Critical Apparatuses, Etc.

[ISalzman]

Does anyone know where one could obtain the critical apparatuses of BHS, NA27, UBS4, etc. along with the Masorah Parva, etc. within a bible software package? It would preferably have the capability to decipher many of the symbols simply by hovering one's mouse over them. If I am correct, I don't believe BW currently has this or something like it available. I think Libronix sells an add-on module called SESB (Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible), however, it comes with an exorbitant $300 + price tag. I am looking for something much more affordable. I think the SESB probably comes with a lot of other databases and bells and whistles, which I'm not sure I would use, at least for a while. So, I'd be grateful if anyone can tell me what my options are for getting my hands on the critical apparatuses in electronic format.

Hey, I just noticed this was my 100th post in the BibleWorks forums. I was kind of expecting fireworks or a drum roll to break out. Do the BW folks send out ribbons when you hit milestone posts like this?

[Michael Hanel]

The textual critical apparati for the BHS and NA27 are both licensed by the German Bible Society. It has been their current practice to only sell that product as extra cost modules either for Accordance or Libronix. BibleWorks has attempted to get the material for BibleWorks but has been unable to secure a license on terms they deem reasonable.

There are other textual criticism tools being created, but if you must have the German Bible society stuff, right now you only have those two, expensive, options.

And congrats on the participation levels, you'll catch up to me soon!

[ISalzman]

The textual critical apparati for the BHS and NA27 are both licensed by the German Bible Society. It has been their current practice to only sell that product as extra cost modules either for Accordance or Libronix. BibleWorks has attempted to get the material for BibleWorks but has been unable to secure a license on terms they deem reasonable.

There are other textual criticism tools being created, but if you must have the German Bible society stuff, right now you only have those two, expensive, options.

And congrats on the participation levels, you'll catch up to me soon!

Thanks Michael! Not to put extra work on your plate, but if I may ask, what sort of textual criticism tools are being created apart from the German Bible Society stuff? And are they anywhere near as exhaustive as the information provided in the critical apparati of BHS and NA27? And, do you know if Libronix will allow one to purchase just the apparati instead of having to shell out all the bucks for the complete SESB module? Grateful for any responses you may have.

And thanks for your good wishes. I'm not so sure I'll surpass your significant number of posts any day soon. But, at least, I've gone from "Member" to "Senior Member!" I can only hope this won't mean I can expect more "senior Moments" from here on in!:confused:

[Michael Hanel]

Thanks Michael! Not to put extra work on your plate, but if I may ask, what sort of textual criticism tools are being created apart from the German Bible Society stuff? And are they anywhere near as exhaustive as the information provided in the critical apparati of BHS and NA27?

Well for one BW has the Tischendorf materials. They are actually much more thorough than the NA27 apparatus as far as I know. The main benefit of the NA27 would be that it is newer so it will have new papyri finds and such. Second, is the Comfort-Barrett module which gives you access to the papyri themselves. BibleWorks staffers have mentioned occasionally on these forums that they are working on some more stuff, but they have not been spilling the beans as to exactly what their creation will look like, but considering that they had mentioned picking up CNTTS apparatus and the Reuben Swanson books (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Greek-Manuscripts-Romans/dp/0865850704/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250005027&sr=8-1) I imagine that it will be something equally thorough. But obviously, those resources are not available yet, they have just been hinted at.






And, do you know if Libronix will allow one to purchase just the apparati instead of having to shell out all the bucks for the complete SESB module? Grateful for any responses you may have.

I believe the answer to that is no. Honestly, you're better off addressing such a question either on their forums or to them directly. There's no need to turn this thread into links to rival software programs :)

[Adelphos]

Not to start a debate, but you are missing nothing whatsoever by the absence of the Critical Apparatus of NA27. Not only is NA27 not even REMOTELY representative of the actual manuscript deployment, but it is likewise INFESTED with errors.

And Michael is correct... the Tischendorf apparatus, while also containing many errors, is far more comprehensive than NA27.

Scroll down to the footnotes at the bottom of my article HERE (http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm) for a further explanation of the NA27 Critical Apparatus.

[ISalzman]

Well for one BW has the Tischendorf materials. They are actually much more thorough than the NA27 apparatus as far as I know. The main benefit of the NA27 would be that it is newer so it will have new papyri finds and such. Second, is the Comfort-Barrett module which gives you access to the papyri themselves. BibleWorks staffers have mentioned occasionally on these forums that they are working on some more stuff, but they have not been spilling the beans as to exactly what their creation will look like, but considering that they had mentioned picking up CNTTS apparatus and the Reuben Swanson books (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Greek-Manuscripts-Romans/dp/0865850704/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250005027&sr=8-1) I imagine that it will be something equally thorough. But obviously, those resources are not available yet, they have just been hinted at.


Thanks Michael.




I believe the answer to that is no. Honestly, you're better off addressing such a question either on their forums or to them directly. There's no need to turn this thread into links to rival software programs :)

I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion of rival software programs per se. But I don't really view the two companies as rivals. I think most of us probably use both and would admit that they complement each other nicely, for the most part. I love BibleWorks for their "Text First" emphasis. But I appreciate the other's (shall I use the "L" word?) for their library offerings. And I do like the Andersen-Forbes databases. But, for the record, BW has my first loyalty. My heart goes with them.

[Adelphos]

...but considering that they had mentioned picking up CNTTS apparatus and the Reuben Swanson books (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Greek-Manuscripts-Romans/dp/0865850704/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250005027&sr=8-1) I imagine that it will be something equally thorough.

The Swanson apparatus is the best of the text critical tools available, IMO, (outside of the actual manuscripts themselves) as it doesn't present an interpretation, but rather raw data.

The other apparatuses present very decided interpretations, in addition to an inaccurate and skewed presentation of the data, as Swanson and others have demonstrated.

Swanson's work allows anyone to work directly with the raw data without having to wade through each manuscript one-by-one and thereby to see for himself just what is the case.

Of course, when the reading was not entirely clear Swanson had to make determinations of what a particular reading was in a particular place, but all collators have to do that, so in that sense Swanson offers an interpreation in a few places, but unlike the other apparatuses which present only portions of the data that THEY decide is important, in addition to forcing their interpretations in other categories onto the reader, Swanson's collation simply lays it all out there for everyone to see for himself.

[ISalzman]

Not to start a debate, but you are missing nothing whatsoever by the absence of the Critical Apparatus of NA27. Not only is NA27 not even REMOTELY representative of the actual manuscript deployment, but it is likewise INFESTED with errors.

And Michael is correct... the Tischendorf apparatus, while also containing many errors, is far more comprehensive than NA27.

Scroll down to the footnotes at the bottom of my article HERE (http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm) for a further explanation of the NA27 Critical Apparatus.

Thank you, Scott.

[Adelphos]

Thank you, Scott.

Vous êtes bienvenu!

And that almost exhausts my knowledge of French. :)

[SkipB]

During grad school, I was involved with checking the mss of the Psalms of Solomon (photos, did not get to visit them sadly) against the critical apparatus of Rahlf. I was surprised at the number of mistakes that were in the apparatus. It seemed like some of the big names who were cited as the authority for some of the listed variants were way off. So I am always a little skeptical of the alternate readings.

[ISalzman]

Vous êtes bienvenu!

And that almost exhausts my knowledge of French. :)


Not bad, Scott. Those are useful words to know! We just had someone stay with us for the last 6 days. They speak only Hebrew and French. It was like I was in heaven. I got to speak two of my favorite languages all day long. Alas, they have caught a flight back home today. So back to English.

Irving
By the way, French like Hebrew requires gender and number agreement. So the "bienvenu" needs an "s" at the end of it; "vous" is plural. You could have said "tu es bienvenu," without the "s."

[Adelphos]

By the way, French like Hebrew requires gender and number agreement. So the "bienvenu" needs an "s" at the end of it; "vous" is plural. You could have said "tu es bienvenu," without the "s."

Ah, heck, I don't worry about the little things, especially in French. My best friend in high school became a top model in Paris (I know, I know), and becamse totally fluent in French. In fact, he made a pile of money, married a French girl, and bought a spread in Normandy, where he still lives to this day, but whenever I'm in Paris, I let him do all my talking. :rolleyes:

[ISalzman]

Ah, heck, I don't worry about the little things, especially in French. My best friend in high school became a top model in Paris (I know, I know), and becamse totally fluent in French. In fact, he made a pile of money, married a French girl, and bought a spread in Normandy, where he still lives to this day, but whenever I'm in Paris, I let him do all my talking. :rolleyes:

I understand. I don't blame you. Ah, to be in Paris today! I must be dreaming.

[MBushell]

Hi All,

We have long wanted to add some sort of apparatus to BW, especially in the New Testament. We were unable to come to terms with the German Bible Society, and they have pretty much closed the door on further discussions. Oh well. It would be nice to have but I personally don't consider it a great loss. The NA27 apparatus is not intended to be exhaustive. It has the basic support for the critical decisions made by the editorial committe and not much more than that. For that reason it is somewhat lacking in objectivity. That it not so much a criticism as an observation. It is not intended to be complete. The Swanson corpus is wonderful, but to be honest it has lots of errors. We have worked with it extensively and were once going to license it. So we know it's weaknesses and strengths in some detail. What is needed is a project to transcribe a large body of manuscripts, tag them morphologically, link them to images and provide a suite of analysis tools for generating apparatti on the fly. That will happen eventually. It is only a matter of time. We actually started a project several years ago to begin this task. In the first few years we wasted a LOT of money and time but after several restarts we feel now that we know how NOT to do it. We are making progress, but at a much slower rate than we had originally anticipated. It is going to be slow going. However, Sinaiticus is finished and several others are near completion. You should start seeing stuff coming out towards the end of the year. At present the plan is to include the material in the base package, though we will have to charge extra for the image disks. I probably won't live to see the project completed, but the only way to get it done is to start. Pray for us.
Mike

[ISalzman]

Hi All,

We have long wanted to add some sort of apparatus to BW, especially in the New Testament. We were unable to come to terms with the German Bible Society, and they have pretty much closed the door on further discussions. Oh well. It would be nice to have but I personally don't consider it a great loss. The NA27 apparatus is not intended to be exhaustive. It has the basic support for the critical decisions made by the editorial committe and not much more than that. For that reason it is somewhat lacking in objectivity. That it not so much a criticism as an observation. It is not intended to be complete. The Swanson corpus is wonderful, but to be honest it has lots of errors. We have worked with it extensively and were once going to license it. So we know it's weaknesses and strengths in some detail. What is needed is a project to transcribe a large body of manuscripts, tag them morphologically, link them to images and provide a suite of analysis tools for generating apparatti on the fly. That will happen eventually. It is only a matter of time. We actually started a project several years ago to begin this task. In the first few years we wasted a LOT of money and time but after several restarts we feel now that we know how NOT to do it. We are making progress, but at a much slower rate than we had originally anticipated. It is going to be slow going. However, Sinaiticus is finished and several others are near completion. You should start seeing stuff coming out towards the end of the year. At present the plan is to include the material in the base package, though we will have to charge extra for the image disks. I probably won't live to see the project completed, but the only way to get it done is to start. Pray for us.
Mike

Thanks Mike. How about the apparatus for BHS. Is that also something that must be licensed from the German Bible Society? And is that also a closed door right now?

[Michael Hanel]

Thanks Mike. How about the apparatus for BHS. Is that also something that must be licensed from the German Bible Society? And is that also a closed door right now?

I'm a different Mike, but yeah, BHS also = German Bible Society. And to be fair, the BHS textual apparatus is a joke as far as its thoroughness goes. Hopefully more is available in the new versions of the Hebrew Bible that are being worked on by different sources.

[Adelphos]

I'm a different Mike, but yeah, BHS also = German Bible Society. And to be fair, the BHS textual apparatus is a joke as far as its thoroughness goes. Hopefully more is available in the new versions of the Hebrew Bible that are being worked on by different sources.

The BHS apparatus is not even truly Massoretic. It is a constructed apparatus by a twentieth-century scholar, not a Jewish Massorete. That's because the Leningrad Codex has serious defects in this area.

EDIT:

Oops, I guess you meant the TEXTUAL apparatus, not the Massorah Parva. My mistake. The above still goes for the Massorah Parva. -:)

[wie]

We were unable to come to terms with the German Bible Society, and they have pretty much closed the door on further discussions.
[...]
It is going to be slow going. However, Sinaiticus is finished and several others are near completion.
Reading this makes me very sad.
This is such a waste of time and money.
The group in Muenster is financed for the most part by public money. Why they are not sharing their materials freely is beyond me.

[Btw. having a monopoly Greek text is per se a bad thing IMO. It is to a certain extent your own fault to let Muenster "dominate the world". ;) For a very long time already there is no international committee anymore.]

Regarding transcriptions, oh well. Reading that "Sinaiticus is finished", oh man, this has been finished at least two times previously, a) by Muenster and b) by the Sinaiticus project, both times painstakingly carefully. So why a third time? Is this necessary? It seems.

"The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few."
Now the laborers even all are repeating the same things again and again instead of advance.

This is so sad.

:(


PS: The online textual commentary (http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html) is free. A BW version exists somewhere.

[MBushell]

Reading this makes me very sad.

Wieland,

I agree completely. We have tried to work with other organizations but they have shown no iterest in working with us. I honestly don't know why. I have my own thoughts on that but this is not the place to air them.

Our policy has always been to refrain from charging for the Biblical text and that runs counter to almost every other organization out there. Many organizations actually have contenpt for this point of view. This policy will also apply to our transcriptions and they will be made available eventually for free to other organizations as long as they can provide proof to us that no profit will be made from them. But BibleWorks users will get the first crack at the texts with only a media charge for the CDs.

You should also keep in mind that multiple transcriptions of the most important manuscripts is not a bad thing. We have found mistakes in contenporary transcriptions of all the manuscripts we have worked on, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Tischendorf himself made mistakes. And there is a large element of subjectivity involved in interpreting some manuscripts, as you well know. That is why we want to publish the transcriptions with images (to the extent that copyright law and academic turf wars permit).

I don't know how far or how fast we will be able to go with this project. We have already invested (and lost) huge amounts of money. A lot depends on when and if the economy picks up again, and also on whether or not we can interest others in helping financially. Getting external help is hard because there is no money to be made and because some other organizations sneer at us because we don't have a .ORG after our name (there are reasons for this which have to do with eventual government control of non-profits in this country).

SO it is sad, but not tragic. Hopefully we can help others to refine their own work, just as we learn from theirs.

Mike

[Clint Yale]

Let me chime in here. I am too disappointed in the GBS policy of making their texts so unaccessible to the masses. I think they are missing out on an untapped revenue flow and a greater appreciation from the digitized text community. Most of what they have garrisoned can be found in other public domain sources. The only problem is they have acted as our filter all these years and we have trusted them with the editorial decisions.
With the advent of huge capacity devices for storage and wide bandwidths we are getting to the point where it is possible to put all extant manuscripts digitally online or in a storage device for access. The next thing is to digitize all the notes of the textual critics that are available. Once this is done you might have a critical apparatus that would be open source and very usable and free from the restrictions of the GBS.
Critical Apparatuses take a lot of blood, sweat and tears. You have to really like staring at the computer monitors for hours on end. The big reason they are not being done is because the market is so small and the man hours are so huge. Another big problem is that there is no standard publishing code. Everyone is doing their own thing. It has been talked about for years, but no one has acquired dominance in this field. There are a lot of projects going on that deserve our attention, but there is no cohesion in the direction that they are going.
What needs to happen is this:
(1) Projects involving digitizing, transcribing and publishing critical apparatuses need to be identified. When this is done people need to be identified who can bring these projects to completion.
(2) Publishing of these projects in a universal code that can forever be deciphered from one generation to the next without degradation of the media. Allowances need to made for machine reading of the texts no matter what the operating sytem or platform used.
(3) People who are willing to dedicate their lives to this endeavor without customary renumeration as in other fields.
That is my two cents for the year. I have got to get back to keying in von Soden.

Clint Yale
Bellingham, WA

[Adelphos]

Well I'll add another two cents and state that the GBS will become irrevelant and obsolete if they don't open out their dwindling resources relative to manuscripts, as the digitizing process is already galloping very fast in various venues.

It has been my experience that the GBS has not been truthful or forthcoming when attempting to get information from them, as well as extremely biased and dishonest in their dissemination of data, and as I said, unless they change in some very major ways, their text critical position will only diminish further and further.

In fact, they are already pretty much obsolete except for the remaing few who continue to buy into their extraordinary and ignorant bias.

[Adelphos]

By the way, Clint. You did a phenomenal job on the Tischendorf apparatus, so I'm really look forward to your Von Soden project.

I assume you are also doing this for BibleWorks? I sure hope so.

[Clint Yale]

It will be in BibleWorks format and be integrated with the Tischendorf Apparatus.

[Adelphos]

Very outstanding.

You'll have that finished in the next two or three days, I expect? ... :rolleyes:

[pasquale]

PS: The online textual commentary (http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html) is free. A BW version exists somewhere.

Hi ISalzman,

for BibleWorks you can find these:
TCG 2007 Textual Commentary on the Gospels (http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/module/wielandFinalRev3.zip) (by Wieland Willker) - compiled in BibleWorks by Pasquale Amicarelli
two BW modules shared on LaParola.net (at the bot of the page) http://www.laparola.net/greco/bibleworks.php compiled in BibleWorks by Pasquale Amicarelli

[ISalzman]

Hi ISalzman,

for BibleWorks you can find these:

TCG 2007 Textual Commentary on the Gospels (http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/module/wielandFinalRev3.zip) (by Wieland Willker) - compiled in BibleWorks by Pasquale Amicarelli
two BW modules shared on LaParola.net (at the bot of the page) http://www.laparola.net/greco/bibleworks.php compiled in BibleWorks by Pasquale Amicarelli



Thank you, Pasquale.

[ISalzman]

This is not a BibleWorks question, per se, but has everything to do with the current thread. I just want to understand the difference, if any, between NA27 and UBS4. This is what I currently understand of this issue, rightly or wrongly. My understanding is that the text is almost exactly identical if not actually identical. They both provide the same eclectic text. The difference as I understand it is that the respective apparati are different. Apparently the NA27 apparatus is more exhaustive? Can someone please clarify this for me. My only request is that any responses be charitable and devoid of "eclectic text bashing" particularly if you are coming from a Majority text position. My creed in life is "In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." Also, if the German Bible Society holds the licensing rights to the critical apparatus of NA27, who holds the same for UBS4? Grateful for any replies.

[Adelphos]

This is not a BibleWorks question, per se, but has everything to do with the current thread. I just want to understand the difference, if any, between NA27 and UBS4.

Same committee, same text. Only slight difference in punctuation in a very few places, if I remember correctly. The apparatus of UBS4 is less extensive than NA27.

That should not be construed to mean that NA27 is extensive, because it is not even remotely close to being so. And as I've stated before, and as has been demonstrated by myself and numerous others, NA27 is infested with errors.

And with regard to charity, I'm like Jesus: I call a liar a liar and saint a saint. John 8:55.

[Adelphos]

I should add - if you really want to get an idea about the manuscript and variant readings, the Tischendorf Apparatus that comes with BibleWorks is FAR more valuable than NA27. True, it's missing the papyrii, but their significance has been heavily overblown anyway.

The Tischendorf Apparatus also has errors -- and I'm not talking about typos -- but it is far more reliable and far more extensive than anything that's been produced in the past 100 years.

Anyone who is really interested in this matter should spend some effort in learning how to interpret the Tischendorf Apparatus in BibleWorks. A rough analogy between the NA27 apparatus and the Tischendorf Apparatus would be comparable to the difference between a mud puddle and a lake with respect to coverage.

[Michael Hanel]

This is not a BibleWorks question, per se, but has everything to do with the current thread. I just want to understand the difference, if any, between NA27 and UBS4. This is what I currently understand of this issue, rightly or wrongly. My understanding is that the text is almost exactly identical if not actually identical. They both provide the same eclectic text. The difference as I understand it is that the respective apparati are different. Apparently the NA27 apparatus is more exhaustive? Can someone please clarify this for me. My only request is that any responses be charitable and devoid of "eclectic text bashing" particularly if you are coming from a Majority text position. My creed in life is "In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." Also, if the German Bible Society holds the licensing rights to the critical apparatus of NA27, who holds the same for UBS4? Grateful for any replies.

I believe Adelphos is correct. At one point in time the texts were different, but now they are the same. "The Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition (UBS4) is designed for translators and students. It contains the same Greek text as Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27, differing only in some details of punctuation and paragraphing." The differences in the apparati are hard to explain briefly, but I'll try. NA27 has more textual variants noted than UBS4, but when UBS4 has a variant listed, it will usually list more witnesses and it will give a letter grade as to the committee's belief on the strength of what the text has written. So really the two apparati have different strengths and weaknesses and are not the same. Both are held by German Bible Society. A gander at the UBS4 says that the first few editions were copyright United Bible Society, but from 1993 on, they seem to indicate German Bible Society.

[ISalzman]

I believe Adelphos is correct. At one point in time the texts were different, but now they are the same. "The Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition (UBS4) is designed for translators and students. It contains the same Greek text as Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27, differing only in some details of punctuation and paragraphing." The differences in the apparati are hard to explain briefly, but I'll try. NA27 has more textual variants noted than UBS4, but when UBS4 has a variant listed, it will usually list more witnesses and it will give a letter grade as to the committee's belief on the strength of what the text has written. So really the two apparati have different strengths and weaknesses and are not the same. Both are held by German Bible Society. A gander at the UBS4 says that the first few editions were copyright United Bible Society, but from 1993 on, they seem to indicate German Bible Society.

First, thanks to both of you guys for responding. A couple of followup questions for Michael. You mention that the UBS edition "is designed for translators and students." Would you say more so than the NA27 edition? And how specifically would you say that it is oriented toward translators and students? Is there anything about NA27 that would make it any less suitable for translators and students?

Next, I have appreciated the letter grade rating that UBS provides in the past. But how valuable is that really? For example, while NA27 may not assign a letter grading to the reading or variant they have chosen, if they've gone with that reading, they must still have deemed it to be the "best of all the rest," per se. So what practical difference would it make if the grade were "B," "C," or anything else? They (UBS) still made the editorial decision to go with that particular reading. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well, but I hope you get my drift.

And, lastly, it seems like electronic versions of the critical apparati only include the apparatus of NA27 and NOT UBS4. Am I correct on this? Do you know if both apparati, NA27 and UBS4, are available electronically? Sorry for all the questions, but I so appreciate your time and patience and would be very grateful for your response.

Incidentally, one thing I would say that favors the NA27 edition is the fabulous cross references provided in the side margins. They are particularly adept at picking up OT quotes and allusions in the NT. This, IMHO, is a fantastic strength.

[Michael Hanel]

First, thanks to both of you guys for responding. A couple of followup questions for Michael. You mention that the UBS edition "is designed for translators and students." Would you say more so than the NA27 edition? And how specifically would you say that it is oriented toward translators and students? Is there anything about NA27 that would make it any less suitable for translators and students?

I believe the reason why it is pegged more for translators is because the variant choices that are listed are more valuable for their effect on translation. For instance, NA27 may list a variant involving a missing definite article, but UBS4 will not include that because it's not really going to affect one's translation. I think on average the UBS4 has one to two textual variants per page. NA27 has many many more than that.


Next, I have appreciated the letter grade rating that UBS provides in the past. But how valuable is that really? For example, while NA27 may not assign a letter grading to the reading or variant they have chosen, if they've gone with that reading, they must still have deemed it to be the "best of all the rest," per se. So what practical difference would it make if the grade were "B," "C," or anything else? They (UBS) still made the editorial decision to go with that particular reading. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well, but I hope you get my drift.

This is all purely personal opinion. It is as valuable as much as you value the committee's opinion. I believe others on the blogosphere have talked about a desire to see a different kind of system in later versions, i.e. an objective one. This kind of reminds me of the Jesus Project. If 5 people voted for a variant and one against it, it might be ranked an "A". But that rank will not tell you WHY each person decided how they did. For this, your best bet is Metzger's Textual Commentary.


And, lastly, it seems like electronic versions of the critical apparati only include the apparatus of NA27 and NOT UBS4. Am I correct on this? Do you know if both apparati, NA27 and UBS4, are available electronically? Sorry for all the questions, but I so appreciate your time and patience and would be very grateful for your response.

I do not believe this is correct. In other words I believe both of them are available together. But since I personally do not own any of the packages, I can't say this with absolute certainty.



Incidentally, one thing I would say that favors the NA27 edition is the fabulous cross references provided in the side margins. They are particularly adept at picking up OT quotes and allusions in the NT. This, IMHO, is a fantastic strength.


The sad part is I've heard from others who are much older than I am that earlier versions of NA texts actually had better textual cross references than the current version. I don't know specifically which version it was that had more before they started trimming them out, but at least this was this person's reason for owning older copies of the NA text.

[wie]

The sad part is I've heard from others who are much older than I am that earlier versions of NA texts actually had better textual cross references than the current version. I don't know specifically which version it was that had more before they started trimming them out, but at least this was this person's reason for owning older copies of the NA text.
I own a lot of NA versions but I cannot say that this is true. There are slight variations, addig a reference here, deleting one there, but no dramatic changes. Same for the UBS versions.

[ISalzman]

Thanks to both of you for responding. Michael, I especially appreciate your painstaking point-by-point response to my post.

[Adelphos]

For anyone who wants a fairly balanced perspective, while still realizing that the author is pro TR, the following link should be very informative for an overall understanding of many aspects of textual criticism...

http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm

I should also state that I don't agree with some of the assertions or conclusions in that article, but as I said, it should be informative to many who are not really familiar with textual criticism today.

[ISalzman]

For anyone who wants a fairly balanced perspective, while still realizing that the author is pro TR, the following link should be very informative for an overall understanding of many aspects of textual criticism...

http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm

I should also state that I don't agree with some of the assertions or conclusions in that article, but as I said, it should be informative to many who are not really familiar with textual criticism today.

Thanks Scott, but that is an extremely long article. If I ever get that kind of time, I will endeavor to read through it. But who is this Ronald Gordon? Is he generally recognized as an authority in the field of text criticism? And I assume you meant that Gordon is pro TR. That sort of makes me a little wary already. It is usually TR people who call the articles written by those who favor the TR "fairly balanced." In the same way, most critical text people think that articles written by authors favoring the critical text are "fairly balanced." We generally tend to find our own views the most "fairly balanced." That's just human nature. At any rate, when and if I get a major block of time, I will try to peruse Gordon's article.

[Adelphos]

The first two or three paragrahs in that article answer all the questions you just asked.

And if you want to understand textual criticism, you won't get it in a jack-in-the-box enterprise. Textual criticism is a serious and complicated subject. To expect to understand it and at the same time avoid reading long articles is an oxymoron extraordinaire.

[ISalzman]

And if you want to understand textual criticism, you won't get it in a jack-in-the-box enterprise. Textual criticism is a serious and complicated subject. To expect to understand it and at the same time avoid reading long articles is an oxymoron extraordinaire.

I understand that. I have read several books on the subject (Ellis Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism, etc.). I am about to read Ernst Wurthwein, Text of the Old Testament. But I don't know anything of or about this Ronald Gordon. I'm not quick to read extremely long articles by people without any sort of a reputation. A lot of people post articles on the internet. It's one of the easiest things to do. All you need is for a server willing to host your page. There are a lot of articles posted on the internet about a variety of subjects. Not all of them are worthy of being read however. But I will take your advice and read through the first three paragraphs of the article to which you linked. Thanks.

[Adelphos]

I didn't point you to every article on the internet. I didn't even point you to one of my own articles on the subject.

When someone on this forum points me to an article I assume that they are pointing me to an article that they themselves have vetted, and I've found that to be true with most of the posters on this forum.

So I'll say it one last time... if you want a good overall view of NT textual criticism, while recognizing that the author is pro TR, as I said before, the article I pointed you to gives a fairly good account of the matter.

I don't agree with the author on a number of points, and I still recommend the article.

You're the one who has been asking the questions. You live in a dream world if you think you can post questions in a public forum and get only the answers you want to those questions. Some people get helped in spite of themselves.

[ISalzman]

I didn't point you to every article on the internet. I didn't even point you to one of my own articles on the subject.

When someone on this forum points me to an article I assume that they are pointing me to an article that they themselves have vetted, and I've found that to be true with most of the posters on this forum.

So I'll say it one last time... if you want a good overall view of NT textual criticism, while recognizing that the author is pro TR, as I said before, the article I pointed you to gives a fairly good account of the matter.

I don't agree with the author on a number of points, and I still recommend the article.

You're the one who has been asking the questions. You live in a dream world if you think you can post questions in a public forum and get only the answers you want to those questions. Some people get helped in spite of themselves.

I detect a slightly adversarial tone in your last post, Scott, and that has not been my intent here. So I thank you for your recommendation and I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

[Adelphos]

I detect a slightly adversarial tone in your last post, Scott, and that has not been my intent here. So I thank you for your recommendation and I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

Perhaps you ought to go back and read the posts carefully, beginning with the one where I stated that for ANYONE who wanted to explore an understanding of the issue better, I had offered a link which I thought might be helpful.

Most people don't come back and insult someone who is trying to be helpful by stating their time is just too valuable to read such a link without a full dissertation about the author. Most people would assume that the link had been vetted by the poster if they have had experience with same, or they would politely just ignore the link and not bother to read it.

[ISalzman]

Scott, my intent was not to insult you. If I've insulted you, I apologize for that. As I said in my previous post, my intent was not in any way meant to generate any hostility or adversarial reaction.

[Adelphos]

No problem, but it might not hurt to go back and reverse the roles. Maybe if you posted a link for ANYONE who was interested in such and such a matter, and then SOMEONE -- not ANYONE -- began to drill you about the author, and began to initimate that his time was too valuable for your link, et cetera et cetera, especially when a quick perusal of the first two or three paragrahpsh would have settled the entire matter.... well, you figure it out.

The fact is, the article is there and my recommendation is there for ANYONE who might want a basic understanding of NT textual criticism. No one is compelled to read it, but for those who are TRULY interested in the matter and who would like to learn more from a particular perspective, then they might find the article useful. You don't have to read it. It's there if you want to.

And anyone who wants to post links that they think might be useful should not fear being raked over the coals about its provenance. Most readers are clever enough to guage an article by its first two or three paragraphs.

[ISalzman]

No problem, but it might not hurt to go back and reverse the roles. Maybe if you posted a link for ANYONE who was interested in such and such a matter, and then SOMEONE -- not ANYONE -- began to drill you about the author, and began to initimate that his time was too valuable for your link, et cetera et cetera, especially when a quick perusal of the first two or three paragrahpsh would have settled the entire matter.... well, you figure it out.

The fact is, the article is there and my recommendation is there for ANYONE who might want a basic understanding of NT textual criticism. No one is compelled to read it, but for those who are TRULY interested in the matter and who would like to learn more from a particular perspective, then they might find the article useful. You don't have to read it. It's there if you want to.

And anyone who wants to post links that they think might be useful should not fear being raked over the coals about its provenance. Most readers are clever enough to guage an article by its first two or three paragraphs.

I didn't view my asking who Ronald Gordon was as equivalent to "raking you over the coals about the article's provenance." I merely wanted to know who he was. I had and have never heard of him. And since you referred people to the article, I assumed you knew who he was. That's why I asked.

And it's not a matter of my time being too valuable or not to accept referrals. I just like to know that an author who writes on a given subject has some credibility in the field, especially before I invest a lot of my time reading him. I work in pastoral ministry, have a family, and time is at a premium for me. I don't have as much of it as I would like.

That's why I asked who Ronald Gordon was. I did not mean to demean or belittle your referral of the article. If you felt belittled, again, please accept my apology. My own time is limited and in the limited time I do have, I try to limit my reading to respected authorities in their respective fields. When Zane Hodges writes, for example, about why the John 7:53 - 8:11 text should be considered original, as he did years ago in a two-part Bib Sac article, I took the time to read the articles despite not preferring the TR myself. I actually thought his article was compelling. So, please don't feel disrespected or raked over the coals by me, Scott. That was not my intention. All I merely wanted to know was who Gordon was. I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but I want to undo any offense I might have made you feel.

[Adelphos]

Irving, it's not a big deal, so don't worry about it. I don't know the guy who wrote that article, but that doesn't really matter, because evidence is not a respecter of persons.

A man who can think for himself evaluates the evidence on its own merits; he doesn't bow to the opinions of "noted authorities". I realize that true critical thinking is virtually unheard of in certain circles today, but that don't change the truth.

There are noted authorities everywhere. You can't move today without tripping over a "noted authority". And yet they are proven wrong more often than they are proven right, and many times desperately wrong.

Using an "authority" for an argument is a known fallacy, and one that only a person who has no evidence employs.

I posted that link for people who may be interested in learning about textual criticism. There is a lot of good information in there for people who are truly interested in the subject but who don't know where to begin. The article is balanced, but I also gave the appropriate caveat that the author is pro TR, a caveat that is not offered today by modern textual critics to their unsuspecting followers.

In any case, that article can be evaluated on its own by the material therein, no matter who wrote it. As I also said, I don't agree with everything in that article, but I am certain that anyone who wants to understand the issue will gain a very good base from reading that article, which will take about an hour for a serious reader to read the entire site.

And I'll say once again that if anyone wants to evaluate the manuscript evidence, the Tischendorf Apparatus in BibleWorks is a goldmine comparatively speaking, FAR more valuable overall than NA27/UBS4. And yet, it doesn't surprise me that the vast majority of people want the newest and latest, even if the newest and latest is significantly inferior.

Would it be nice to have the NA27/UBS4 in BibleWorks? Yes, if it was free, because then it would take people like me less time to expose it for what it is. But not having it is no loss whatsoever to an accurate comphrension of the textual state of the NT. In fact, it's far more misleading than helpful, especially for those who aren't aware of the MASSIVE interpretive presentations within.

But here's the deal... having Tischendorf or NA27/UBS4 will do nobody ANY real good at all until they have at least a BASIC understanding of the textual phenomena, and that article I linked to gives a person a very good start in that regard. Everyone is free to take it or leave it. But at least they don't have to go to a bookstore to buy about a dozen books to equate to the free information on that site.

And at the end of the day, EVIDENCE, not certificates or people of "notable authority", should drive the true seeker of truth.

[ISalzman]

Irving, it's not a big deal, so don't worry about it. I don't know the guy who wrote that article, but that doesn't really matter, because evidence is not a respecter of persons.

A man who can think for himself evaluates the evidence on its own merits; he doesn't bow to the opinions of "noted authorities". I realize that true critical thinking is virtually unheard of in certain circles today, but that don't change the truth.

There are noted authorities everywhere. You can't move today without tripping over a "noted authority". And yet they are proven wrong more often than they are proven right, and many times desperately wrong.

Using an "authority" for an argument is a known fallacy, and one that only a person who has no evidence employs.

I posted that link for people who may be interested in learning about textual criticism. There is a lot of good information in there for people who are truly interested in the subject but who don't know where to begin. The article is balanced, but I also gave the appropriate caveat that the author is pro TR, a caveat that is not offered today by modern textual critics to their unsuspecting followers.

In any case, that article can be evaluated on its own by the material therein, no matter who wrote it. As I also said, I don't agree with everything in that article, but I am certain that anyone who wants to understand the issue will gain a very good base from reading that article, which will take about an hour for a serious reader to read the entire site.

And I'll say once again that if anyone wants to evaluate the manuscript evidence, the Tischendorf Apparatus in BibleWorks is a goldmine comparatively speaking, FAR more valuable overall than NA27/UBS4. And yet, it doesn't surprise me that the vast majority of people want the newest and latest, even if the newest and latest is significantly inferior.

Would it be nice to have the NA27/UBS4 in BibleWorks? Yes, if it was free, because then it would take people like me less time to expose it for what it is. But not having it is no loss whatsoever to an accurate comphrension of the textual state of the NT. In fact, it's far more misleading than helpful, especially for those who aren't aware of the MASSIVE interpretive presentations within.

But here's the deal... having Tischendorf or NA27/UBS4 will do nobody ANY real good at all until they have at least a BASIC understanding of the textual phenomena, and that article I linked to gives a person a very good start in that regard. Everyone is free to take it or leave it. But at least they don't have to go to a bookstore to buy about a dozen books to equate to the free information on that site.

And at the end of the day, EVIDENCE, not certificates or people of "notable authority", should drive the true seeker of truth.

Good reply. When I get the chance, I'll take the time to read the article. Thanks.

[Sansom48]

Wieland,

I agree completely. We have tried to work with other organizations but they have shown no iterest in working with us. I honestly don't know why. I have my own thoughts on that but this is not the place to air them.

Our policy has always been to refrain from charging for the Biblical text and that runs counter to almost every other organization out there. Many organizations actually have contenpt for this point of view. This policy will also apply to our transcriptions and they will be made available eventually for free to other organizations as long as they can provide proof to us that no profit will be made from them. But BibleWorks users will get the first crack at the texts with only a media charge for the CDs.

You should also keep in mind that multiple transcriptions of the most important manuscripts is not a bad thing. We have found mistakes in contenporary transcriptions of all the manuscripts we have worked on, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Tischendorf himself made mistakes. And there is a large element of subjectivity involved in interpreting some manuscripts, as you well know. That is why we want to publish the transcriptions with images (to the extent that copyright law and academic turf wars permit).

I don't know how far or how fast we will be able to go with this project. We have already invested (and lost) huge amounts of money. A lot depends on when and if the economy picks up again, and also on whether or not we can interest others in helping financially. Getting external help is hard because there is no money to be made and because some other organizations sneer at us because we don't have a .ORG after our name (there are reasons for this which have to do with eventual government control of non-profits in this country).

SO it is sad, but not tragic. Hopefully we can help others to refine their own work, just as we learn from theirs.

Mike


Mike how are you seeking money for this project? I know that I don't read every thread posted here so I don't know, is there anyway that I can donate to the project, I am not rich, but the project is a worthy cause that I would eventually (assuming I live long enough) reap the rewards. perhaps I just haven't investigated the web-site well enough.

[MBushell]

Mike how are you seeking money for this project? I know that I don't read every thread posted here so I don't know, is there anyway that I can donate to the project, I am not rich, but the project is a worthy cause that I would eventually (assuming I live long enough) reap the rewards. perhaps I just haven't investigated the web-site well enough.

Right now we are funding it ourselves. We have had three false starts or restarts, costing more money than I care to think about. But we are learning in the process and are making progress. Our hope is that we can release a handful of major manuscripts next year (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Bezae and Washingtonensis), complete with transcriptions, images and morphological tagging, but we still have a lot of work to do. When that is done we will try to find a way to get external help with funding. It should be easier once we have some fruit to show. All of the material will be available without charge to BibleWorks 8 users. The actual transcriptions (but probably not the tagging) will eventually be made available for free outside of the BibleWorks community, but I have no idea of the timeline. The ultimate goal is to have a couple hundred manuscripts done, with software to generate apparati on the fly based on user-specified criteria. That may not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen some day, Lord willing.

I appreciate your offer of help. Stay tuned. We may put out a call for help some time soon. It is a worthy project.

Mike

[jdarlack]

I probably won't live to see the project completed, but the only way to get it done is to start.
It is a worthy project.It is a worthy project indeed! I recently heard a scientist on NPR say that "If you are working on something that can be finished in your lifetime, then you're not working on something worthwhile." You can't get much more "worthwhile" than what you guys are doing, MBushell!

[bkMitchell]

...I recently heard a scientist on NPR say that "If you are working on something that can be finished in your lifetime, then you're not working on something worthwhile...

That reminds me of a passage in the Mishnah:


לֹא עָלֶיךָ הַמְּלָאכָה לִגְמוֹר, וְלֹא אַתָּה בֶן חוֹרִין לִבָּטֵל מִמֶּנָּה

It is not your duty to complete the work
But neither are you free to desist from it.

Pirkei Avot 2:21


Thank you for your hard effort and passion MBushell and may God continue to bless you and the rest of the Bibleworks team!

I am sure God will provide you and your staff with the support (financial and spiritual) and encouragement when the time comes. But, keep in mind if times get rough you can always send out a message for help to us Bibleworks users.

[Carsten]

I apologize before hand if I have missed out somewhere.

Reading through the posts CNNTS was mentioned and then somehow disappeared along the way. As far as I recall it was available in an earlier version of BW. Does anyone know what happened to this module? And if any plans are for an possible inclusion+

In advance, thanks.
Carsten Espersen

[Michael Hanel]

I apologize before hand if I have missed out somewhere.

Reading through the posts CNNTS was mentioned and then somehow disappeared along the way. As far as I recall it was available in an earlier version of BW. Does anyone know what happened to this module? And if any plans are for an possible inclusion+

In advance, thanks.
Carsten Espersen

Originally there were plans to offer it as an add-on module for BW7, but somewhere along the line BibleWorks decided to go a different route by creating versions of the texts instead. Michael Bushell said this will be a long-term ongoing project, but he hopes to have some of the fruit of that labor available in 2010. Rather than being a pay add-on, it will be a free upgrade for BW8 users.

[ISalzman]

CNNTS? Translation greatly appreciated.

[MBushell]

CNTTS == Center for New Testament Textual Studies. The database is a NT critical apparatus done by a group at the New Orleans Baptist Seminary. According the CNTTS the text will be available to us for licensing in January. They are making some tweaks based on things found out by using the Accordance version. When they finish the tweaks we'll add it. It shouldn't take us long to get it in. Not sure what the price will be but it won't be terribly expensive.

We are continuing our long term project of providing full, tagged and searchable transcriptions of major manuscripts. A release of the initial manuscripts is planned for late 2010, perhaps at SBL, Lord willing.

Mike

[ISalzman]

CNTTS == Center for New Testament Textual Studies. The database is a NT critical apparatus done by a group at the New Orleans Baptist Seminary. According the CNTTS the text will be available to us for licensing in January. They are making some tweaks based on things found out by using the Accordance version. When they finish the tweaks we'll add it. It shouldn't take us long to get it in. Not sure what the price will be but it won't be terribly expensive.

We are continuing our long term project of providing full, tagged and searchable transcriptions of major manuscripts. A release of the initial manuscripts is planned for late 2010, perhaps at SBL, Lord willing.

Mike

Thanks Mike. Sounds good.

Irving