[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
re: UBS4
-
To: nt-Greek@virginia.edu
-
Subject: re: UBS4
-
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
-
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 93 13:11:10 -0400
-
In-Reply-To: "Bart D. Ehrman"'s message of Fri, 13 Aug 93 17:29 EDT <9308132129.AA00334@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 17:29 EDT
From: "Bart D. Ehrman" <BARTUNC@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu>
Single brackets continue to be used. For some odd reason,
these are given C instead of D ratings (i.e., there are D
ratings without brackets, but C ratings with them).
To jump off (I've been reading Brevard Childs recently), there is an
interpretation of the backets which makes sense here. If the brackets
identify significants units of text which play a major role in the
canonical tradition, then they are important enough to be printed
inline, even in cases where they are of considerable doubt. This is
basically the argument behind the double brackets (the beginning of
John 8, for example), and it easily extends to the single brackets as
well.
In other words, it is not one specific early stratum that was
canonized, but rather the text as known in the fourth century. Where
there is a significant difference, it's important to make it visible.
-mib