 |
 |
Hi all, I am trying to figure out the most efficient way to list versional evidence in a textual apparatus for a particular circumstance, and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas. The situation is particularly significant in Old Testament textual criticism, but obtains for any text with translational evidence. How do you list versional evidence that does not differentiate between two orthographically different but semantically indistinguishable original language variants, and yet provides evidence semantically in favor of those variants contrary to a third original language reading with a different meaning? Here is an illustration of the problem: Key: SP = spelling OL = original language witness V = versional (translational) witness word(SP1) OL1 V?/ word(SP2) OL2 V?/ differentword OL3. If the versional evidence is significant enough to include because of its testimony against the third variant, where should it be included, since it supports semantically both variants one and two against variant three, but cannot be used to support variant one or two against the other? To list the versional variant in support of only one orthographic variant would be to pad the evidence for that variant. To list the version under both orthographies could lead to loading improbable orthographical variants with irrelevant versional evidence, as well as becoming quite cumbersome and space-inefficient. Perhaps a question mark (or other symbol) could be used to indicate that the versional evidence could support either variant one or two? Any thoughts you might have on the best way to list this complicated situation in an apparatus would be helpful. Thanks, Drew Longacre