Jump To ECM Entry     Online Commentary Introduction

Split a/d

GC: The attestations of variants a and d both have cores of A-related witnesses accompanied by incoherencies. The earlier A-related witnesses support a, and the incoherencies appear lesser with IR=a. With IR=?, however, it becomes clear that a large strand of witnesses has no close relationship with the A-related core.

TP: The middle of ἀπορέω is usually construed with ἐν or περί, not with an accusative.[1] As a construction with accusative is customary for the active, a is, however, intelligible and inconspicuous. The incoherencies in the d attestation (and all other variants apart from a and g), show a preference for a prepositional phrase. With τήν already present, εἰς may have seemed a natural fit instead of ἐν, according to the general equivalence of ἐν + dat. and εἰς + acc. in late Greek. This is TP for a, yet the lack of coherence in the a attestation and the presence of variant g probably indicate that a shift from a prepositional phrase to a plain accusative occurred also.