RE: D06 original and corrector in Eph 5.5

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RE: Luke 2:2 Alef*

2015-12-07T15:12:28Z

Dear Dirk,
Thank you for your note. You are right about the reading of 01*. Because the reading αυτην would be an error, it is not something the NA normally notes. Therefore, the editors believe that is it better left to a major edition to indicate. Cf. the IGNTP of Luke p.34 which notes the original reading of Sinaiticus. The VMR has the correct transcription as well.

RE: Matt. 20:7 in N (and Σ)

2015-11-04T13:08:59Z

Dear Elijah,
Thank you for spotting this. We're in the process of scanning the images of N022 to the VMR and then will take a look at the reading in Mt 20:7.

RE: Matt. 10:23 in N

2015-10-13T14:04:16Z

Dear Elijah,
Thank you for your note. The reading εαν seems to be correct for N (Text and Studies v.5 also has εαν as the reading). Considering (1) that the interchange of αν and εαν occurs frequently in relative clauses, and (2) that the point of the variation unit is to show the substitution for a negative particle or an omission of the particle all together, the editors of the Nestle-Aland will leave N as it is for now. For the ECM of Matthew, however, this should be noted.

RE: Codex L & Pericope Adulterae

2015-10-06T06:07:25Z

Thanks for your message. That is a good observation. Actually Tischendorf and Tregelles both note the blank space in L, and Δ, saying, spatium vacuum habent. But it is the opinion of the editors of the NA that this type of information is better left for commentaries or other editions, rather than in a concise edition like the NA.

RE: Mark 1:4 in D Θ 28

2015-09-30T12:26:26Z

Thank you, Elijah. You are correct--we will fix this in both the apparatus and appendix.

RE: P35 in Mt 25:20, 22

2015-09-30T12:25:26Z

Thank you for your message. You are correct that P35 should be P35vid in Mt 25:22 supporting the text. We will correct that. I think that in 25:20, P35 should still not be cited in the unit as it could be either two of the three variants (either εκερδησα or επεκερδησα)--and unfortunately the beginning of this word is not extant on the existing folios.

RE: Matt 8:5 in L/019

2015-07-01T09:44:25Z

Jonathan, thanks for spotting this. We will correct it.

RE: Typo @ Eph 4.19 in Apparatus

2015-06-29T10:41:29Z

Matthew,
Thank you for your input. I checked images of P49 and because it is fragmented, at best all I can see is απηλ. I check other published transcriptions and I found that the gamma is always in brackets and the following eta is either under-dotted or in brackets as well. P99, however, is legible and does read as it is cited in the NA. The CNTMS has images of P99 (see line 12 for -πικοτες http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/zoomify/GA_P99?image=P99_010-013a_k1.jpg&page=4#viewer).

RE: D06 original and corrector in Eph 5.5

2015-06-29T10:16:14Z

Thank you for spotting this, Matthew. You are correct and the change will be made in the NA.