Apparatus

Error in NA28 apparatus for Luke 6:2 σαββατω vs. σαββασιν in 044

2025-02-25T21:25:36Z

There is an error in the NA28 apparatus for Luke 6:2 with regards to the word Sabbath vs. Sabbaths:

NA28: "τι ποιειτε ο ουκ εξεστιν ποιειν εν σαββατω (σαββασιν Ψ) Ψ ƒ13 syp"

However, the actual manuscript of 044 clearly reads σαββατω and not σαββασιν.

I hope that this will be corrected in the future.
Regards.

Matt 26:40 Dc and D*

2024-01-17T16:24:48Z

I believe the attestation of Dc and D* need to be swapped around as per the NTVMR transcription.

RE: P99 in 2 Cor 7:10

2021-08-06T07:32:33Z

Thanks for your message, Dirk. You’re right that it is too difficult here to know which word is meant. The passage you point out in particular is a good example of why it should not be in the apparatus at all. In fact, it will not be cited in the NA29 and will be removed then.

P99 in 2 Cor 7:10

2021-07-29T14:14:10Z

P99 is cited in support of κατεργαζεται. However, since this is a word list, there is no way of knowing if P99 intends κατεργαζεται as the variant of εργαζεται, or simply lists κατεργαζεται in its undisputed appearance later in the verse. No intervening words between εργαζεται and κατεργαζεται are given in the word list (as given in Wouters, 118). Therefore it cannot be cited for this variant.

Phil 2:26 in 2495

2021-06-17T09:57:59Z

In Phil 2:26 2495 is attesting παντας υμας ιδειν.

I am sure the reading of 2495 arose from that reading but the scribe (or a predecessor) omitted the first part of Phil 2:26 due to parablepsis:

... πέμψαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 26 ~~ἐπειδὴ ἐπιποθῶν ἦν ⸂πάντας ὑμᾶς⸃~~ ιδειν καὶ ἀδημονῶν ...

Even if one would say that it is ὑμᾶς of 2:25 that is omitted and not ὑμᾶς of 2:26, the manuscript is not reading παντας.
Cf. lines 25-26 here: ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/modules/papyri/?site=INTF&image=32495/1147174/2790/10/1805

Is the reason 2495 is attesting to παντας υμας ιδειν in the apparatus that it is considered the intended reading?

Matt. 10:3 in N022

2018-09-13T11:37:45Z

In the NA28 apparatus at Matt. 10:3, N is cited as omitting ο within the longer reading. N does have the longer reading, but ο is there as well. It is smaller and at the end of the 4th line in the second column on St. Petersburg f. 22v.

Matt. 5:44 (mae)

2018-09-03T11:46:41Z

At Matt. 5:44, mae is cited both for the longer addition (ευλογειτε ... μισουσιν υμας) and for the text.

Colossians 2:13 minuscule 104

2018-08-17T14:20:00Z

Colossians 2:13 minuscule 104 should be on the opposite side of the apparatus entry, as it has a plain dative without the preposition ἐν (see INTF document 30104 4150 lines 2 and 3).

RE: John 1:34

2017-03-06T09:05:18Z

Yes Greg, I have noted that a should not be cited in parenthesis here.

Further, I have changed my mind concerning P5 which in the IGNTP transcription is reconstructed as eklekto]s. I now think it is too ambiguous to be cited (the unabbreviated hyios fits the space better).

RE: John 1:34

2017-03-06T09:00:59Z

Dear Tommy,
Thank you for pointing this out! You (and Hugh) are right. It looks like a (Beuron 3) is also cited incorrectly in this unit (it does not need parentheses). These corrections will be carried out in the next printing of the NA28.

John 1:34

2017-03-01T09:57:28Z

This is a report that ff2c is wrongly cited in NA28 (it is cited in support of electus filius but in the digital VL of John it is filius). Hugh Houghton confirms that electus is clearly deleted by an underline (see image attached).

RE: Acts 13:33

2016-12-27T11:27:11Z

Dear Dirk,
Thank you for your message. You are right about the critical signs and that there does not seem to be any MS evidence for reading ημιν with the omission of αυτων. This will probably be addressed in the NA29 rather than in a future printing of the NA28.

Acts 13:33

2016-12-19T17:26:42Z

In the transition from NA27 to NA28 with its reduction in cited evidence an anomaly seems to have been created surrounding the words [αυτων] ημιν. The variation unit in NA27 was longer and provided evidence for a text withouth αυτων and with ημιν, justifying the square brackets around αυτων (though Metzger's Commentary indicates that the actual reason is more conjecture than evidence based). Now with the change in the limits of the unit in NA28 and the absence of evidence for a text with just ημιν, it seems that the brackets should either be removed or extended so as to include ημιν. Alternatively, the apparatus could break its silence regarding conjectures or non-consistently cited mss. Currently there seems to be no way to match the critical signs in the text and the readings given in the apparatus.

RE: Jn 10:39 αυτον παλιν πιασαι

2016-05-19T08:36:19Z

Yes, you are right. πιασαι is always the final word of the variations in the apparatus, even for 892s in parentheses. This will be fixed in the next printing.

Jn 10:39 αυτον παλιν πιασαι

2016-05-11T14:14:05Z

In the apparatus to the second variant unit of Jn 10:39, NA28 has removed the bracketed remark in NA27 '(2 3 1 pm)'. This means that there is no longer need to define the variant unit in terms of containing three words; just αυτον παλιν is now sufficient. This is a case where pm is sorely missed in the new apparatus, though.

RE: Lk 14:13 579

2016-05-03T09:47:28Z

Dirk,
This is a difficult situation--the point of the variation unit is to note the difference in word order, but there are indeed other instances in the apparatus where eta and epsilon differences are noted in subjunctives, e.g. Mk 13:7. This should be a situation for the editorial committee to discuss. Thank you for your helpful comments--they are always welcomed!

RE: John 4:52 ειπαν ουν

2016-05-03T09:30:39Z

Dirk,
Thank you for your input. Since the third edition, when Weymouth was replaced with Weiß, the Nestle text has ειπαν probably because of the agreement of Westcott-Hort and Weiß. The first two editions of the Nestle agree with Tischendorf and Weymouth in reading ειπον. But you're right that the text should be changed to ειπον since only D has ειπαν. And since you raise a good point about orthographic consistency, the matter of orthography will perhaps be an agenda item for the next NA/UBSGNT editorial committee meeting.

John 4:52 ειπαν ουν

2016-04-19T09:17:05Z

Two variants are listed, ειπαν and και ειπαν, and in addition there is plenty of support for the text. The problem is that the apparatus gives the impression that the orthography ειπαν is widely supported (unlike ειπον in, for example, 8:52). However, of all the witnesses listed in support for the text and the two variants only D has ειπαν, with all the others reading ειπον.

Arguably it is difficult to reflect orthographic variation (and I don't have a simple solution), but in this particular instance the suggestion given by the apparatus is unusually misleading.

RE: Gal 4:31 P46vid reading

2016-03-10T12:04:07Z

You are right, αρα is clear. That was a mistake in the transcription, but now is fixed and will be corrected in the next printing. Thank you for pointing that out.

Gal 4:31 P46vid reading

2016-03-04T15:38:18Z

in Gal 4:31 the reading αρα in P46 is marked videtur. The image seems to very clear at this point, though the transcription marks the word as lacunose. Am I missing some reason for the videtur?