Opinions of the CNTTS Apparatus

I was excited when the product in question came out, but I don't see much attention given to it by anyone (not even their producers since their website hasn't been updated in a long time). I know not everyone loves the idea of an Apparatus Maximus because so many other resources do our hard work for us leaving us the summaries of their efforts, but the hallmark of a scholar is to question the conclusions of others.

The Logos formatting of this product doesn't make it easy to use, but still, the information is there. I've read some other liabilities with it in terms of accuracy and stuff like that, but those things could be corrected over time.

With all that as a setup, is there anyone here that's actively using it? If so, what's your Logos setup for it? Or do other folks have an opinion about it you'd like to share?

https://www.logos.com/product/215259/center-for-new-testament-textual-studies-new-testament-critical-apparatus?queryId=48458a8bd4b39471f945c0970f698d98

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Maybe I'm alone? It's a .... I'd call it 'necessary' ... addition to my study. But with one BIG caveat. I color-code the estimated aging on mss's, along with the perceived reliability. That means, in my layout, where I'm checking a translation (almost always reading a journal, etc), a quick GLANCE shows me the pattern.

I also color code the usual apparati, and often a simple presentation is fine. But more often, if it's being discussed, there's a problem. This week Mark 6:14. Did Antipas see a resurrected man, or did the people? Interesting question ... how recognized? The Talmud put a max of 3 days after death.

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1314810#Comment_1314810

I've read your use of it in the past. I appreciate your response.

Would you be willing to share your highlighting/VF? I admire your patience to do that.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1314811#Comment_1314811

Not very pretty ... my Verbum is offline, so camera shots (VF, and layout page, CNTTS lower-right on the issue. BTW I use the 2010, not the 2020. Logos messed up the formatting in the update.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1314812#Comment_1314812

I use CNTTS quite rarely and prefer to reserve the whole afternoon for the study of one verse.

It would be nice to add a software tool to reconstruct the whole verse, showing the different versions on the screen, differences in color.

DAL

I bought it for $70 on a package and only use it when I'm digging into the Greek; like a special study or something. Like others, I just focus on the text and prepare a sermon. This resource is clearly not designed for sermon prep, so you would have to decide how useful it will be to you.

DAL

PS. I do wish the manuscripts mentioned had hyperlinks that take you to the actual manuscripts, but I guess not all manuscripts are available in Logos.

Darryl

I use this database for NTTC research, but in Accordance (as I do not own it in Logos). It is a useful tool. However, I only use it as a first pass examination in my research or for queries because it contains many mistakes. This means that it is not citable for academic research/publication purposes as conclusive evidence (and I would argue even for preaching purposes). That is, I would caution that if you use this tool for any academic research (or preaching)—you need to examine the original manuscripts themselves. Otherwise, someone who tries to verify your claim about a manuscript reading may call you out on an error that was unbeknownst to you because you relied solely on a database that is know in the field to contain many errors.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1314933#Comment_1314933

Yes, checking the respective mss would be pretty basic in academia.