Dear Drew
The editio critica maior of the NT uses bi-drectional arrows
indicating that a version supports two or more readings but not
others. So if your three readings were labelled a b and c, it would read
↔ a/b V
Best wishes
David
On 2 Jun 2011, at 23:15, Drew Longacre wrote:
> 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
|