatuses today rely on them as being authoritative. Nothing could be further from the truth, as anyone who has ever collated manuscripts knows.

Not only have I and others who have collated manuscripts been warning for more than ten years now, but Reuben Swanson, who has also made detailed collations of manuscripts, and whose modules were once slated for inclusion in BibleWorks, has made this notable and very wise observation, an observation which anyone who is interested in the actual facts ought to take to heart (and although the following quotation was aimed primarily at NA/UBS, it also applies to Tischendorf's apparatus) --

"IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW SO MANY ERRORS IN THE REPORTING OF THE DATA CAN HAVE OCCURRED. AND THIS NUMBER IS THE SUM TOTAL ONLY FROM THOSE MANUSCRIPTS USED BY THIS EDITOR for this edition of Romans. HOW MANY MORE ERRORS THERE MAY BE IN THE REPORTING OF THE EVIDENCE FROM THE THE OTHER SOURCES, I.E., THE VERSIONS, THE LECTIONARIES, AND THE PATRISTIC WRITERS, USED FOR THE UBS4 AND THE NESTLE-ALAND27 EDITIONS BUT NOT USED FOR THIS WORK IS THE PROBLEM... It has been the view of some scholars that numerous errors in the reporting of the evidence exist in current editions of the Greek New Testament. BUT THIS WRITER IS JUSTIFIABLY ASTOUNDED AT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM... The editor of "New Testament Greek Manuscripts" [i.e., Reuben Swanson] has long held the view that the selection of variant readings SHOWN IN THE CURRENT CRITICAL EDITIONS of the New Testament HAS NOT GENERALLY BEEN REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIVERSITY AND EVEN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ACTUAL STATE OF THE PHENOMENA. It is true that the most widely used critical editions, UBS4 and Nestle-Aland27, ARE ENTITLED HANDBOOKS, meaning that they are not intended to be exhaustive presentations of the evidence. Nevertheless, the question arises WHETHER OR NOT THE SELECTION OF READINGS CHOSEN FOR THE APPARATUSES represents the most significant and meaningful possible... THE MEANING OF SOME PASSAGES IS DEFINITELY SKEWED IN THE VIEW OF THIS WRITER BECAUSE OF THE PARTIAL REPORTING OF VARIANTS... Through the visual representation of the evidence, as in this appendix, it becomes apparent that a MINIMAL REPRESENTATION of the variant readings IS A SERIOUS DISTORTION of the problem of the text AND CAN BE MOST MISLEADING to those who rely only on handbooks for exegetical hermeneutical studies." Reuben Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts--Romans, p xxiv (emphasis added)

Even though this statement was taken from Swanson's collation of the Book of Romans, he makes the SAME statement in his other collations as well, such as from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and so on.

And the truth is, Swanson is being kind, for the errors are even more serious than he has stated.

In short, it is not possible for anyone who has actually studied the evidence, that is, anyone who has collated manuscripts and examined the citations in the critical apparatuses of NA/UBS, to honestly deny that these apparatuses are OVERFLOWING with error.

Thus, their inclusion in BibleWorks would be not really be an asset at all.

[Juan Ortega]

Thank you all for the contributions they have given me, I am a great help.

Thanks

Juan Ortega

[SkipB]

Great quote Scott,
I had the opportunity in grad school to work on the text of the Psalms of Solomon, we were sending info to Bob Kraft at UPenn for the original CCAT publication of LXX.
When comparing the text to the "evidence" cited by some well known text critical "legends," we found that they regularly misread tachigraphic markings at the end of lines. This accounted for a plethora of minor variants. And at times they really struggled with the miniscule epigraphy. Some of the strange spellings they gave came from misinterpreted forms for combined letters.
Always a good idea to eyeball passages for yourself if possible.

[Adelphos]

When comparing the text to the "evidence" cited by some well known text critical "legends," we found that they regularly misread tachigraphic markings at the end of lines. This accounted for a plethora of minor variants... Always a good idea to eyeball passages for yourself if possible.

I think people would be absolutely amazed at just how many errors exist in a number of such well-known publications.

Also, I think Swanson was being a bit, shall we say, elliptical when he stated, "IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND how so many errors can have occured..."

Meaning, if I interpret his statement properly, that many of the "errors" were actually intentional, for it truly is difficult to understand how so many errors could have been made simply by accident.

And of course, Metzger's commentary is simply a rehash and an expansion of a great many of those errors.

[Juan Ortega]

Greetings to all

I wonder if BW, plans to include the critical apparatus of the Greek and Hebrew Bible, in a forthcoming update.
I also think that some of the forum do not see either the device critic of the Bible, I rise to a question, that way I can be closer to the original Hebrew and Greek, if not for the critics now close our eyes to the findings of the past 60 years.

In advance appreciate your feedback and participation.

Sincerely

Juan

[Mark Eddy]

Juan, this post contains the official BibleWorks answer to your question as of a year ago: Critical Apparatus?
Mark Eddy