Steven Avery
Administrator
David Charles Parker
Manuscripts, Texts, Theology: Collected Papers 1977-2007
dokumen.pub
4. The example of Lachmann with Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Tischendorf with Sinaiticus, and Westcott and Hort with Vaticanus, illustrate how fatal too great a preoccupation with a single witness is to critical judgement, while Kilpatrick’s mistaken application of his views to this letter shows the risks of applying a single principle to an entire corpus of texts.
The symbols used indicate the following manuscripts and versions: – Codex Sinaiticus, copied towards the middle of the fourth century, gives for the most part an Alexandrian text, though it has a number of readings found in free texts like D. B
And this bends the mind in strange new directions. In transcribing Codex Sinaiticus, I found myself seeking new ways of indicating just what I found. It goes without saying that every letter is recorded, so that each itacism is faithfully reproduced. So of course are all corrections and annotations, so are superlines for nu at line ends, nomina sacra, abbreviations indicated by brackets around the supplied letters, running titles, quire signatures, modern folio numbers. I soon found after making the transcription on the basis of paper collations that the most accurate way to check it was to divide the text into the folios, columns and lines of the manuscript, and from there to go through it letter by letter. But then I began to worry about other things. Should I indicate which letters were written smaller at the end of a line? How should I indicate punctuation, paragraphing, the Eusebian apparatus and the running titles? These are all worth recording, and in 5 6 7
Manuscripts, Texts, Theology: Collected Papers 1977-2007
Manuscripts, Texts, Theology: Collected Papers 1977-2007 3110211939, 9783110211931 - DOKUMEN.PUB
David C. Parker is one of the world's foremost specialists in the study of the New Testament text and of Greek and...
dokumen.pub
4. The example of Lachmann with Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Tischendorf with Sinaiticus, and Westcott and Hort with Vaticanus, illustrate how fatal too great a preoccupation with a single witness is to critical judgement, while Kilpatrick’s mistaken application of his views to this letter shows the risks of applying a single principle to an entire corpus of texts.
The symbols used indicate the following manuscripts and versions: – Codex Sinaiticus, copied towards the middle of the fourth century, gives for the most part an Alexandrian text, though it has a number of readings found in free texts like D. B
And this bends the mind in strange new directions. In transcribing Codex Sinaiticus, I found myself seeking new ways of indicating just what I found. It goes without saying that every letter is recorded, so that each itacism is faithfully reproduced. So of course are all corrections and annotations, so are superlines for nu at line ends, nomina sacra, abbreviations indicated by brackets around the supplied letters, running titles, quire signatures, modern folio numbers. I soon found after making the transcription on the basis of paper collations that the most accurate way to check it was to divide the text into the folios, columns and lines of the manuscript, and from there to go through it letter by letter. But then I began to worry about other things. Should I indicate which letters were written smaller at the end of a line? How should I indicate punctuation, paragraphing, the Eusebian apparatus and the running titles? These are all worth recording, and in 5 6 7