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

Questions on KAUDA in Acts 27:16

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Buck
    And running under a certain island which is called Clauda, we had much work to come by the boat. Acts 27:16 AV The word under consideration is the name of
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      "And running under a certain island which is called Clauda, we had much work to come by the boat." Acts 27:16 AV

      The word under consideration is the name of the island C(l)auda.' The fate of that Lambda has turned on several different manuscript discoveries.
      +L:
      Κλαῦδα Tischendorf, following Aleph's original hand.
      -L:
      Καῦδα Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott & Hort, following B and one of Aleph's correctors.
      +L:
      Κλαῦδα Nestle, following Weymouth/Weiss, whom I supposed was influenced by 33 and 81.
      -L:
      Καῦδα Nestle-Aland, following p74 and 1175. Despite the implication of marginal notes in Bibles which concede that "some mss read Clauda," there are no other Gk mss with this reading.
      +L:
      Κλαύδην Robinson, following Byz.

      Now, there's actually more to the picture than just the pronunciation of the island's name. There's the question of inflection:

      KLAUDHN -  Byz
      KLAUDH - L598
      KLADHN - L1356
      KLAUDA -  Aleph* Avid, 33, 81
      KLAUDAN - 88, 104, L60
      KLAUDION - L884, L1429


      This is a good example of a reading for which B 03 was the only known Greek support (at the time Erasmus examined it) for the common Latin reading (although various spellings, including 'Clauda,' are found in the OL and vg mss). Nevertheless, Erasmus followed the reading found in the rest of his manuscripts.

      Now, I'm wondering several things about this variant:

      1. Was the presence of the final nu influenced by the following iota in ISCUSAMEN? Yet the two are not consecutive in Byz; could an ancestor have been behind both the final nu and the Byz transposition with MOLIS?

      2. KAUDA without the L seems the best-attested historical reading (Psi has GAUDHN). That would make any reading with the L a harder reading, but why, then, so many variants with the L and only one without?

      3. GA# 1175 is considered one of the best Alexandrian minuscules, second only to 33. Yet here, it is the ONLY Alexandrian miniscule, and B the only uncial besides Psi, to have the lamda-less reading. With all the variant spellings permitted, why such resistence to perpetuate a lambda-less reading in Alexandrian manuscripts, given its historical support?

      4. Aleph's correctors rarely changed a Byz reading to an Alex reading--at least where omissions were concerned. What do we know about this particular corrector's habits?

       Daniel Buck
    • Stephen Carlson
      ... If I had to guess, I would rather favor the explanation of harmonization to the ending of the preceding νησίον ... καλούμενον (NHSION ...
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 25, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...> wrote:
        1. Was the presence of the final nu influenced by the following iota in ISCUSAMEN? Yet the two are not consecutive in Byz; could an ancestor have been behind both the final nu and the Byz transposition with MOLIS?
         
        If I had to guess, I would rather favor the explanation of harmonization to the ending of the preceding νησίον ... καλούμενον (NHSION ... KALOUMENON) plus uncertainty over the declensional status of the proper name. Assimilation in the ending of a substantive to a verbal ending seems rather far-fetched to me.
         
        2. KAUDA without the L seems the best-attested historical reading (Psi has GAUDHN). That would make any reading with the L a harder reading, but why, then, so many variants with the L and only one without?
         
        I don't understand the proposed connection between a "best-attested historical reading" and the harder reading. Could you elaborate? It sounds to me that you are suggesting that the harder reading is the only lacking historical support, but doesn't this assume that scribes are supposed to be expert in what an obscure island was historically called?
         
        3. GA# 1175 is considered one of the best Alexandrian minuscules, second only to 33. Yet here, it is the ONLY Alexandrian miniscule, and B the only uncial besides Psi, to have the lamda-less reading. With all the variant spellings permitted, why such resistence to perpetuate a lambda-less reading in Alexandrian manuscripts, given its historical support?
         
        I don't understand the concept of "historical support" as used here. Please elaborate. 
         
        4. Aleph's correctors rarely changed a Byz reading to an Alex reading--at least where omissions were concerned. What do we know about this particular corrector's habits?
         
        I'll let someone who has studied Aleph's correctors in greater detail answer this, but I'm concerned whether the notion of a "Byz reading" might be anachronistic depending on when and where the corrector was active.
         
        Stephen Carlson
      • Daniel Buck
        From: Stephen Carlson     ...  Stephen: If I had to guess, I would rather favor the explanation of harmonization to the ending of the
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 25, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          From: Stephen Carlson <stemmatic@...> 

           
          On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...> wrote:
          1. Was the presence of the final nu influenced by the following iota in ISCUSAMEN? Yet the two are not consecutive in Byz; could an ancestor have been behind both the final nu and the Byz transposition with MOLIS?

           Stephen:
          If I had to guess, I would rather favor the explanation of harmonization to the ending of the preceding νησίον ... καλούμενον (NHSION ... KALOUMENON) plus uncertainty over the declensional status of the proper name. Assimilation in the ending of a substantive to a verbal ending seems rather far-fetched to me.
           
          Daniel:
          2. KAUDA without the L seems the best-attested historical reading (Psi has GAUDHN). That would make any reading with the L a harder reading, but why, then, so many variants with the L and only one without?
           
          Stephen:
          I don't understand the proposed connection between a "best-attested historical reading" and the harder reading. Could you elaborate? It sounds to me that you are suggesting that the harder reading is the only lacking historical support, but doesn't this assume that scribes are supposed to be expert in what an obscure island was historically called?
           
          Daniel:
          What I mean by 'historical support' is the fact that now, and obviously for a long time back, Gaudos has been the name of the island, and clearly that influenced the singular reading in Psi. The only question here is, to what extent did knowledge of the Island's current name influence copyists, and in what direction?

          3. GA# 1175 is considered one of the best Alexandrian minuscules, second only to 33. Yet here, it is the ONLY Alexandrian miniscule, and B the only uncial besides Psi, to have the lamda-less reading. With all the variant spellings permitted, why such resistence to perpetuate a lambda-less reading in Alexandrian manuscripts, given its historical support?
          4. Aleph's correctors rarely changed a Byz reading to an Alex reading--at least where omissions were concerned. What do we know about this particular corrector's habits?
           
          I'll let someone who has studied Aleph's correctors in greater detail answer this, but I'm concerned whether the notion of a "Byz reading" might be anachronistic depending on when and where the corrector was active.


          Daniel:
          Okay, strike the mention of "Byz reading" since inflection and presence of the lambda are two different things. I can't figure out how the name could get a feminine ending, though, if it wasn't the harder reading of the original (different gender than NHSION).

          Daniel

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