Is there a quick and easy way to find out whether a particular word in a verse has given scholars difficulties? I am imagining something like a verse-by-verse index of difficult words.
To show what I mean, I have identified a word by marking it with asterisks in the following verse, Acts 17:30.
τοὺς μὲν οὖν χρόνους τῆς ἀγνοίας ὑπεριδὼν ὁ θεὸς τὰ νῦν ἀπαγγέλλει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πάντας πανταχοῦ μετανοεῖν,
Is there an easy way to find out if this word has cause scholars difficulties?
How about looking at the critical apparatus? Places with variant readings are often problematic.
Many thanks, mwh. Would you identify which critical editions you have in mind? This is a field in which I know next to nothing.
I can’t help you with critical editions, Hugh, but I can tell you that my copy of the Greek N.T. approved by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Eastern Orthodox Church)and published in 1912 has πᾶσι, which is what you were expecting, I imagine.
That would be easier to connect up, I think, but actually I was lost.
I acknowledge I’m a complete neophyte, but the apparatus I’m looking at (UBS, 3rd ed. 1975, supported by Metzger, 1975) shows no questionmark over πάντας. Zerwick and Grosvenor (1981) name it the subject of μετανοεῖν.
I read it as something like ‘he exhorts people (that) all everywhere (are) to repent.’
The only place I can see reference to πᾶσι is in Nicoll (The Expositor’s Greek Testament, mid-1800s). I assume in more recent times it was considered a very unlikely edit.
The edition I have (Nestle-Aland 28, published by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft) prints πάντας, and doesn’t show any variants in the apparatus, which probably means that the manuscripts on which their text is based uniformly read πάντας,.
This is by no means an impossible reading and doesn’t call for a conjectural emendation. Think of it this way: in direct speech, the announcement would have been πάντες πανταχοῦ μετανοεῖτε., “everyone everywhere reconsider/repent!” πάντας is part of the announcement, the subject of the imperative that becomes an infinitive in indirect speech; τοῖς ἀνθρώποις by itself means or implies all of humanity, and doesn’t require πᾶσι for additional specification.
Many thanks to mwh, Aetos, Prisca7of9, and Hylander. I see now that in my confusion I stated my problem badly. My real problem was that I couldn’t connect πάντας with its sentence. I had overlooked the possibility of subject accusative of the infinitive. Because of that, I was thinking, “Well maybe this is a problematic word in the text, I’ll ask how to find out about that.” My question must have seemed odd to those who saw the subject accusative possibility.
In study and interpretation, I sometimes fail to identify the right choice as an option, and then spin my wheels in the ditch, trying to choose among various wrong options that I have somehow conjured up. Once again, Hylander rolled up in his big wrecker and winched me right out of the ditch.
Nestle-Aland 28th edition. There are other resources, but this is the handiest (literally), and covers the most important manuscript variants. The problem with NT manuscripts is that there are a lot of them…
In study and interpretation, I sometimes fail to identify the right choice as an option, and then spin my wheels in the ditch, trying to choose among various wrong options that I have somehow conjured up.
I know exactly what you mean.
With the verb παραγγέλλει, τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πᾶσι seems much more natural-sounding than πάντας, and that is the verb in the Byzantine text. But with the earlier ἀπαγγέλλει and πάντας, the message announced to mankind isn’t that they need to repent, but it’s announced to mankind that everyone everywhere is to repent. A message of hope rather than hectoring doom and gloom.
You’ve already been recommended the NA28th edition; however some of the older versions are still accessible on the web if you don’t want to have to fork out to buy one (especially as NA29 is likely coming 2022).
Whilst the different versions do contain most of the same variants listed, they do have their differences. As you’re new to this, I would suggest not trying to decipher what manuscripts are being referenced. Will take much longer than if you just want to see a different variant listed 
You also have the older, yet more complete, Tischendorf Novum Testamentum Graece.
You can also utilise Tregelles’ The Greek New Testament
Then you finally have H. von Soden’s mammoth Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, vol. 4.
With the above, again I recommend not trying to decipher his manuscript references - von Soden developed his own system, which can be rather confusing without the key.
Very true! It would be far too large to carry around a Greek NT which listed every manuscript variant.
[Remembered the rules state no links in first 10 posts. Apologies!]
Two more for the list, which are my favorites anyway: Westcott and Hort’s second volume appendix. And the apparatus (not the text) in Souter’s OCT. Souter’s text isn’t his fault, but was the Authorized Version compromise text. Both of them have the substantial advantage over NA of paying serious attention to quotations by the church fathers.
The CNTTS* lists a number of variants for this passage.
17:30–13.0 S 0 τοις ανθρωποις παντας P41vid P74vid 01 02 03 05c 08 1175 2344 SBL
R 2 τοις ανθρωποις πασιν 014 025 1 1241 1646 MT
R 2 N τοις ανθρωποις πασι 020 044 049 056 35 69 88 104 226 323 330 440 517 547 614 618 945 1245 1270 1505 1611 1739 1828 1837 1854 1891 2147 2412 2492 2495 TR
R 2 O τοις ανθρωποις πασει 1243
R 50 τοις ανθρωποις ινα παντες 05*
R 51 N πασι τοις ανθρωποις 927
99 lacunae P8 P29 P33–58 P38 P45 P48 P50 P53 P56 P57 P91 P112 P127 04 057 0165 0175 33 81 1738
The other place I would check is translations. If a passage is translated in a variety of ways from a common source (if that can be determined with any certainty) it can indicate that there has been a struggle over the passage. Here, despite the variations attested the translations I have anyway are pretty consistent - presumably because the variants don’t really change the meaning. Commentaries - grammatically oriented ones, like NIGTC, EGGNT BHGNT - can draw out the differences here too. I don’t have Acts in of these though so cannot comment on this passage there.
thx
D
Sometimes more is less. Nothing is to be gained by listing all the variants in all the manuscripts. In this Acts verse there are only two significant variants: παρ- vs. ἀπ-αγγέλλει and πάντας vs. πᾶσι.
On the first, editors may differ; either reading is acceptable in itself. Nestle preferred ἀπ- while recording παρ- as a minority variant, the UBS prefers παρ- and does not even mention ἀπ-. Without going further into the matter we should prefer παρ-, if only because the UBS text is more up-to-date and its editors do not see fit even to mention the minority variant. (Nestle and UBS are the only editions that I have, and are quite enough for these purposes and for most others.)
As to παντας vs. πασιν, anyone with any experience of textual behavior will immediately recognize that πασιν is secondary, attracted into agreement with τοις ανθρωποις. (Why the Eastern Orthodox edition of 1912 reported by Aetos printed πᾶσι I cannot say, but it’s evidently an antiquated reading [cf. Prisca’s post ebove] and it’s not one that a textual critic would approve.)
There’s really no need to say more, until and unless a better and older manuscript (such as a papyrus) comes to light—not impossible but at this point highly unlikely.
This seems to be a great reason to be leery of UBS/NA, which can be a bit papyrus-happy, and certainly seem to be here. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both have ἀπ-, and that’s how Athanasius quoted the text. Against this, NA cites P41 and P74 (7th and 8th century!) for παρ-, as well as the later codexes (like A and D, etc.). Very strange to go with παρ- from just a source standpoint.
The meaning difference, to my ear anyway, is between ordering people to repent (the guy with the repent sign), versus announcing/inviting repentance (John the Baptist, American Great Awakening, etc.). It shouldn’t decide the textual question, but the first feels to me like it belongs to a later more politically powerful age of the church.
It does seem very strange that UBS doesn’t mention ἀπ-, if it’s in Sinait. and Vat. and Athan. Any idea why? (Surely not because it’s “papyrus-happy.”) Was it an oversight? It has no app.crit. at all on this verse, at least not in the 4th Revised Edition.
Maybe someone who knows more about these editions could answer. I don’t have the fourth edition, but UBS5 doesn’t mention anything for it either. Their preface mentions that their variants are translator-focused. I do see that NA28 lists “Ath” as a παρ- witness, but Souter gives Ath_cod. as a απ-witness (whatever he means by _cod.), and prints ἀπ- as a correction to the Auth.Vers. text. W&H print απ- without comment. NA28 and Souter both give א* as an απ- witness, which means the uncorrected Sinaiticus, I believe.
I can take an image of anything people would like to see, but I believe that the above summarizes it.
It might be down to the aim of the UBS GNT. From the intro:
“As has been stated in the Preface, the variant readings cited in the textual apparatus are primarily those that are significant for translators or necessary for establishing the text. A few other variants have been included because they contain important differences in the forms of proper names or because they provide valuable supplementary information.”
Perhaps felt this wasn’t a significant place when it came to translating. I can’t check Metzger’s first edition commentary, but the second edition only comments on the τῆς ἀγνοίας / τῆς ἀγνοίας ταύτης variant.
Maybe they’re conscious of how C. K. Barrett described it, with “א B have ἀπαγγέλλει, a weaker verb.” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 2 p. 852.)
Just goes to show though, that the Critical Greek New Testaments aren’t just following the א-B text.
It does indeed. Can see it on the online Codex Sinaiticus, quire 88 folio 2 recto, 3rd line on the 3rd column.