Subject: tc-list Phi 3.16

From: "Francisco Orozco" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:23:09 -0700

In Phi 3.16 the Critical Text omits KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN and acc. to
Metzger this is so because "The earliest form of the text appears to be that
preserved in p16, p46, Aleph (1st hand), A, B,  I (vid) 33, 424(corr), 1739
cop (sa,bo) eth(ro) etc. Because of the conciseness of style, copyists added
various explanatory words and phrases; e.g. the TR reads TW AUTW STOIXEIN
KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN with Aleph (corr), K, P, Psi, 88, 614, syr (p,h),
eth(pp), etc, where KANONI serves to identify the otherwise enigmatic TW
AUTW and TO AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW STOIXEIN (cf. 2.2 and
Gal 6.16); other witnesses insert KANONI before STOIXEIN (69, 1908), and
still others insert TO AUTO FRONEIN before TW AUTW with or without KANONI
(D, G, 81, 330, 1241, it, vg, goth, arm, Euthalius). The variety and lack of
homogeneity of the longer readings make it difficult to suppose that the
shorter reading TW AUTW STOIXEIN arose because of homoeoteleuton."

So that acc. to Metzger we have the following:
(1) TW AUTW STOIXEIN p16, p46, Aleph (1st hand), A, B,  I (vid) 33,
424(corr), 1739, cop (sa,bo) eth(ro)
(2) TW AUTW STOIXEIN KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN with Aleph (corr), K, P, Psi,
88, 614, syr (p,h), eth(pp)
(3) TW AUTW KANONI STOIXEIN TO AUTO FRONEIN 69,1908
(4) TO AUTO FRONEIN TW AUTW STOIXEIN (KANONI) D, G, 81, 330, 1241, it, vg,
goth, arm, Euthalius

(A) I suppose we may dismiss reading (3) because of its minimal witnesses,
and perhaps a simple accidental metathesis.
(B) I do not know if we can also call reading (4) a case of metathesis
(coupled to error in hearing, reading or memory lapse?). Its witnesses are
Byz (goth) West (D, G, it, vg) Alex (81) Caesa (arm) (I do not know where to
put 330, 1241 & Euth). Apparently this reading has ample geographical
distribution.
(C) The reading (2) has Byz (K, P, Syr) Alex (Aleph (corr)?, Psi) West (88)
(where do 614 & eth(pp) go?). This reading has fairly good geographical
distribution. Acc. to Hodges & Farstad this is the MT (I do not know about
M. Robinson since I do not own a copy of his edition of the MT), and would
then have the bulk of the witnesses.
(D) The reading (1) is apparently Alexandrian (but where do we put p16 &
eth(ro) ?). This reading is apparently a localized (geograohically) reading.
It enjoys the early witness of p46.

Now, to Metzger's explanation:
(1) How convincing is that KANONI was added to identify the otherwise
enigmatic TW AUTW, and that TO AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW
STOIXEIN? In this explanation TW AUTW is being asked to serve two times: to
explain KANONI and to partly explain TO AUTO FRONEIN.
(2) How the references cited (Phi 2.2 and Gal 6.16) serve to support that TO
AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW STOIXEIN ? Did the scribes of
reading (2) gloss from 2.2 & Gal 6.16 in order to think that TO AUTO FRONEIN
might be a good explanation of TW AUTW STOIXEIN ?

And, some last questions:
(1) Unto what did the corrector of Aleph corrected it? Was it the same
first-scribe who corrected himself? Is Aleph(corr) still then Alexandrian?
(2) Could it be that Phi 2.2 & Gal 6.16 and Phil. 1:7; 2:2, 5; 3:15, 19;
4:2, 10 (where some form of FRONEW appears) rather be confirmatory of the
originality of reading (2)?
(3) Reading (1) is the shortest reading, but also a localized reading. Is
there really no chance that this reading arose due to homoeoteleuton or some
other accident?

Thanks,
Francisco Orozco
TC Lurker