Steven Avery
Administrator
The thread above has an interesting discussion of Georgi Parpulov and Pickering and F35 and paratexts.
apparatus rigging
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook
NT Textual Criticism
https://m.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/26257874390539546/
New Testament Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/11404207692/posts/10161773133602693/
Steven Avery
Does this Dummies book explain how certain apparatus concepts work to hide actually showing Byzantine Greek uncials?
These often combine the circularity of the Category system, combined with phrases like
"constant witnesses"
"Consistently cited witnesses of NA28 "
"negative apparatus"
This frequently causes problem even for scholars ostensibly in the textual field, and clearly confuses many readers.
Do you help unravel this difficulty?
"constant witnesses"
"Consistently cited witnesses of NA28 "
"negative apparatus"
"Byzantine Imperial is ignored" -
"little more than a purely or predominantly Byzantine Majority text",
F35 Parpulov on Pickering - "Was there an anti-Byzantine bias at work in the compilation of the Nestle-Aland compilation
apparatus rigging - Aland Categories of manuscripts. Although this is not its express purpose, the Alands' system is, in effect, a ranking of Byzantine influence.
Facebook - King James Bible Debate
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/posts/10159699454961693/
NT Textual Criticism
https://m.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/26257874390539546/
New Testament Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/11404207692/posts/10161773133602693/
Steven Avery
Does this Dummies book explain how certain apparatus concepts work to hide actually showing Byzantine Greek uncials?
These often combine the circularity of the Category system, combined with phrases like
"constant witnesses"
"Consistently cited witnesses of NA28 "
"negative apparatus"
This frequently causes problem even for scholars ostensibly in the textual field, and clearly confuses many readers.
Do you help unravel this difficulty?
"constant witnesses"
"Consistently cited witnesses of NA28 "
"negative apparatus"
"Byzantine Imperial is ignored" -
"little more than a purely or predominantly Byzantine Majority text",
F35 Parpulov on Pickering - "Was there an anti-Byzantine bias at work in the compilation of the Nestle-Aland compilation
apparatus rigging - Aland Categories of manuscripts. Although this is not its express purpose, the Alands' system is, in effect, a ranking of Byzantine influence.
Facebook - King James Bible Debate
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/posts/10159699454961693/
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Using Acts 18:25 as a DRP example test
Acts 18:25
txt του ιησου 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B E L Ψ 0120 35 94 181 1175 1611 1678 1735 1739 1891 2080 latt syr cop arm(ms) ethTH geo Did Aug BG SBL TH NA29 {\} ‖
ιησου D 33 2344 ‖
του χριστου 𝔓⁴¹ ‖
του κυριου H P 049 056 0142 93 𝔐 Chrys TR AN RP ‖
lac 𝔓³⁸ 𝔓⁴⁵ C 81 2464.
I think the Byz reading is dittography from the του κυριου earlier in this same verse.
============================================
From Ciampa
X (01). A (02). B (03). C (04). D(0S>. E(08). L(020). Ψ (044).
048. 066. 076. 095. 096. 097. 0140. 0165. 0175. 0189. 0236. 0244. 0294.
The minuscules 33. 81. 323. 614. 945. 1175. 1241. 1505 and 1739.
============================================
Can add LaParola
NA-28
============================================
Facebook - DRP
www.facebook.com
Roy E. Ciampa
https://viceregency.com/ConsistentlycitedwitnessesofNA28.pdf
Robert Waltz
https://www.holybibleinstitute.com/files/Encyclopedia_Textual_Criticism.pdf
https://www.google.com/search?q="Th...IIsAIB8QWIruXEG_6c_w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Reference Charts for New Testament Textual Criticism
Roy E. Ciampa
NA-28
https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783438072399_A33839551/preview-9783438072399_A33839551.pdf
Acts 18:25
txt του ιησου 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B E L Ψ 0120 35 94 181 1175 1611 1678 1735 1739 1891 2080 latt syr cop arm(ms) ethTH geo Did Aug BG SBL TH NA29 {\} ‖
ιησου D 33 2344 ‖
του χριστου 𝔓⁴¹ ‖
του κυριου H P 049 056 0142 93 𝔐 Chrys TR AN RP ‖
lac 𝔓³⁸ 𝔓⁴⁵ C 81 2464.
I think the Byz reading is dittography from the του κυριου earlier in this same verse.
============================================
From Ciampa
X (01). A (02). B (03). C (04). D(0S>. E(08). L(020). Ψ (044).
048. 066. 076. 095. 096. 097. 0140. 0165. 0175. 0189. 0236. 0244. 0294.
The minuscules 33. 81. 323. 614. 945. 1175. 1241. 1505 and 1739.
============================================
Can add LaParola
NA-28
============================================
Facebook - DRP
David Robert Palmer
@[100000786212850:2048:Steven Avery] They use the Gothic capital M to indicate the majority of mss. overall. In my Acts doc I consult the ECM to find as many of the uncial readings as possible. And...
www.facebook.com
Roy E. Ciampa
https://viceregency.com/ConsistentlycitedwitnessesofNA28.pdf
Robert Waltz
https://www.holybibleinstitute.com/files/Encyclopedia_Textual_Criticism.pdf
https://www.google.com/search?q="Th...IIsAIB8QWIruXEG_6c_w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Reference Charts for New Testament Textual Criticism
Roy E. Ciampa
NA-28
https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783438072399_A33839551/preview-9783438072399_A33839551.pdf
NTG 28, Nestle Aland Institute For New Testament Textual Research : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
El Nuevo Testamento en griego, versión Nestle & Aland, edición 28
archive.org
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Hi David,
Here are 13 majuscules that are "consistently cited witnesses" in Acts. (There are also some minuscules.) And do not show in your apparatus.
Most probably have the Acts 18:25 text. If they agreed with txt reading they would likely be included, but if they agree with the 𝔐 Majority variant they are excluded.
048. 066. 076. 095. 096. 097. 0140. 0165. 0175. 0189. 0236. 0244. 0294.
14 majuscules are included in your apparatus.
Perhaps up to 13 majuscules are omitted, all because they are 𝔐
Do you agree?
Note: there are often cases where this applies to Letter Majuscules, but not on this verse.
=========================
DRP
" I think I showed all uncials that are extant."
This is what is being questioned.
Here are 13 majuscules that are "consistently cited witnesses" in Acts. (There are also some minuscules.) And do not show in your apparatus.
Most probably have the Acts 18:25 text. If they agreed with txt reading they would likely be included, but if they agree with the 𝔐 Majority variant they are excluded.
048. 066. 076. 095. 096. 097. 0140. 0165. 0175. 0189. 0236. 0244. 0294.
14 majuscules are included in your apparatus.
Perhaps up to 13 majuscules are omitted, all because they are 𝔐
Do you agree?
Note: there are often cases where this applies to Letter Majuscules, but not on this verse.
=========================
DRP
" I think I showed all uncials that are extant."
This is what is being questioned.