Subject: Re: MS 1346 and Swanson

From: [email-masked] (U. Schmid)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:19:07 +0100

On Mon, 6 oct 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:

>Gentlemen,
>
>I have collated MS 1346 as regards the pericope adultera here in Muenster,
>and have compared my collation with that of Swanson in his volumes, and it
>appears that whatever MS Swanson collated thinking it was 1346, it
>definitely was _not_ 1346 (at least for the pericope adultera); the
>Muenster MS is definitely 1346, and it differs dramatically in that
>pericope from Swanson's data.
>
>I so far have not identified which MS pertains to Swanson's 1346, but am
>wondering if (assuming Swanson got his microfilms from Claremont) whether
>the one in the 1346 box might have been the wrong one.  Is there anyone in
>or around Claremont who might be able to check on this possibility?

I have no idea about the Claremont boxes, but I'm pretty sure that
Swanson's MS 1346 in fact is MS 346. You can easily check my suggestion by
comparing 346 at the pericope you are examining right now. You may also ask
Wolgang Richter at the Institute for further information on Swanson's MS
1346.

Ulrich Schmid,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 06:52:29 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, U. Schmid wrote:

> I'm pretty sure that
> Swanson's MS 1346 in fact is MS 346. 

I now have checked MS 346 and, while it does agree with Swanson in many
more particulars than did MS 1346 which Swanson claimed, it too has still
some differences which are not recorded in Swanson, even though they
should have been in light of Swanson supposedly covering all variants.

Examples (MS 346 readings which are NOT included by Swanson in his
claimed MS 1346 collation within the pericope adultera):

       Swanson ) MS 346
7:53 aphlqon ) aphlqen
8:4  ep auto forw ) ep autw tw fwrw
8:6 mh prospoioumenos ) mh prosioumenos (sic)
8:8 omit katw ... elegcomenoi ) include all
8:11 eipen auth ) kai o IC eipen auth
8:11 katakrinw ) katekrinw

The other readings within the pericope which Swanson cites for 1346 are
typical of Fam.13, and MS 346 basically agrees with those others as would
be expected.  But I still am not convinced that Swanson's 1346 is actually
346 unless Swanson greatly erred in his collations.

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Oct 1997 14:46:40 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[email-masked] wrote:
> But I still am not convinced that Swanson's 1346 is actually

Previous authorities classified 1346 in family Pi and 346 in family 13,
but Swanson claimed 1346 was in f13.  My cursory comparison of
the text of 1346-according-to-Swanson indicated that it agreed
with fPi in stretches and with f13 in stretches, suggesting block mixture.
Could it be that Swanson mixed together the two texts by some
unusual secretarial blunder?

If we don't come up with an explanation soon, I'll try to telephone
Swanson at home sometime.

Vincent Broman                                       San Diego, California, USA
Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home)       or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work)
Phone: +1 619 284 3775                       Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W
=== PGP protected mail preferred.   For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil ===