Re: [Tyndale STEP - Translations] Names of sources

okay--blessings--I will carry on and wish you a very happy holiday!  Galen --- On Fri, 6/25/10, Tyndale STEP Project <tyndalestep@googlemail.com> wrote: From: Tyndale STEP Project <tyndalestep@googlemail.com> Subject: [Tyndale STEP - Translations] Names of sources To: galengoldsmith@yahoo.com Date: Friday, June 25, 2010, 6:55 PM Dear Galen I can see your point - the information can't be kept entirely free of jargon, and introducing a new term like "scribal [MSS]" can only cause confusion. Certainly, when I look at your list, I understand immediately what it means. Lets go with this (ie separate out Massoretic and Karaite instead of mixing them) and use these terms, and if inspiration hits us at a later date, we can do a Find & Replace. I guess "Geniza" is preferable to "Karaite", mainly because the former is better known, but also because the Geniza texts are a body of material identified as such in the apparatus, and they aren't all Karaite. So, as you say: Hebrew, Qumran, Masoretic Mss, Geniza Mss, Scribal Notes, Greek, Samaritan, Syriac, Latin, Aramaic. Thanks for coming back to me on this. (As you can see, I haven't gone home yet - still doing 'last minute things') David IB At 18:34 25/06/2010, Tyndale STEP Project wrote: David,   First thing:  Sometimes the Hebrew is not the prob choice of UBS.  I always note where the MT is, poss or prob, so I do use the category always.   Next, just from experience working on these documents, I would suggest the following:   Hebrew, Qumran, Masoretic Mss, Geniza or even Karaite Mss, Scribal Notes, Greek, Samaritan, Syriac, Latin, Aramaic.   If you can respond on this, I will conform everything--if not, I will do it when you get back.   Have a good holiday--   Galen   --- On Fri, 6/25/10, Tyndale STEP Project <tyndalestep@googlemail.com> wrote: From: Tyndale STEP Project <tyndalestep@googlemail.com> Subject: [Tyndale STEP - Translations] Re: Timesheet and proceedures To: galengoldsmith@yahoo.com Date: Friday, June 25, 2010, 1:10 PM Dear Galen Cambridge is experiencing summer - everyone is in shorts and complaining about the heat, except for a visitor from Dallas who was wearing a sweater. I asked someone doing an OT text-critical thesis (Josh Harper), and he confirmed what you say: "Hebrew MSS" are medieval "MT" MSS, mostly using data collected by De Rossi and Kennicott The big question in my mind is how to convey this category of sources. We refer to our base text (BHS ie Leningrad) as "Hebrew", so it is confusing to say "Hebrew MSS", and anyway, we don't want to use "MSS" if we can help it. I wondered about "Some Hebrew", because people would mentally add something like "manuscripts" to each category, when they read something like "Greek, Some Hebrew, Qumran" Then I thought about what these MSS are - they are synagogue texts found throughout Europe  and North Africa, so why not call them "Rabbinic". They only possible confusion would be with the "Rabbinic Bible"  (ie the text put together by Jacob ben Chayyim and printed by Bomberg, which is an eclectic text based on a wide range of manuscripts, so it often uses the very variants we would call "Rabbinic". Do you think this would cause confusion? Hmm - probably, yes it would confuse. What about "Scribal", so that it relates to "Scribal note". I know that the translations were also produced by scribes, and they also have their scribal variants, but somehow when you say "scribal variant" you think of differences in the original, and it helps to explain what the "Scribal notes" are. You asked for an order. This has to reflect partly chronology and partly importance. And it would be nice to have the Hebrew versions next to each other, but it is difficult not to give pre-eminence to the LXX, so, imperfectly: Hebrew, Greek, Qumran, Scribal, Scribal note, Samaritan, Aramaic, Latin. Of course "Hebrew" is never in a list like this, because it is meaningless listing the fact that some Greek MSS and some Latin and some Qumran agree with the standard text. So in practice the list would be, at its fullest: Greek, Qumran, Scribal, Scribal note, Samaritan, Latin, Aramaic The order of the last two are tricky, but I put Aramaic on the end to indicate its relative unimportance - ie we only use it to support others, and not as a source of variants on its own. I hope my provarication hasn't caused too much extra work. A Find+Replace should work for some of this. I'm off to NIV committee for 3 wks now, and then on hols for 2wks, so I may be slow to respond. David IB At 01:19 24/06/2010, galen goldsmith wrote: I have the impression that in BHS Mss are Masoretic and C is Geniza, however, we can surely put both in one category.   Ok--so this is what I think our categories are--would you want to revise the order?   Hebrew Qumran (which includes other Judean desert discoveries such as Nahal Hever) Hebrew Mss (which includes BHS categories Cairo and Mss collated by BHS) Scribal Note (which includes Ketib, Qere, tiqqune sopherim, masoretic notes) Greek  (all versions) Samaritan Aramaic--(which should only be used when it agrees with another ancient witness) Syriac Latin (which would include both versions of Psalms, but listed separately when they differ) I am aiming at polishing Ps. 1-29 and providing a finished Gen 1-10 so that you will have material from both books to show donors. Then I can go on with Psalms.   Is it lovely in Cambridge?  I am living in a green green forest with a spring gurgling along one corner of the cabin.  When I pause I think of the gong at Tyndale.   BW   Galen   --- On Wed, 6/23/10, David Instone-Brewer <Technical@Tyndale.cam.ac.uk> wrote: From: David Instone-Brewer <Technical@Tyndale.cam.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Timesheet and proceedures To: "galen goldsmith" <galengoldsmith@yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 11:40 AM Yes, but what are these "Hebrew MSS"? I think most of them are from the Firkowitsch collection. MSS elsewhere are rather boring - ie they have few variants, so they rarely turn up in the apparatus. But that is merely my suspicion, because I don't know much about them. David IB At 21:01 22/06/2010, galen goldsmith wrote: No, BHS distinguishes between Cairo and Mss--in SESB the pull down explanations are quite distinct.  At the moment everything is just Hebrew Mss--so no problem to leave it that way. --- On Tue, 6/22/10, David Instone-Brewer <Technical@Tyndale.cam.ac.uk> wrote: From: David Instone-Brewer <Technical@Tyndale.cam.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Timesheet and proceedures To: "galen goldsmith" <galengoldsmith@yahoo.com> Date: Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 6:05 PM Dear Galen I am still suggesting that we keep all Hebrew MSS in one bag - called something like Geniza - though actually "Hebrew MSS" is probably a better term. I suspect that most of the "Hebrew MSS" in BHS are from Firkowitsch, which, it turns out, are Geniza. David IB At 21:35 21/06/2010, galen goldsmith wrote: David,   Thank you for your answers.  I have no objection to the categories you have suggested--it will require some revision because the category names are changing.   A few concerns:    First, there are BHS notes in which MT Mss are included as evidence for a variant, usually agreeing with another ancient version, but also sometimes listed alone. I have called these "Hebrew Mss".   However, Geniza variations are listed C for Cairo by BHS. So we have an additional category.  However, we once agreed that "Hebrew Mss" included the Geniza, so I will have to check each note to see if it is Hebrew Mss or Geniza.     Second: Would you say that Qumran includes other discoveries from the Judean desert?  I have one note from Nahal Hever in the first set of Psalms.   So here are our categories:   Hebrew = MT Hebrew Mss = MT Mss Scribal = Ketib/Qere, tiqqune sopherim, marginal notes Cairo = Geniza Qumran or Judean Desert = all archeological docs Greek = all Greek Aramaic = Tgs only if they support another witness Syriac = S Latin = all Latin sources, doubly listed if iuxtus disagrees with V   Finally, I have included Qetib/Kere only on verses that UBS remarked on, thinking those alone would be of any interest.  Is that ok?   Thanks,   Galen         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-lionâ€â‚¢â‚¬â‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢‚‰‚¬ï¿½¿Â½-or-“they-piercedâ€Ã¯Â¬Ã¯Â¿Â½-StudStudies-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     -- Posted By Tyndale STEP Project to Tyndale STEP - Translations on 6/25/2010 04:13:00 AM -- Posted By Tyndale STEP Project to Tyndale STEP - Translations on 6/25/2010 10:34:00 AM -- Posted By Tyndale STEP Project to Tyndale STEP - Translations on 6/25/2010 10:54:00 AM