Wed Nov 6 09:00:37 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Nov  6 09:00:37 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA22006; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:59:34 -0500
Message-ID: 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: DC PARKER 
Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 13:42:18 GMT
Subject: Re: versions
Priority: normal
X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1016

      Maurice Robinson wrote

> In the case mentioned, there certainly seems to be evidence to that 
point.> I would not suggest in the absence of conflicting Greek 
testimony,> however, that two variant readings in the same unit 
among OL MSS would> imply a "lost" Greek variant no longer extant 
among the Greek MS> tradition, but that such likely reflects intra-OL 
variation instead.
> 
Here I seek clarification.

Are you saying that you would only consider the versional evidence 
as testimony to an already attested variation among Greek MSS, or 
just that you would not consider it _here_ as evidence of a Greek 
variant, were there not already a variation among Greek MSS?

That is, would you reject on principle the possibility that a variant 
cognomino/voco attested a lost Greek variant epikaleo/kaleo?  Or do 
you just think that it could not be established here?

David Parker
DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK

Back