From: Eric B. Sowell (bradyman@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 27 2001 - 01:26:15 EDT
> Hi Eric, B-Greekers,
>
> The source of the Greek word in question is GPGoold, Ed., The Apostolic
> Fathers, Vol. 1 (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard U. Press,
1985),
> page 172, the Greeting paragraph of the epistle of Ignatius to the
Ephesians
> (see: my earlier thread, with the text and my translation). This book was
> originally printed in 1912, and I do not think it was ever updated before
> its reprintings (this is why I have set this little project for myself,
> because Kirsopp Lake's English is a little outdated). In his introduction,
> Goold says he has researched a number of early publications of Ignatius,
> including Lightfoot. He specifies that Ussher's Greek version is a
> retranslation from an earlier Latin translation by Grosseteste in 1250
from
> a Greek manuscript that is since lost. However, Goold does have the
Vossian
> manuscript, which was published in 1646 from the Florence codex (below),
but
> it did not include Ignatius to the Romans. This, Goold says, was rectified
> when Ruinart published a 10th century manuscript, 1689 in Paris. Goold
lists
> the following manuscripts he has cited in footnotes in the texts of
> Ignatius:
> "G1 = Codex Mediceus Laurentius lxii. 7 (the Vossian MS).
> g = the text of the interpolated epistles in the long recension.
> [Goold indicates that this is widely available.]
> L = the Latin version of Grosseteste. (Lc = codex Caiensis,
> Lm = codex Montacutianus, known only from the collation of Ussher.)
> A = the Armenian version.
> S = the Syriac version (S1234 = the various fragments of the unabridged
> texts, Sigma = Cureton's abridgment).
> C = the Sahidic version.
> B = the Berlin papyrus."
>
> At any rate, looking again in Loeb at the word in question, it is
definitely
> spelled hHNWMENHi. The Iota subscript is unmistakable, certainly not a
> misprint, or ink spill.
If text critical arguments are used in reference to this little problem of
hENOW being a dative or accusative, I think that the accusative form will be
more likely. I couldn't tell what the relative dates of the witnesses are
from my text (The Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed, trans. by Lightfoot and Harmer,
ed. and rev. by Michael W. Holmes) unfortunately. However, there is a
principle in text critical circles that the more difficult reading is to be
seen as more likely original rather than an easier reading. In this
instance, hHNWMENHn rather than hHNWMENHi is the harder reading, because it
seems to cause a grammatical difficulty (if it is accusative, I have no idea
what it is modifying grammatically...maybe he made a grammatical booboo. I
would like some input from someone on this issue, if possible.). But, I
could be wrong.
> Thanks for the confirmation. That was very helpful (I guess the perfect
> middle/passive conjugation is an advanced topic, since Hewett does not
seem
> to cover it). You know, after I looked in BAGD and was unconvinced of
> hENWSIS, I went to Tufts and found hENOW. After that, I failed to go back
to
> BAGD to see that. Thanks for the page number. I agree they have hHNWMENH,
> without the Iota subscript. But, what am I to do? If this one word
indicates
> the Loeb text is defective, how am I to correct it? Is there a text you
> would suggest would be better for my little project?
>
> Thanks so much,
> Richard Allan Stauch
> Long Beach, CA
Check on pg 141 in Hewett (I am assuming that you are looking at his little
grammar). He does not say much about it, however.
Eric B. Sowell
Dallas, TX
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:02 EDT