Internal page reference off by 1

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?

RE: Typo in NA28 introduction: Codex Zacynthius

2019-10-16T10:52:01Z

Dear Hugh, you are right. Thanks for the post.

Typo in NA28 introduction: Codex Zacynthius

2019-10-16T10:34:47Z

On page 18* and 62*, the wrong siglum is given for Codex Zacynthius as a consistently-cited witness in Luke. It should be Ξ (040), not X (040).
Hugh

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: Romans 9.9

2017-01-10T15:38:35Z

Thanks! I haven't access to the Gottingen or I would have checked that as well.

RE: Romans 9.9

2017-01-25T13:47:27Z

Dear Peter,
Thank you for your message and detailed investigation. The variant ελευσομαι in Gen 18:10 can be found in the apparatus of the Göttingen LXX volume (ed. Wevers, 1974), supported by Chrysostom and Theodoret of Cyrrhus. On this basis, the text of the NA28 will stay in italics here.

Romans 9.9

2017-01-09T15:07:52Z

It appears to me that there is a slight anomaly in the presentation of the scriptural citation in Romans 9.9.
ἐπαγγελίας γὰρ ὁ λόγος οὗτος· κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσομαι καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός.The citation is noted as coming from Gen 18,10.14 and matches Ralf’s LXX perfectly except for the verb ἐλεύσομαι, which is not found, in any grammatical form, in these verses, or in Ralf’s apparatus of them. LXX has Ἐπαναστρέφων ἥξω in v 10, and ἀναστρέψω in v 14. ῾The Hebrew in both instances are various forms of the root שוב, which the LXX translation, though not ἔρχομαι (alone and without the participle—ἥξω by itself would be quite close, though still not identical), captures well, as all senses of שוב in DCH have some sort of sense of return, as indeed is demanded by the context in Genesis as well.

Paul's modification of the verbal form makes perfect sense in light of his contextual use and abridgement. At the same time, in other instances where a linking verb that joins together a passage abridgement has been supplied, the normal practice of the NA28 seems to be to print that supplied verb in normal type instead of continuing the italic type that indicates a direct quotation and it seems to me that this should be done here. Am I missing something?

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: Internal page reference off by 1

2016-06-16T09:05:43Z

Thank you for your note. This was corrected in the second printing. The list of corrections for each printing (http://intf.uni-muenster.de/NA28/en.html) normally record changes that occur only in the text or apparatus, but the lists will be updated at some point soon so that they include the changes made in the introduction, margins, etc.

Internal page reference off by 1

2016-06-15T13:48:31Z

In my printing there is a reference in the main text of 55* to 'p. 86*' (middle of the page). This should be p. 85*.