Jump To ECM Entry     Online Commentary Introduction

Split a/f

GC: The only variants supported by small cores of early A-related witnesses of comparable weight are a and f, but the relationship between them is unclear and the evidence is too weak for a decision in favor of a. Incoherencies show here, as in other attestations, that there was obviously some fluctuation between a, b, c, and d.

TP: It is likely that the fluctuation between variants with present and future tense are due to haplography or dittography, especially since both tenses fit the context equally well. The variants with a compositum are perhaps due to a desire to have consonance with ἐξαιρούμενος, but it remains unclear whether the witnesses of f indirectly support a or b.

There seems to be a problem here since in both the print edition and the online edition (and in the discussion in the commentary) the diamond alternatives are a and f, but in the print edition the two printed alternatives are a and e (both with double lamda). In the commentary mention of the witnesses (for the EXAPOSTEL?W reading) would seem to indicate 04 and P74 (with NT Transcripts, although only part of one lamda is extant). ("The only variants supported by small cores of early A-related witnesses of comparable weight are a and f, but ...")  So, in any case, either the black diamond has wrongly been placed next to f in both the upper and lower apparatus, or the double primary text line is incorrect. For myself I was thinking that the present tense could be thought of as a slightly harder reading (and better attested in the early witnesses), so I was thinking that the error involved incorrect placements of the black diamonds.

The error occurred when the split guiding line was written. The second variant should be f, ἀποστελῶ σε, as indicated by the diamond.

I do not see why the present tense should be slightly harder here. Regarding the quality of the witnesses, it is important to take into account that the text of 81, although preserved in an 11th century manuscript, is about as old as that of 03. A comparison of these witnesses shows that in ch. 26 (and others) the ECM editors even see a preponderance of 81. (For the comparison see <http://ntg.cceh.uni-koeln.de/ph4/comparison#ms1=81&ms2=03>.)

Thanks Klaus,

Do you mean reading b αποστελω σε? Or reading f εξαποστελω σε? [currently marked with a black diamond]

Peter

 

I mean f εξαποστελω σε. Sorry for yet another typo.