Re: Timesheet

Dear Galen

Thanks for formulating all these important questions.
I'll try to answer, but do feel free to come back if you think I haven't considered all aspects of the problem.

1) Ps.18 and 2Sa 22 - the relationship is so complicated that I think we should ignore it and leave it to the commentators.
We are aiming to give people access to the text, or possibly the a text one generation previous to the MT
(ie the same aim outlined in the introduction to Barteleme's UBS committee)
But don't delete all the comments. Perhaps make a second copy of the Psalm and in that copy delete all the 2Sa 22 variants.

2) We have chosen to simplify variants by referring to the originating language instead of actual manuscripts or types of source.
This approximation works most of the time, because the same language sources tend to either follow each other, or correct to the MT,
so it is very unusual to have two variants from the two sources using the same language.
The reason for approximating this way is not because we believe that all translations into the same language used the same source.
It is unlikely that the KaiGe text of the Twelve at Nahal Hever used the same original Hebrew MS as the Old Greek,
or that the Old Latin was based on the same Hebrew text as Jerome's translation (though in this case the Hebrew texts were prob very similar).

Our reason for approximating is to help the reader make judgements about how likely a variant is,
and the fact that it occurs in two different language groups (eg Aramaic and Latin) make it MUCH more likely to represent a real variant
rather than being a different way of translating the text.

The same language group is likely to share the same variants for numerous other reasons, eg:
- they are likely to copy each other (ie Jerome will be presupposed to follow traditional ways of translating in the Old Latin)
- they are likely to express the same underlying interpretation (ie Jerome is likely to have the same theology as the Old Latin translators)
- they have the same language constraints and leanings (ie anyone translating into Latin will find some forms and vocabulary easier than others)
So, if we said that one variant was found in 12 Latin MSS, and another was found in 1 Greek and 1 Samaritan MS,
the untrained reader is likely to be misled into thinking the 12 Latin MSS have more weight.
It gives the reader much more guidance if we say that one variant is support by Latin and the other by Greek + Samaritan.

But, what about your specific question about the two Latin sources in the Psalms?
My judgement is that we should stick to single language groups, because this is simpler, and the extra distinctions don't add much.
If there are two variants in the two Latin sources (ie they are both different from MT and different from each other), I think we should simply mark them both as evidenced by a Latin source. Those who want to look up the details can do so.

3) We are including all variants in UBS, but we also have discretion to include other variants if we deem that they result in a significantly different translation (UBS isn't always complete in this regard). So, use your judgement.

4)
The marginal notes are things found in the Massorah. These are mainly records of how often words occur, or which is the middle letter and things like that to help the scribe check he is on track to a perfect MS. However, occasionally they note things which help us to know what the text says. See, eg the article at
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23388902/Psalm-2216-–-"like-a-lion"-or-"they-pierced"-Studies-in-the
on the ka'ari  ("like a lion" or variant spelling of "they pierced") in Ps.22.16 A Massoretic note at Is.38.13 notes that ka'ari occurs twice in this exact form but with different meanings. Seeing as "like a lion" fits Is.38.13, this suggests there was a scribal tradition that Ps.22.16 had a different meaning.

I would include with these, the "emendations of the scribes". These are traditionally only 18
(Genesis 18:22. Numbers 11:15. 12:12. 1Samuel 3:13. 2Samuel 12:14. 16:12.1Kings 12:16. 21:10. 21:13.2Chronicles 10:16. Job 1:5. 1:11. 2:5. 2:9. 7:20.
Psalm 10:3. 106:20. Ecclesiastes 3:21. Jeremiah 2:11. Lamentations 3:20. Ezekiel 8:17. Hosea 4:7. Habakkuk 1:12. Zechariah 2:8 (12). Malachi 1:13. 3:9)
but the massorah lists more - see eg the list at http://amen-foundation.org/pdfiles/emendations.pdf
I think they are marked with a gothic "m" in BHS.

5)
Hebrew is, of course, the exception to the rule about single-language sources. We distinguish between
* Ketiv/Qire
* Marginal notes
* Qumran
* Non-Massoretic MSS

I am still uncertain how to express these in simple terms for the readers - any ideas?
- perhaps we could refer to them as:
* "Scribal" - ie the Ketiv/Qire plus marginal notes
* "Qumran"
* "Geniza" - which would include all the non-MT MSS. Most of these MSS are part of the Firkowitsch collection of Karaite MSS in Russia. 
I found out recently that most of his MSS actually came from the Cairo Genize - he got there before Schechter et al.
So "Geniza" may be the best name. Anyway, "Geniza" is the rubbish hole where Jews put corrupt MSS,
so this is a very apt name for MSS which most Jews would regard as corrupt.

6)
As you say, Tg variants usually have nothing to do with the text. I propose only referring to Tg when it confirms a variant from another source.

7)
Please do NOT delete all your notes. Although I can't see how to use them in this project, they are invaluable!

Please do come back and discuss with me anything you disagree with.

Thansk for all your work

David IB



At 00:38 18/06/2010, galen goldsmith wrote:

These are the questions I need answered:
 
1) Ps. 18 -- many references to II Sam 22 -- what is our policy regarding those?
2) Should we show Hieronymous' Hebrew Psalms as a Latin variant?
3) Categories Qere, Ketib--okay to include only when UBS mentions the verse?
4) Category Masoretic Marginal note: is that Kere Qetib?
5) Do we still have Qumran (including Judean desert artifacts) and Hebrew Mss (ie Geniza) as two separate categories?
6) Tg translation techniques are not necessarily true to text, but will sometimes agree with one variant and then have added information.  Do we want to blur the lines to list Tg as
7) Do you want me to delete all the handy information I stored in the margins about text criticial variations unless there is an unresolved problem?
 
Those are my questions.  I hope I can solve all the verses satisfactorily so you won't have to help on those.  A few, notably Ps. 17:11, 14, are really a mess to sort out so that people have all the possibilities for My Bible.  Others are a mess merely because ESV word order differs from variations from UBS.  A few verses can be read in two very different (even opposite) ways, so one has to set it up so that two completely different sentences exist, hopefully with the possiblities all in the same place in the blue lists.  With those, My Bible could be a mix and match that isn't exactly a translation at all.
 
If we can't talk, you can just answer in writing.
 
Cheers,
 
Galen
 


--- On Tue, 6/15/10, David Instone-Brewer <Technical@Tyndale.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

From: David Instone-Brewer <Technical@Tyndale.cam.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: Timesheet

To: "galen goldsmith" <galengoldsmith@yahoo.com>

Date: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 10:34 AM

No idea

I found what looks like an authoritative answer at http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1663

It refers to VULG and VULG2 which are Accordance modules.

Does this help?

The Latin Psalter in VULG is a fresh translation prepared by Eusebius Hieronymus, AKA Jerome. I mean, it was fresh when it was first prepared at the end of the IV century. Jerome translated from the Hebrew text as it was known to him when he was living in Bethlehem. It was later known as the "Psalterium iuxta hebreos", that is the "Psalter according to Hebrews". "Hebrews" is used here as a name for the Jewish people. In modern English we would speak of a Psalter "according to Jews".

The Latin Psalter in Vulg2 is a revision of a more ancient Latin translation of the LXX Psalter, known as Vetus Latina. Jerome made two revisions: the first was a hasty revision, and was later known as Roman Psalter. The second revision, that took longer, was later known as Gallican Psalter, and was accepted in Latin liturgy for choral prayer. The Gallican Psalter is the one that became the most "Vulgate", that is the most common in manuscript tradition.

The Stuttgart edition by Weber includes both of them.

The Accordance module includes the less commonly known "Psalterium iuxta Hebreos" in the main VULG text. This means that the user can find in Vulg a closer translation of the Hebrew Psalter, that is best viewed in parallel with BHS.

On the other hand, Vulg2 contains a translation of the LXX text, that can be examined in parallel with LXX.

THnaks for your timesheet.

David IB

At 22:38 14/06/2010, galen goldsmith wrote:

Hi, David:

 

I have a question--sometimes BHS cites a variant from Heironymous, which is a Psalm translation titled Vulgata, but is a separate and often different manuscript. Heironymous was Jerome's birth name--so who and what qualifies for the Latin category in the text critical notes?

 

Thanks.

 

Galen