Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 80

Thread: On Greek text crit

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Brian, you haven't caught the orthographic errors in B, at least not in egenhqhsa, and I haven't checked the others, but here's the point...

    This particular verse is one that the apparatuses deign to cover. They DO NOT cover REAMS UPON REAMS UPON REAMS of other problems with B and Aleph.

    And yet, even in this verse which they DO cover, I am asking if it is possible to REPRODUCE the actual reading of B, including orthograpics, word order, words substitution, et. al..

    Again, THIS verse is one pertaining to B and Aleph that the apparatuses DO make an attempt to cover. Can you reproduce this text STRICLTY from the apparatus EXACTLY as it is written in B?

    And what about the REAMS UPON REAMS UPON REAMS of verses where B and Aleph have gross blunders that are NOT covered?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I'd still prefer Swanson over all of them, but I guess that's no longer an option.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Brian, you haven't caught the orthographic errors in B, at least not in egenhqhsa, and I haven't checked the others,
    You're right, I overlooked that one

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    but here's the point...

    This particular verse is one that the apparatuses deign to cover. They DO NOT cover REAMS UPON REAMS UPON REAMS of other problems with B and Aleph.

    And yet, even in this verse which they DO cover, I am asking if it is possible to REPRODUCE the actual reading of B, including orthograpics, word order, words substitution, et. al..

    The answer is no, or at least I am unable to reproduce B from the various apparatuses/apparati

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Again, THIS verse is one pertaining to B and Aleph that the apparatuses DO make an attempt to cover. Can you reproduce this text STRICLTY from the apparatus EXACTLY as it is written in B?
    Again, the answer is no. There is no way that I could or anyone else could do that without enough data which the apparati do provide

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    And what about the REAMS UPON REAMS UPON REAMS of verses where B and Aleph have gross blunders that are NOT covered?
    I think it is obvious that the compilers of many of the NT apparatuses/apparati have a basis for Alexandrian text and/or readings. They claim the Alexandrian texts and their eclectic derivatives of it or close to their hypothetical original text. This is why they probably don't publish the dirty Laundry.

    Text forms such as the Byzantine/Majority text, Syrian Texts forms, Western Text, the caesarean text and various sub-categories seem to have equally been ignored or outright dismissed by the majority of the critical scholars.

    Although, the Syrian texts may have been the earliest translations or transcriptions of parts of the NT many scholars dismiss it because these texts often support a text form closer to the Byzantine Greek texts and to the Textus Receptus rather than the beloved Alexandrian text form.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Yep, you are correct, except I don't put any value on the Syrian text for the NT. And the argument over the underlying text is not going to change any minds here.

    I just want to make people aware that a critical apparatus is virtually useless in making accurate textual decisions, and therefore, ultimately, not having the NA Apparatus in BW is no loss whatsoever.

    Now, could someone please tell me how to type Greek and Hebrew here? When I choose the font box, I get no options for the BWGRK or Hebrew, or any other Greek or Hebrew.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Thumbs up

    WOW

    Quote Originally Posted by MBushell View Post
    Just to chime in briefly: we are still scheduled to include the New Orleans Baptist Seminary apparatus when they are finished with the current round of edits. The BibleWorks manuscript project is also still progressing, albeit much more slowly than I would like. The initial offering of 7 of the most important manuscripts should be released by the end of the year. They will be free of charge to BW8 users, though we may need to charge a media fee for discs with manuscript images. Also keep in mind, as has been said, that Tischenfdorf is a gold mine, and that most major textual issues suface with a simple comparision of the NA27 and Robinson-Pierpont texts. Oh, yeah, we also have brand new proofs of the Westcott-Hort text and the Scrivener texts to release soon. These should be about as accurate as anyone can get them, much better than what we or anyone else has now. So there's lots of TC stuff in the pipeline and it won't cost you a penny extra - except possibly for the NOBTS stuff - I am not sure if we were able to work out a royalty low enough for us to put it in the base package - if not the price will be reasonable - they are good guys.
    Yet, another reason to buy BibleWorks!
    Although, I'd love to see more Hebrew texts, I am excited about this news.

    I really, believe that providing the actually electronic transcripts of the NT texts is far better than any apparatus could ever be. In fact I think in the age when when can carry around digital libraries with full texts there is no longer any need for the highly abbreviated and cherry picked data of apparatus.

    In paper where one has to save space apparatus make a lot of sense but in digital form where one can hold libraries it's simple ridiculous. In other words even though I am not a NT textual critic I think Bibleworks has made the right decision.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Well, I can't figure out how to type Greek or Hebrew with this new board, so I'll transliterate.
    Scott, that was one of my complaints about these new boards. The previous boards came with the ability to type in Greek or Hebrew. Seemingly, that capability is no longer available with these new boards. I mentioned this at the time the new boards were inaugurated, but no one cared to comment at the time.

    Irving

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Now, could someone please tell me how to type Greek and Hebrew here? When I choose the font box, I get no options for the BWGRK or Hebrew, or any other Greek or Hebrew.
    You'd have to beg Michael Tan, he's the forum fixer guy.
    Michael Hanel
    PhD candidate Classics Univ. of Cincinnati
    MDiv Concordia Seminary
    MA Classics Washington University
    Unofficial BibleWorks Blog
    LibraryThing!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Well then Brian is smarter than us all because he somehow was able to type in Greek.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Yep, you are correct, except I don't put any value on the Syrian text for the NT. And the argument over the underlying text is not going to change any minds here.
    Allow me to explain myself. Basically, I think the Textus Recptus and Byzantine texts have far more textual witness and support than any hypothetical scholarly text. I used the Syrian as an example for an early witness for the TR and Byzantine form since the Syrian texts can claim to be the earliest translation.

    The reason, I did that is many claim the Alexandrian/Neutral texts to be earlier and therefore closer to the so called original text. However, the fact that the Alexandrian texts remain in great condition proves they probably weren't used, handled, or read very often, while the TR and Byzantine forms where.

    I throw the Majority text in there with the Byzantine and TR, too, but the certain Majority texts are also highly eclectic(there is room for that) and I place much higher emphasis and credence to texts that actual existed and exist; where and are used in communities of faith. I am still studying these issues for myself and have not yet come to any final conclusion on these matters. I do have a sweet tooth for Semetic text hence a give some love to the Aramaic/Syriac texts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    I just want to make people aware that a critical apparatus is virtually useless in making accurate textual decisions, and therefore, ultimately, not having the NA Apparatus in BW is no loss whatsoever.
    I figured that, but thanks for spelling it so clearly. This is an important point.

    And, I agree with you however, I am not really a fan of any apparatus especially not in digital form! It is much better in my opinion to have actual texts, transcriptions, and facsimiles than to have an apparatus.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Now, could someone please tell me how to type Greek and Hebrew here? When I choose the font box, I get no options for the BWGRK or Hebrew, or any other Greek or Hebrew.
    What, I have been doing, recently, is typing Hebrew/Greek Unicode in Bibleworks Editor and then cutting and pasting to my post when I reply to a thread. One, can also use DavkaWriter6 which is fast, easy, and efficient! (which you, I, and others like).

    Open source(free) alternatives to DavkaWriter are OpenOffice and AbiWord which can one can type in unicode Hebrew and Greek, too (I am sure you know about these, too but for the sake of others reading I write).

    κἀγὼ ὑμῖν λέγω, Αἰτεῖτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν ζητεῖτε, καὶ εὑρήσετε κρούετε, καὶ ἀνοιγήσεται ὑμῖν.

    וְגַם־אֲנִי אֹמֵר לָכֶם שַׁאֲלוּ וְיִנָּתֵן לָכֶם דִּרְשׁוּ וְתִמְצָאוּ דִּפְקוּ וְיִפָּתַח לָכֶם׃
    SCR and DLZ (Luke 11:9)
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Well, now...

    שׁמי סכוֹת


    λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, εἰ μὴ δι᾽ ἐμοῦ.


    I'm gonna assume these both show up in Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew is from Davka, and the Greek from the BW editor.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •