Some thoughts on a new NA
Wieland Willker
willker at chemie.uni-bremen.de
Tue Jul 9 03:42:46 EDT 2002
I wrote regarding UBS:
> 2) Remove the unnecessary and quite worthless rating system.
Ken asked:
> I find it useful. Wieland, what do you have against it?
Well, you know that a complete book has been written about the rating system
and several articles? (I don't have the titles at hand atm.) The book proves
(at least to me) that the rating is very inconsistent. A rating system with
4 numbers goes into statistics and must be used with perfectly clear,
rigorous rules. This is not the case here. I don't have the time to go into
details here. If you have worked a bit with Metzger's commentary you will
note that, too, I think.
Nevertheless I agree that it is a useful information when the committee
considered a certain decision to be very difficult. I think this could be
indicated by some statement like "Very difficult!" or the like in the
commentary and by some Alert! sign in the GNT.
Matthew A. Eby wrote:
Wieland Willker <willker at chemie.uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> > 10) It would be very helpful for the reader's orientation to add
> > headings like those in the UBS GNT.
>
> About the only major point wherewith I disagree is this one. One of
> the reasons I (and many others) use NA rather than UBS is the absence
> of the headings--the UBS headings disrupt the flow of thought (I'm
> thinking especially of those in the epistles) ...
This is a serious point and I accept that. Perhaps this is one of the
reasons to retain the two different editions, UBS and NA? I personally like
those two very different editions and would recommend to retain both, but
only if the UBS will be updated in the same way as NA. And the UBS needs a
much more intense reworking of the apparatus!
Best wishes
Wieland
<><
---------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker at chemie.uni-bremen.de
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list