Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [textualcriticism] Re:G 5,21 & "murder" (FONOI)

Expand Messages
  • Reid Lindner
    Peter, I appreciate your thorough analysis. In R 1,29, however, the Alexandrian MS 81 (11th c.), which the Alands categorize as at least category II, does in
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 11, 2007
      Peter,

      I appreciate your thorough analysis.

      In R 1,29, however, the Alexandrian MS 81 (11th c.), which the Alands
      categorize as "at least category II," does in fact omit FONOU, if I
      read von Soden correctly here. In the same verse, A/02 omits DOLOU
      after the transposition of FONOU ERIDOS, making h.t. error in both
      cases the likely cause. Also in R 1,29, there is the omission of
      PONHRIA by K (and 1912 acc. to von Soden?), and PONHRIA PLEONEXIA by
      1836, again, acc. to von Soden(?). Here is also a famous case for
      conflation by Byz in reading both PORNEIA (Ds* G [P]) and PONHRIA,
      but even here I'm sure M. Robinson would vigorously defend PORNEIA on
      grounds of h.t. error exemplified by similar scribal habits in the
      same verse.

      Back to G 5,21: you are very clear that the issue revolves around the
      "likely borrowing from the parallel, the improbability of deletion,
      the penchant for a fuller text."

      I have a basic question: Can the h.t. habits of a scribe (or
      scribes) in any century (especially late centuries) be used to argue
      against the reading of the three oldest MSS we have for G 5,21? If
      so, under what guidelines?

      Reid Lindner
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.