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

Re: [textualcriticism] Questions on KAUDA in Acts 27:16

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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?

      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?
      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.

      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).


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