Accordance Enthusiast Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 (edited) I was excited to start using this super detailed scholarly apparatus. However, I just had a look at one of my favorite verses (Jude 5) in terms of Textual Variants, and found the CNTTS apparatus is extremely unreliable and inaccurate! According to the CNTTS, P72 reads "Kurios Kurios": However, this is not nearly correct! The actual Papyrus has θς χρς - θεος χριστος - Theos Christos - God Christ: This is a very simple and super serious mistake! The actual manuscript does not even have "Kurios" once, let alone two times! How can I trust anything in this apparatus? Anyone with a little logic will know that it will be more than extremely far fetched for that the Word Kurios would occur twice in a row in Jude verse 5. This kind of expression denotes an urgent call for attention, as in Mat. 7:21 "κύριε κύριε". I'm disillusioned! How is this even possible? Did they never check? Or read this with a little common sense? Edited April 2, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted April 2, 2023 Author Share Posted April 2, 2023 (edited) The same mistake occurs in the same verse for ms. 1735!!!!!!!!!! Not only does this not make sense, but NA 28 confirms that this manuscript really reads "κυριος Ιησους", NOT "κυριος κυριος"! What's the point of having an apparatus if it is so completely inaccurate? Edited April 2, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allison Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 Are you using the older CNNTS Apparatus, or the CNTTS Apparatus Revised? I don't have the outdated version, but in the current version it looks correct: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristin Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 3 hours ago, Mark Allison said: Are you using the older CNNTS Apparatus, or the CNTTS Apparatus Revised? I don't have the outdated version, but in the current version it looks correct: Hi @Mark Allison, I know this wasn't directed to me, but in case it helps, here are both the original and revised together. On a side note, The 0 is always compared to the UBS text, and when I have asked about this before, I have been told that the USB and NA28 are basically the same, but my problem is that some of the things I am checking are pin point, and I really need to know if it is in the text or not. When it says it is in the base text, I never have certainty since I am looking at the NA28 and it is the base of the UBS. Is there any way to get a UBS for this purpose? Or do you have other thoughts? Thanks, Kristin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allison Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 @Kristin It would probably be good to have the UBS for this type of work. You can get upgrade pricing here:https://www.accordancebible.com/product/ubs5-tupgnt28-t/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristin Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 Thank you, @Mark Allison! I have a question about the website, but since it is unrelated to this thread, I will send you a message, if you don't mind. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allison Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 BTW, I have the CNNTS Apparatus Revised, but that's the 2014 edition. There's an even newer version (2021) available:https://www.accordancebible.com/product/cntts-nt-critical-apparatus-3/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Fidel Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 There should be an upgrade price. Maybe I just missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nathan Parker Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 Keep me posted if CNTTS 3 addresses these issues or if this is something we need to look into further. For those not on CNTTS 3, let me know, and I can have a sales rep reach out to discuss upgrade options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted April 2, 2023 Author Share Posted April 2, 2023 Hi all, and thank you for everyone's response. However, I have the latest 2021 version, and it has these two major errors in the first verse I dove in to!! So please @Nathan Parker could you help me out with this? Maybe report this to the publishers? I tried sending an email to them but I just have a general address, not a specific contact for the Apparatus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted April 2, 2023 Author Share Posted April 2, 2023 (edited) Hi @Mark Allison and @Kristin, Thank you for your responses, however, I have the latest 2021 version for which I reported the mistakes. Even in your screenshots the information is largely incorrect, because the actual P72 as shown above reads Theos Christos, NOT Theos Kurios. It is still completely wrong, and renders the apparatus useless for my studies in explicit subjects and objects in textual variants. 11 hours ago, Mark Allison said: Are you using the older CNNTS Apparatus, or the CNTTS Apparatus Revised? I don't have the outdated version, but in the current version it looks correct: 8 hours ago, Kristin said: Hi @Mark Allison, I know this wasn't directed to me, but in case it helps, here are both the original and revised together. On a side note, The 0 is always compared to the UBS text, and when I have asked about this before, I have been told that the USB and NA28 are basically the same, but my problem is that some of the things I am checking are pin point, and I really need to know if it is in the text or not. When it says it is in the base text, I never have certainty since I am looking at the NA28 and it is the base of the UBS. Is there any way to get a UBS for this purpose? Or do you have other thoughts? Thanks, Kristin Edited April 2, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted April 2, 2023 Author Share Posted April 2, 2023 Actually, in @Kristin's screenshot, the one on the right hand side is the older one, and the left hand side is the latest 2021 (3rd) edition, which is now worse than the previous edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted April 2, 2023 Author Share Posted April 2, 2023 12 hours ago, john_2022 said: To Err is human. "For we all stumble in many ways ..." ( James 3:2 ) Did you right-click and use "Report a correction"? Thanks @john_2022. But this is not fair for something that's supposed to have been re-checked so many times! I have reported dozens of corrections before and not one has been implemented so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted April 2, 2023 Author Share Posted April 2, 2023 (edited) You are right @john_2022! But note how the new version made the problem worse after re-checking and not better! I agree with you we can not rely on one apparatus like this. Edited April 2, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted April 2, 2023 Author Share Posted April 2, 2023 Hi @john_2022 I just checked and the mistake you just mentioned was NOT corrected in the 2021 version. It makes me wonder how many discoveries we could make by reading the manuscripts and not apparatuses!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dandennison Posted April 3, 2023 Share Posted April 3, 2023 43 minutes ago, Accordance Enthusiast said: Thanks @john_2022. But this is not fair for something that's supposed to have been re-checked so many times! I have reported dozens of corrections before and not one has been implemented so far. To be fair, when the source has the error I do not believe Accordance should correct it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted April 3, 2023 Author Share Posted April 3, 2023 (edited) @dandennison, I understand what you are saying, but you people at Accordance should be the 'mediators' for us. How can we get hold of the people making these resources? You sure can, because you have an agreement with them in selling their data. I feel it is worthless to report further corrections if there is no incentive to correct these mistakes, or at least ask the publishers to correct them. And I was also specifically referring to the fact that the CNTTS apparatus is now the 3rd revised edition with such mistakes, even worse than the previous one in Jude 5. If Accordance staff are not planning to report corrections like these to the publishers, then at least we need to know when we buy something how accurate it is or is not. So, I added some reviews... Edited April 3, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted April 3, 2023 Author Share Posted April 3, 2023 I'll contact them right away. I should have looked in the intro. I was looking in the modules information, in the read me firs docs, on the applicable Accordance webpage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted April 3, 2023 Author Share Posted April 3, 2023 Still gives the same email address in the 2021 intro... hoping it will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted April 3, 2023 Share Posted April 3, 2023 10 hours ago, dandennison said: To be fair, when the source has the error I do not believe Accordance should correct it. Is this company-wide practice or your personal opinion? What is standard practice in such a case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence Posted April 3, 2023 Share Posted April 3, 2023 12 minutes ago, Abram K-J said: Is this company-wide practice or your personal opinion? What is standard practice in such a case? I'm pretty sure this is industry standard practice. Resellers don't usually have the right to make corrections to - or otherwise modify - material that they don't hold the copyright to. From what I've read on the forums, I gather that standard practice for Accordance is to accumulate typo reports until they reach some number of reports, then go talk with the publishers. This helps avoid 'wrong' corrections, but it also means that it takes more than one individual to trigger the review mechanism. Accordance said they're looking into better ways to doing this reporting. Until then, maybe we could have a section of the forum dedicated to reporting typos so that more Accordance users would report the typos through the official channels to reach a critical mass of reports more quickly. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lester P. Bagley Posted April 3, 2023 Share Posted April 3, 2023 3 hours ago, Lawrence said: I'm pretty sure this is industry standard practice. Resellers don't usually have the right to make corrections to - or otherwise modify - material that they don't hold the copyright to. From what I've read on the forums, I gather that standard practice for Accordance is to accumulate typo reports until they reach some number of reports, then go talk with the publishers. This helps avoid 'wrong' corrections, but it also means that it takes more than one individual to trigger the review mechanism. Accordance said they're looking into better ways to doing this reporting. Until then, maybe we could have a section of the forum dedicated to reporting typos so that more Accordance users would report the typos through the official channels to reach a critical mass of reports more quickly. Not only industry standard practice but the legally correct practice. If Accordance (or anyone else) starts making "corrections" to copyrighted texts (as some have suggested here), they will soon be put out of business by the publishers lawyers. If the errors are the "fault" of Accordance's processing the files, then they are entitled to correct their mistakes. Beyond that there is significant risk. (Side note: Even with "out of copyright" texts there are some hazards. To be certain, have your copyright attorney research and verify your "right" to change anything you want. It's seldom as simple as we would like.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dandennison Posted April 3, 2023 Share Posted April 3, 2023 4 hours ago, Abram K-J said: Is this company-wide practice or your personal opinion? What is standard practice in such a case? It is my opinion but it is also common sense. As a researcher you need to have recognized revisions of works to use. If a particular book distributor is making point improvements to a published work it not possible to know how to interact with the source or how to cite it. Fortunately there is established practice for releasing improvements in the publishing industry which is recognized by scholarship. This is the named revision process. Each revision has a separate date and typically an assigned number. This enables scholars to have coherent discussions and citations such that future readers will grasp precisely what is being interacted with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Mansfield Posted April 3, 2023 Share Posted April 3, 2023 When I was working for the company, I remember times when we would occasionally correct an obvious error like a typo and report it to the publisher. This was never a hard and fast policy but something decided on a case-by-case basis. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristin Posted April 3, 2023 Share Posted April 3, 2023 We miss you working at Accordance, @R. Mansfield!! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
.thumb.png.4dd247c22789954e2b3cca0d24bf0738.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now