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

RE: [textualcriticism] Vaticanus corrections in Romans 11:6--one, two, or three?

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    1. There is an E above the EPI. This is a correction to EPEI. 2. Prima manu wrote GEINETAI. The enhancer (B2) did not enhance the E. This is typical and
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 15 12:21 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      1. There is an E above the EPI. This is a correction to EPEI.

      2. Prima manu wrote GEINETAI. The enhancer (B2) did not enhance the E. This
      is typical and understood as a correction.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

      Please check out the TC forum:
      http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
    • Daniel Buck
      Yes, of course, thank you Wieland. I d forgotten about that unique feature of Vaticanus. Naturally it wouldn t show up on the facsimile unless it were
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 15 10:22 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, of course, thank you Wieland. I'd forgotten about that unique feature of Vaticanus. Naturally it wouldn't show up on the facsimile unless it were full-color.

        If I understand this right, the two corrections are of different kinds (at least the changes go in different directions). GEINETAI was replaced by a later form without the first E, whilst EPI was just a common itacism for EPEI. As for the EPEI correction, does it look like it was corrected prior to the enhancement?

        Daniel Buck


        From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 3:21:30 AM
        Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Vaticanus corrections in Romans 11:6--one, two, or three?

         

        1. There is an E above the EPI. This is a correction to EPEI.

        2. Prima manu wrote GEINETAI. The enhancer (B2) did not enhance the E. This
        is typical and understood as a correction.

        Best wishes
        Wieland
        <><


      • Wieland Willker
        ... corrected ... That is very difficult to say. Tischendorf assigns the EPEI correction also to the enhancer. This is possible. It is also possible that the
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 15 11:11 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          > As for the EPEI correction, does it look like it was
          corrected
          > prior to the enhancement?

          That is very difficult to say.
          Tischendorf assigns the EPEI correction also to the
          enhancer. This is possible. It is also possible that the
          small E was already there by B1 and the enhancer enhanced
          it, too.

          The error is a little strange because three lines above the
          scribe/copyist wrote EPEI correctly and B normally is a fan
          of EI for I. In Rom 3:6 and 11:22 he also writes EPEI
          correctly.


          Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><
          --------------------------
          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          Textcritical commentary:
          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

          Please check out the TC forum:
          http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
        • Robert Relyea
          ... Even more so in a psuedo-facsimile, which is really nothing more than a transcription, typeset to mimic the layout of the original.;). bob
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 15 11:26 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            On 03/15/2011 10:22 AM, Daniel Buck wrote:
            Yes, of course, thank you Wieland. I'd forgotten about that unique feature of Vaticanus. Naturally it wouldn't show up on the facsimile unless it were full-color.
            Even more so in a psuedo-facsimile, which is really nothing more than a transcription, typeset to mimic the layout of the original.;).

            bob

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