Yeah, my objective with Sahidic is even less ambitious than a similar project with Syriac. I thought it would be useful to look at the architecture of the language and see to what extent the versions could be trusted in textual criticism. I thought it would be about as difficult as Syriac coming from Hebrew. I was wrong. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 23rd, 2017, 3:11 pmJonathan Robie wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2017, 3:06 pmAre you copting out?Stirling Bartholomew wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pmGot a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes.
Are you copting out? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 23rd, 2017, 3:06 pmStirling Bartholomew wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pmGot a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes.
Stephen, Got a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes. It doesn't surprise me that auto parsing makes errors. Coptic is not a simple language and there are some tokens that have a very wide range of polysemy. POSTSCRIPT RE: Gsp Thomas You know there is a crying need for a grammatically tagged version of the Gospel of Thomas. It would be a short project for someone who knows the dialect. I asked S. Gathercole if such an animal already existed and he suggested Grondin`s Interlinear Coptic/English Translation of The Gospel of Thomas. So I am assuming this hasn't been done. Would be great to find out that I am wrong. I suspect there isn't a standard set of metalanguage to attach to Sahidic tokens. The grammers seem to invent metalanguage as they go along. J. Brankaer 2012 is the most meta-language intensive grammar I have ever encountered. B. Layton isn't even close to it. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pmStephen Hughes wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2017, 2:06 pm... if you were to mentally make that correction to the parsing as you go, the syntax might make some sense.
The other negation ⲙⲡⲟⲩϩⲉ that you are looking at is wrongly parsed in the texts that I traced your footsteps on. This is actually negation ⲙⲡⲉ (ⲙⲡ=). Crum (on page 178) lists it as a I perfect negative. The Coptic Scriptorium wrongly parses it as ⲙ - PREP (preposition) and ⲡⲟⲩ - PPOS (pronoun, possesive). If, in another instance, ⲙⲡⲟⲩ was in front of a noun, such as as for exaple ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲏⲓ (broken up as ⲙ-ⲡⲟⲩ-ⲏⲓ), "in their house", it would be parsed in the way you find in Coptic Scriptorium. It is an error in parsing is about as serious as parsing every "to" as a preposition, even when it is an infinitive marker. In accordance with the Coptic Scriptorium scheme ⲙⲡⲟⲩ followed by a verb should be tagged as ⲙⲡ= ANEGPST and -ⲟⲩ PPER (pronoun, personal) - the person (3rd plural) could be added if there is an option to input that level of detail into the encoding. Clay, if you were to mentally make that correction to the parsing as you go, the syntax might make some sense. [Anticipating your question that you will arrive at after a couple of hours of searching and thought, "No, I don't know if the future negations always prefer that surface structure."] Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — May 23rd, 2017, 2:06 pmStirling Bartholomew wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2017, 5:33 pmThere appear to be several not_so_standard ways of rendering expressions like οὐχ εὑρέθησαν. I looked at all the NT samples using the scriptorium to try and work out what was going on in the syntax. An imperfect method.
Yes, that is what the grammers tell me. There appear to be several not_so_standard ways of rendering expressions like οὐχ εὑρέθησαν. I looked at all the NT samples using the scriptorium to try and work out what was going on in the syntax. An imperfect method. The parsing is done by an auto_parser that you can download from the scriptorium. RE: dropped negative particles In my encroaching old age I have observed that the dyslexia that has plauged me since childhood has only increased and for some reason I am dropping negative particles. Perhaps there is some explanation for this but I couldn't find one. Since 2Peter had canonical problems the early manusript evidence is pretty thin. Could be we are looking at an early corruption related to "dropped negative particles" which I haven't found discussed in the NT TC literature. Doesn't mean it isn't there but I have looked several times without success. I have an old friend who is a publisher and editor. I caught him dropping a negative particle. Five minutes ago I sent him an email in which I dropped the negative particle. It doesn't go away just because you are aware of it. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 22nd, 2017, 5:33 pmStephen Hughes wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2017, 2:04 pmThe position of the negative particle (ⲁⲛ) at the end of the phrase is standard, and the negation only extends to that particular phrase.
Let me read for you. I don't need to pretend. The "surface structure" (ⲥⲉ ⲛⲁ ϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟ= ϥ ⲁⲛ - properly written as ⲥⲉⲛⲁϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲁⲛ - /se-na-he erof an/ (sentence stress on /he/ "they will find it not". [ϥ /f/ "him", "it" is masculine agreeing with ⲡⲕⲁϩ /epkah/ "the earth" - ⲡ being the masculine singular article), is with a third person plural (ⲥⲉ) pseudo-subject and then an object of the subject (ⲉⲣⲟϥ) of the passive verb.] That structure is often used in Coptic. The position of the negative particle (ⲁⲛ) at the end of the phrase is standard, and the negation only extends to that particular phrase. The greater range of meaning in ϩⲉ that you mention could be that it includes find by chance, not only by looking, perhaps. The notably wider meaning in the Coptic compared to the Greek is ϩⲱⲃ (here used in the plural ϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ). ϩⲱⲃ covers meanings ranging from "thing", to "matter" to "work". Apart from the translation about "burning" being wrong there in Coptic Scriptorium, the parsing of ⲉⲧⲉⲛϩⲏⲧϥ /ete-enhētf/ is wrong too. It is represented as a verb (v). Actually, it is a relative phrase. To break it up, ⲉⲧⲉ is a relative marker "which", and ⲛϩⲏⲧ= is suffix pronoun form of the preposition ϩⲛ /hen/ "in" (Crum pg 683), and ϥ /f/ is the 3rd sing masc pronoun "he", "him", "it". [If you see hieroglyphs in documentaries and such like, the horizontal snake of the width one character with the horns, is the Egyptian horned viper. That character is usually the third person singular pronoun "he", "it". The hieratic form of that hieroglyph formed the basis of the Coptic letter ϥ (fai)]. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — May 22nd, 2017, 2:04 pmStirling Bartholomew wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2017, 12:42 pmThe exact form of negation found in [S]ahidic 2Peter 3:10[1] which looks like it represents οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται I did not find anyplace else where εὑρίσκω is negated with οὐχ and/or μη in NA27. This isn’t intended to imply or prove that the back translation οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται isn’t valid. It is just a word of caution about using the textual apparatus with versions in languages that have a surface structure very different from Greek or Hebrew. Also, the verb ϩⲉ negated by ⲁⲛ that translates εὑρίσκω in our passage appears to have a much wider semantic domain than εὑρίσκω which might introduce some uncertainty about retorversion. I don't pretent to read Coptic in any dialect. [1] The end of 2Peter 3:10: ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡ ⲕⲁϩ ⲙⲛ ⲛⲉ ϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲥⲉ ⲛⲁ ϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟ ϥ ⲁⲛ (tokenized with grammar tags by the Coptic Scriptorium http://data.copticscriptorium.org/texts ... 3/analytic). Note the translation provided doesn’t represent the coptic reading under discussion.
A while back I was looking for a retroversion of the Gospel of Thomas. Turns out that retroverting from Sahidic to koine greek isn’t particularly straightforward and Gsp Thomas isn’t straightforward Sahidic. J.N.D. Kelly on 2nd Peter 3:10 says that the Sahidic version implies οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται. This implies that Kelly actually looked at the Sahidic not just the apparatus. Not a bad plan. The exact form of negation found in sahidic 2Peter 3:10[1] which looks like it represents οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται I did not find anyplace else where εὑρίσκω is negated with οὐχ and/or μη in NA27. This isn’t intended to imply or prove that the back translation οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται isn’t valid. It is just a word of caution about using the textual apparatus with versions in languages that have a surface structure very different from Greek or Hebrew. Also, the verb ϩⲉ negated by ⲁⲛ that translates εὑρίσκω in our passage appears to have a much wider semantic domain than εὑρίσκω which might introduce some uncertainty about retorversion. I don't pretent to read Coptic in any dialect. [1] The end of 2Peter 3:10: ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡ ⲕⲁϩ ⲙⲛ ⲛⲉ ϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲥⲉ ⲛⲁ ϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟ ϥ ⲁⲛ (tokenized with grammar tags by the Coptic Scriptorium http://data.copticscriptorium.org/texts ... 3/analytic). Note the translation provided doesn’t represent the coptic reading under discussion. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 22nd, 2017, 12:42 pm
I should have mentioned that I asked this question on the New Testament Textual Criticism forum on Facebook, and members there supplied the links in the previous post. You can find the discussion here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1140420 ... 302022693/ Here is one more that was mentioned there: David Palmer quotes Gerd Mink as follows, saying he was given this quote by Jan Trans:
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 22nd, 2017, 9:02 amGerd Mink (by way of Jan Krans) in “Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition: the New Testament. Stemmata of Variants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses,” in Studies in Stemmatology II (ed. Pieter van Reenen and August A. den Hollander; Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004), pp. 13-85, p. 27: “… the ECM records the witnesses of erroneous readings as witnesses for the variants which they represent, albeit defectively. There is even an example where the best witnesses omit a negation (1 Peter 3:10/48-50). Although the preceding passage speaks of the passing away of the heavens, and the dissolution of the elements, and the following verses presuppose the dissolution of heaven and earth (for a new heaven and a new earth are waited for), quite superior witnesses here have the reading ‘the earth and all the works that are therein will be found (εὑρθήσονται [sic; εὑρεθήσεται])’, when logic demands ‘will not be found (οὐχ εὑρεθήσονται [sic])’. The meaning, as a result, is extremely problematic; to my mind the reading does not make sense and must therefore be erroneous. Unquestionably, the hyparchetype of all these witnesses did not have the negation. Now, there are two variants (ἀφανισθήσονται ‘they will disappear’, and κατακαήσεται ‘they will be burned up’), which presuppose and express more graphically a text containing the negation: οὐχ εὑρεθήσονται [sic] ‘they will not be found’. Although it is not preserved in any Greek manuscript, it is probable that the initial text had the negation. Even if these variants which indirectly confirm the negation did not exist, the assumption should still be that the initial text contained the negation required by the sense of the text, even though the negation is not in the graphemic representation of the archetype. To my mind, this is an almost unavoidable conjecture.”
Thanks - it does look like conjectural emendation, and is listed that way on the NA28's website: http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/nt-conject ... ID=cj11713 This page gives with a diagram of the readings they were trying to account for: Index of Variants Discussed in Relation to the CBGM
I found this helpful for understanding the basic CBGM approach:
The CBGM Applied to Variants from Acts
Also this presentation:
The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, CBGM: Introductory Presentation
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 22nd, 2017, 6:31 am
As far as categorising the type of emmendation it is, we could consider the introduction of
Perhaps we've parsed Alan's words sufficiently. Does anyone know where I can find the German Bible Society's reasoning for including οὐχ in 2 Peter 3:10? Alan provided one link to a discussion of this question, are there other links worth reading? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 18th, 2017, 6:52 am
Scholarship "unsubstantiated by evidence from the Greek" might better cover it. I think bogus is a lot milder than it has been interpreted in this thread when it is used in conversational style. Putting Alan's words together with different bedfellows changes their connotation. "Alan claimed the scholarship was bogus" is strong and formal. "Alan is going on (whinging / having his gripe) about bogus scholarship again" mean about the same as "dodgy" (it would be a good idea to avoid it) as in "The car's dodgy, take the bus". Reading Alan's words with the meaning that he only claims to have known, they don't sound bad. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — May 18th, 2017, 1:08 amAlan Bunning wrote: ↑May 17th, 2017, 7:46 pmYes, I will have to choose my words more carefully, for I was not aware of that connotation. Perhaps a term like “illogical” or “odd” would have been more suitable.
Yes, I will have to choose my words more carefully, for I was not aware of that connotation. Perhaps a term like “illogical” or “odd” would have been more suitable. Statistics: Posted by Alan Bunning — May 17th, 2017, 7:46 pm
Well, you should choose your words more carefully then. "Bogus" means more than merely being wrong, but deceptive, and that is an attack on the character of the scholars. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 17th, 2017, 5:36 pmAlan Bunning wrote: ↑May 17th, 2017, 8:18 amI did not mean to imply that everything they do is “bogus scholarship” nor do I think I said that, but I do see the insertion of this variant as an example of “bogus scholarship” <or insert alternative appropriate respectful word of disagreement>, and that is based on the evidence which I think speaks for itself. There is no ad-hominem attack here, but a strong criticism of their work in this instance. Attacking work != attacking people.
As I've said, I haven't studied it. I only know what I heard orally from Klaus. I believe there's also a skeptical discussion of it on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 17th, 2017, 8:47 am
As I've said, I haven't studied it. I only know what I heard orally Klaus. I believe there's also a skeptical discussion of it on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 17th, 2017, 8:47 am
What justification do they give for including this word? I'd like to understand their justification before rejecting it. There's plenty of time to reject it once I understand it, but I don't need adjectives to evaluate their argument. And adjectives don't tell me what their argument is. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 17th, 2017, 8:39 am
I did not mean to imply that everything they do is “bogus scholarship” nor do I think I said that, but I do see the insertion of this variant as an example of “bogus scholarship” <or insert alternative appropriate respectful word of disagreement>, and that is based on the evidence which I think speaks for itself. There is no ad-hominem attack here, but a strong criticism of their work in this instance. Attacking work != attacking people. Statistics: Posted by Alan Bunning — May 17th, 2017, 8:18 am
We are trying to cautiously expand the kinds of things we can talk about on . But cautiously. And one of the standards we are using is our Respectful Discourse Policy:
I'd like to extend that not only to list members, but to text critical scholars and others. Let's focus on the facts and how they can reasonably be interpreted. The reason textual criticism has been off the table is that it is often discussed in a way not consistent with our respectful discourse policy. If we find we can't handle it, we'll take it back off the table. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 17th, 2017, 7:53 amIf discussion of this nature is to succeed, proper respect and courtesy to other list members is important. While scholarly debate, including disagreement, is encouraged as a goal of this conference, attacks upon the character, intelligence, or faith of those participating are not acceptable. Criticism must focus upon the arguments of others; it may not be directed to the individual.
I haven't studied the variant and I do have my disagreements with them from time to time, but the reality is that the editors in Münster are serious scholars and it is inflammatory and derogatory to call their work "bogus scholarship." Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 17th, 2017, 7:45 am
Regardless of what word is used, I don’t think that changes the reality of the situation. Statistics: Posted by Alan Bunning — May 17th, 2017, 7:32 am
"Feel" is my word, not theirs. German scholarship is to a fault not about feelings. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 17th, 2017, 7:13 am
This particular variant is mentioned in my CNTR project description http://greekcntr.org/downloads/project.pdf. I thought that there was a rule against discussions on textual criticism, otherwise I would have gone on to explain how ridiculous that is on so many levels, and why people should not blindly follow that type of bogus scholarship based on what people “feel”. Statistics: Posted by Alan Bunning — May 17th, 2017, 7:03 am
No Greek manuscript supports the reading of NA28, just some Coptic and Syriac ones. It's a conjecture. The editors feel that the text does not make sense without the negation. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 16th, 2017, 2:03 am
This surprised me:
In my UBS 5th, the text critical note on this says "οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται: Some Syriac and Greek manuscripts", without listing them. Most critical editions don't have οὐχ here. The texts before 400AD don't either. The online NA28 doesn't have the text-critical apparatus, which is presumably more specific. What manuscripts support οὐχ? What persuaded NA28 to include it? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 15th, 2017, 12:23 pm2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) wrote:Ἥξει δὲ ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης ἐν ᾗ οἱ οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται, στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσεται, καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται.