Re: RE: NA27 apparatus perplexity

From: Bruce Terry (
Date: Tue Oct 10 1995 - 13:23:18 EDT

On Tue, 10 Oct 1995, Dale M. Wheeler wrote re Mark 8:13 NA26/27 apparatus:

>Option#2: The layout, as you point out, is indeed not documented anywhere
>that I can find. These two mss, as well as the three versions which follow,
>are within parentheses, separated by commas, and parentheses are used to
>indicate minor variations in the reading of the mss enclosed. In this case
>it is a reversal of EMBAS and PALIN (though I note, the app. is not very
>clear on this point), within the total reading EMBAS PALIN EIS (TO) PLOION.
>This means that the enclosed mss read PALIN EMBAS EIS (TO) PLOION. But there
>is a variation within the variant, namely the inclusion/exclusion of the
>article TO. Well, since NA has already used the parentheses to indicate
>minor variation, they can't use it again (i.e., no parentheses within
>parentheses). So they tagged the variant mss on at the end, separated by
>commas to indicate that they read differently than the rest of the group.

I think you have hit on the meaning of this undocumented convention. May I
suggest that the *four* commas inside this set of parentheses that begins with
a squiggle indicates that there are *five* variant word orders of the five
word alternative reading EMBAS PALIN EIS (TO) PLOION, giving *six* word orders
in all. If this is correct, the one comma inside parentheses at Mark 7:8/9
apparatus indicates *two* different minor variations from the alternative

Now will someone explain what the _et_ at Mark 8:35 is doing?

Bruce Terry E-MAIL:
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:29 EDT