Friday, October 19, 2018

Codex Claromontanus and Romans 1.29 in NA28

My Greek students have just finished a text critical assignment on the variant in Rom 1.29 involving πορνείᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ κτλ. One of the things I’ve done is compare the NA26 apparatus to the updated form in the NA28 (my NA27 is at the office). I do miss the brevity of the old version, but the new one is certainly easier to follow. What caught my attention was the treatment of Codex Claromontanus (D 06), highlighted below.

Comparison of NA26 and NA28 apparatus
The NA28 made more sense to me, but I still had questions. That led, of course, to checking the image at the BnF website.

Rom 1.29 in Claromontanus; sharpened for clarity
Everything in the NA28 about D now makes sense except one thing. Does D2 omit the word κακ(ε)ια? I only see what I assume is an itacistic erasure of an epsilon. So, is the (−D2) simply saying that some part of κακια (namely the original epsilon) is omitted? I assumed that the minus sign meant the whole word was omitted, which it’s clearly not. What I might have expected is something more like (D).


  1. I imagine it was just an oversight in the NA28 apparatus. The apparatus is partly correct, in that κακ(ε)ια is not at the end, but it would have to have a corresponding "+ κακ(ε)ια" earlier in the variant to be fully correct. I think your (⸉D) notation is more succinct, although I'm sure it wouldn't have wasted too much space if they had just printed the D2 reading separately.

  2. Both apparati are wrong. NA26 conflates the final readings of C and D, confusing πορνεια with πονηρια; NA28 insinuates that the corrector of D deleted the entire word κακια, when all he did was erase (or not overwrite?) the itacistic epsilons in αδικια, κακια, and πλεονεξια.

    1. I wonder if NA26 is reading the marginal correction as replacing πορνεια in the main text. That would make sense of listing Ds.c with C.