Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Any info on which mss will be included next in the mss-tab?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    186

    Default Any info on which mss will be included next in the mss-tab?

    Hi all,
    I have just begun to use the new mss-tab in BW9 - and I must say that it is incredible for text critical work. Beyond anything I have seen anywhere else.
    My question: Has BW said anything about which mss they will include next? Nothing is mentioned here: http://www.bibleworks.com/bw9help/bw...sproject01.htm.
    I would hope, they will go for the most important papyri.

    Another thing: I don't see the need for spending all the demanded power on tagging these versions with morphology-codes. Images + transcription + verse-tagging will do. Agree?
    TC-work is not about morphology, after all.

    Morten

  2. #2

    Default

    I can see how morphology coding could be helpful... Does a particular ms/scribe tend prefer certain forms? (E.g., does some scribe regularly 'improve' all those historical presents in Mark?) Are there issues in spelling that morph tagging could sort out?
    More important for me than the morph tagging, however, is simply the tagging w/ the lemma. There are lots of interesting word changes in the mss that would be good to track down. E.g., was Jesus' response in Mark 1.41 compassion/σπλαγχνιζομαι or anger/οργιζω, and are there tendencies across the mss? Or in Luke 23.45, was there an eclipse or was the sun simply darkened?
    These are the kind of issues where morph tagging (or at least lemma tagging) could be interesting.
    Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    Professor of Biblical Studies
    Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
    ltsg.edu - CrossMarks.com
    Biblical Studies and Technological Tools

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGVH View Post
    I can see how morphology coding could be helpful... Does a particular ms/scribe tend prefer certain forms? (E.g., does some scribe regularly 'improve' all those historical presents in Mark?) Are there issues in spelling that morph tagging could sort out?
    More important for me than the morph tagging, however, is simply the tagging w/ the lemma. There are lots of interesting word changes in the mss that would be good to track down. E.g., was Jesus' response in Mark 1.41 compassion/σπλαγχνιζομαι or anger/οργιζω, and are there tendencies across the mss? Or in Luke 23.45, was there an eclipse or was the sun simply darkened?
    These are the kind of issues where morph tagging (or at least lemma tagging) could be interesting.
    Maybe, but on the other hand....

    Regarding "issues in spelling," such issues, in fact, might make morphological tagging extremely difficult or even misleading. Consider, for one example out of probably thousands, Acts 5:15b, ἵνα ἐρχομένου Πέτρου κἂν ἡ σκιὰ ἐπισκιάσῃ τινὶ αὐτῶν. ἐπισκιάσῃ is the reading of P74 Sinaiticus A D and many others, while B 33 and a few others read ἐπισκιασει. (By the way, the CNTTS apparatus, Acts 5:15 variation unit #42, seems to have this backward, unless I don't know how to read that apparatus, which is quite possible.) Should ἐπισκιασει be tagged future active indicative, or is it a mere spelling variant (itacism) of the aorist active subjunctive? I pulled this example from Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, pp. 928-929, where there is more discussion.

    As to looking for tendencies across MSS in particular readings ... well, that's what the critical apparatuses display, and I'm not sure I see the value of putting resources into even lemma-tagging the MSS in BW in order to allow the diligent user to reinvent this particular wheel. Not that I wouldn't enjoy reinventing it myself! But the lack of tagging may be just BW's way of saving us from our own inclinations.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

Posting Permissions

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