I'm sure that enticing title should get the clicks coming! Anyway, I'm enjoying teaching a class this term on the Greek text of Galatians (this includes syntax, exegesis, translation, and text). So I was excited to see in the apparatus at Gal 1.8 the following notation: D(*.c).2
At this point I wasn't actually that interested in solving the textual question, more to point out that there are occasions when the NA28 text is based on only a couple of manuscripts. (Incidentally THEGNT prints a different text reading, but as I said, I'm not trying to solve the overall problem here). And secondly to point out that the main early witness in support of the NA28 reading is presented in a complicated way:
D(*.c).2
So I tried to explain as best as I could, using the appendix at the back of NA28, what may have happened here in this manuscript (also that D is potentially confusing to those new to textual criticism!). I thought that this notation suggested that the text of D was corrected twice; that the original text must have a spelling variant that broadly supported the text reading more than any other reading and that it was corrected to another reading that was also not the text reading exactly, but must have been quite like it - hence the parentheses. And then that a second corrector had corrected the already corrected text another time to make it correspond to the text reading.
It was a helpful exercise in demonstrating how much information is preserved in the NA28 apparatus (and appendices); but I also argued that in these situations it is always necessary to check a photo so that you really can see what was happening. So I did:
Interesting to see your own notes on the page Peter.
ReplyDeleteOk, i've stared at the photo of D till my eyes hurt, and i know i'm not always the sharpest tool in the shed, but what am i missing?
ReplyDeleteI think you are seeing several layers of text and correction. The original layer is I think EUAGGELIZHTE UMAS (we can come back to the epsilon). Then there is a correction to EUAGGELIZHTAI UMAS (D** acc. Tisch.). Then there is a correction to EUAGGELIZHTAI (again) UMIN (D*** acc. Tisch) - presumably involving rubbing. Then someone adds in the margin AS with a corresponding underline (suggesting restoring UMAS; Dnov acc. Tish.)
DeleteRe the epsilon: there is not enough space for the normal way that AI are written, so there must be something else under there. There is not much visible; but if you look on the previous Latin page and peer very hard at the photo it is possible to imagine that you are looking at some remnants of an epsilon. Without going all Elijah Hixson about it, I think that the actual page held up to the light might be clearer on this.
DeleteAnonymous here is Peter Head
DeleteWhenever I hear about a reading in Claromontanus, I always wonder that the reading of F & G are. Of course readings of correctors are less likely to match F & G.
ReplyDelete