Talk:Novum Testamentum Graece

message: "every textual variant . . . is meticulously noted in the apparatus" 
This is simply incorrect. Major variants are noted, but it is not possible to note every divergent reading of a single manuscript. Willy Arnold 14:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections Needed

message: "Other scholars claim that the minuscule texts more accurately reflect what was originally penned."
This is so weasely as to beg deletion.  Any examples of real, published scholars and SBL members who hold this view?  I'm sure they exist, but my impression is the TR position is a fringe one associated with fundie "King James only" types.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  Otherwise, I'm deleting those statements.  Josh 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for the most part, yes. But there are a very small handful of people who, while primarily are theologians or non-sholars, do a fairly well job at outside scholarship (maybe along the lines of G.A. Wells), namely Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (well really, just two books dealing with the majority text). I agree that this sentence is weasely. However, I do not agree it should be removed. It should be qualified and contextualized. I suggest saying "A some theologians suggest..." or something similar. "Some authors outside of the field of textual criticism suggest". --Andrew c 17:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I'll edit it along those lines and see if it flies.  Josh 17:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minuscules vs. Unicals

message: I made some big changes to the "editions" section. I separated it into "current" and "historic." Current includes the two editions mentioned previously as well as several diglots of interest to English-speaking readers. Historic editions includes a summary of the most important editions derived from the introduction to Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine 27 (probably identical to the introduction to NA27 proper).
Potential improvements: Do we really need both the ABS and Hendrickson "editions" listed? We could probably get away with mentioning that there are several NA publishers, there is some variety to ISBN numbers, but the text is the same. We could also mention the difference between editions and printings; i.e. more recent printings have been updated to reflect papyri that were not available for the first printing of NA27. (At least, that is what I'm getting from the copyright page.)--VAcharon 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editions

message: Kenyon's edition of the Greek text of the Chester Beatty Papyrus 45 gives in Acts 7:58, 9:24, 11:30 and 13:7 the indeclinable form of the apostle's name σαουλ' instead of forms of σαυλος, as in later manuscripts (e.g., σαουλ']σαυλου cett.). However, I cannot find these readings in the Novum Testamentum Graece apparatus. I would greatly appreciate if someone could advise me on this matter: whether the readings are actually given in NA27, or not considered valid anymore, or something else is the case?--Constantine Sergeev (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check when I get home tonight.  Bear in mind that even the NA27 is not comprehensive.  It's hard to do in a single volume.Tim (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, certainly, it's not comprehensive, but P45 is, as far as I know, the earliest known manuscript of Acts, deserving thus special attention, and the reading itself seems to be important taking into account its implications for the Saul/Paul problem.--Constantine Sergeev (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My edition (NA26) definitely doesn't have those variants. Given that P45 is one of the 'constant witnesses' for Acts, any variants at all should have appeared in the apparatus. (I did double-check the verses you cite in the table of contents of the codices in the back of the book.) The conclusion would be that there are no variants known to the editors in those places (which appears to contradict what you've just cited). This is probably a case where you should consult Metzger's Textual Commentary to see if he has anything to say. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I apologize for the delay.  I wasn't able to get to this last night, but I definitely intend to do so.Tim (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I'll try to get the Editio Critica Maior.--Constantine Sergeev (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: P45 readings in Novum Testamentum Graece

message: The title is "Novum Testamentum Graece", what is described here though is the Nestle-Aland only! 
But the Novum Testamentum Graece has a very long history, starting with Erasmus! 
Either the title should be changed into Nestle-Aland, or the article has to be expanded considerably.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnack (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please help expand it.  Nestle-Aland is already redirecting here.Tim (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading title 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion