Using CNTTS' apparatus with UBS 3rd

[Iconoclaste]

I am looking at the CNTTS apparatys and am wondering: if the base reading for the CNTTS is the UBS 3rd edition, is there anywhere online to have access to that out-of-print GNT? Accordance does not sell it, so how is someone supposed to know what the “base text” is when using the apparatus? I presume that most of the time, the text is identical to the NA28/UBS5, but that does not mean that it always is, right?

[piotrj]

As far as I can get it, this apparatus does not present any base text but a complete list of readings, starting with those most popular, then proceeding to those secondary.

[Fabian]

So I know the base for the CNTTS was the 4th. edition. NA27.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Fabian

[Iconoclaste]

The variation code “0” indicates, according to the module's overview, “Notation for base text, UBS 3rd”

[piotrj]

exactly. but you have then all the witnesses for this reading listen along.

[Iconoclaste]

Yes, but it would reduce confusion when the UBS 3rd is different than the UBS 5th/NA28. 

[Donald Cobb]

It's true that the difference can be confusing. If I'm not mistaken, the USB3 has the same text as the USB4/Nestle-Aland 27 (someone else might want to chime in here). There are some differences between the N-A27/USB4 and the N-A28/USB5, but these are limited to the Catholic Epistles, i.e., James through Jude. For the other books of the NT, the text is the same, apart from minor format or orthographic differences that are not connected to the textual witnesses (e.g., δι´ ὅ instead of διὰ ὅ, etc.). In other words, the only place you should be concerned about the differences would be in the Catholic epistles.

 

That being said, consulting the CNTTS apparatus isn't really feasible without a GNT in parallel, and if one does that, the differences will be immediately apparent. CNTTS's usefulness will then be in seeing which textual witnesses contain such and such a reading. 

 

Ideally, I agree: the CNTTS apparatus should now use UBS5 as the base text. But that's a decision that would be up to the proprietors of the CNTTS project, not to Accordance. We'll see what happens in the future.

 

I would say this: the real usefulness of the CNTT apparatus is not so much in knowing what the USB base text is, but rather the mss that contain the different readings. That's what we should be looking at. To go a step further, I would actually say that, as a general rule (there are exceptions!) the CNTTS isn't the best starting point for textual investigation, unless one wants to begin with thorough research. A better place to begin is the NA textual apparatus. It's not as complete as the CNTTS, but it focuses on the more significant variants. From there, one can then enlarge the research to the CNTTS.

 

One can also to some great searches with the CNTTS—Accordance really shines here—but for that kind of thing, the really interesting and relevant part of it is the readings of the mss themselves. 

[Iconoclaste]

Thank you, Donald, for your helpful comments.