The thing itself
Is Stritmatter's transcript reliable enough?
Stritmatter's description of Kathman's list: "A schematic transcript of this data,
although incomplete and innaccurate in a few critical respects, and without
the text of the relevant passages...."
- Corrections to David Kathman's list, e.g. 2 Macc 3.24 and 2 Macc 3.40 or
2 Macc 3.24 through 2 Macc 3.40?
- Stritmatter omissions found in Kathman:
- "Cross" marks, e.g. Rev 22 (there are about 16 more).
- Flowers; e.g. Deut 23.10; 2 Esd 8.50; 2 Esd 9 3-4; 2 Esd 9.7
- Hands -- no complete list of markings in the Metrical psalms, but inconsistent reports;
no indication of hands in Athanasius's treatise on the use of the psalms
- Verses on Kathman's list but not on Stritmatter's, e.g.
- Individually trivial errors that may be cumulatively important:
- mislabeled verses, e.g. 1 Sam 24.12 and 12 are confused (p.504); Bar 1.13
reads Bar 8.13, etc.
- Possibly incorrect descriptions of underlinings, e.g. 2 Sam 1.14: Stritmatter reads
14 And David said unto him, How wast yu not afraied, to put
for the thine hand to destroy the Annointed of the Lord? 
Oxford's Bible; see also Stritmatter's image on [103|66].
- Mistranscription of annotations, e.g. 1 Kgs 8.63: Stritmatter reads
Kathman correctly transcribes the annotation:
Cropped marginal note in GB reads "Oxen 22000/Shepe 122000"
||The number of sheep is in error, adding an extra 2000 to the texts's figure of 12000.
oxen - 22000
A more accurate comparison: both Kathman's and Stritmatter's accounts
are generally reliable when the two accounts agree; in most instances where they disagree,
Kathman seems to be more reliable.
Stritmatter mentions Kathman several times, sometimes characterizing his work harshly.
Kathman's list was compiled without reference to
Stritmatter's list; Kathman's list was published online in 1998, two years before
Stritmatter's dissertation was defended, and three years before it was printed.
The most interesting annotation
Ecclesiasticus 14.13 reads, "Do good vnto thy friend
before thou dye, and according to thine habilitie stretche out thine hand, and giue him."
An annotator crossed out "him" in OxBib and wrote "vnto the poore". Stritmatter thinks
the change is a translation by an annotator of the Vulgate "da pauperi." Tom Veal suggests
that the changed text reflects the Douay reading "to the poor"; since the Douay edition was not
printed until several years after Oxford
died, this would be prima facie evidence that Oxford could not have made this annotation.
Much more likely than either Stritmatter's or Veal's scenario is that an annotator
was refering to Miles Coverdale's translation of Ecclesiaticus, which appeared in numerous
earlier English Bibles, including Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, and the
Bishops' Bible, as well as in Coverdale's Bokes of Salomon. Here, for comparison,
are versions found in the Vulgate, Coverdale, Matthew's, Bishops', Geneva, Douay, and King James
|Vulgate||ante mortem benefac amico tuo et secundum vires tuas exporrigens da pauperi
|Coverdale||Do good vnto yi frende before thou dye, and acordinge to thy abylite reach out thine hande, and geue vnto ye poore.
|Matthew's||Do good vnto thy frynde before thou dye, & according to thy abilitie reache out thyne hande, & geue vnto the poore.
|Bishops'||Do good vnto thy friende before thou dye, and according to thy abilitie reache out thyne hande & geue vnto the poore.
|Geneva||Do good vnto thy friend before thou dye, & according to thine habilitie stretch out thine hand, and give him.
|Douay||Do good to thy friend before thou die, and according to thy ability, stretching out thy hand give to the poor.
|King James||Do good unto thy friend before thou die, and according to thy ability stretch out thy hand and give to him.