Strutwolf went on to say that the Nestle-Aland text cannot and does not attempt to reconstruct an earlier (that is, pre-180) text, for that text was pluriform, and might called a “school-text,” under for teaching and preaching, but which was not fixed (hence the Alands’ description of the pre-180 text as “freischwebend”).A nice citation, but that is not the point. Let us correct ‘might called’ to ‘might be called’. That one is easy enough. But what about ‘under for teaching and preaching’? Something went wrong here, but just what? Should I leave ‘under’ out? Should I write ‘used’? Or ‘undertaken’? All suggestions are welcome, especially good ones.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Who needs conjectural emendation?
I do. Right now, actually, because I am editing a text by Bill Petersen, and just came across a sentence that is simply wrong. Bill writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I vote for "used". It seems to fit the sense better. Plus, it is almost as long, should the text have been copied from a handwritten note.
It's unclear to me what Bill is saying. Is he claiming that the NA text might be called a "school-text" or is claiming that the NA text is reconstruction a school-text of c. 180?
Stephen,
In any case not the first. The contrast Bill makes is between "school-text", and officially published text. In his view, NA represents (a reconstructed form of) the latter.
The coming book promises to be interesting ...
Ronald,
How nice to see you supoorting one of my conjectures! Let us see whether an English incarnation of Caragounis agrees as well ...
OK, that helps Jan.
I'd go with "used" too. I'm not sure a that a text is "undertaken," though its copying/production would be.
Pretty clear there's only one option: "used". The conjecture is obvious :-)
Perhaps needs a bit of re-arrangement as well:
"Strutwolf went on to say that the Nestle-Aland text WHICH might BE called a “school-text,” USED/USEFUL for teaching and preaching, cannot and does not attempt to reconstruct an earlier (that is, pre-180) text, for that EARLIER text was pluriform, not fixed (hence the Alands’ description of the pre-180 text as “freischwebend”)"
Thanks Peter, and probably what Bill wanted to say. However I will have to keep to the transmitted text as much as possible. The winner is ‘used’.
I think it would be fair to ask Strutwolf what he wanted to say.
I am not so interested in what Krans conjectured what Petersen (mis)understood.
Wieland,
Some context then: it is a quote from a published article, that will be republished shortly. As I see it, for now Bill's words are all that matters, and not whether or not he understood and represents Strutwolf's words correctly. That may be an interesting matter in itself, but it falls outside our humble duty as editors. Part of that duty, however, is to correct a sentence in which an obvious error has escaped the previous editors.
Post a Comment