Re: UBS rating of Mt. 19:9 variant

From: Marty Brownfield (
Date: Fri Sep 13 1996 - 20:40:58 EDT

> From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <>, on 9/12/96
10:23 PM:
> At 08:46 9/12/96 -0400, wrote:
> >I'm still using the UBS text, 3rd edition, wherein Mt 19:9 is deemed to
> >not originally included the phrase KAI hO APOLELUMENHN GAMHSAS MOICATAI
> >who has married her who has been put away commits adultery, w/ alternative
> >variants) . According to the critical apparatus, the committee gave the
> >reading, without this phrase, a "C" rating.
> >
> >I don't want to start a thread on an issue of textual criticism which I
> >realize is outside the scope of this list. However, I wonder if someone
> >simply tell me if perhaps the rating was upgraded to a "B" rating in the
> >fourth edition. (As you may discern, I'm doubting that the rating would
> >been downgraded, or the reading changed - but I could be surprised,
> >I!)
> Yes, the reading was upgraded to a "B".
> Stephen Carlson
> --
> Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
> : and songs chant the words.
> : -- Shujing 2.35

I'm still using UBS 3rd edition as well (the 4th edition's font seems to me to
be an aquired taste), but is it really fair to say that the reading was
"upgraded" from a C to a B, when the 3rd edition rates the readings on a scale
of A to D and the 4th edition from A to C? Is this an "upgrade"? (I guess all D
ratings were upgraded as well!)

Since I don't have a 4th edition handy, maybe someone could explain what was
usually done with B, C, and D ratings in this edition. Were all D's moved to
C's (or maybe some dropped entirely)? Did most B's stay as B's, or were they
"upgraded" to A's?

And what about most C's?

Or....are we comparing apples to oranges?

Marty Brownfield or

Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="ATTRIBS.BND"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATTRIBS.BND"

Attachment converted: Schootz:ATTRIBS.BND (????/----) (00036AFB)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:51 EDT