 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture Just to be clear about it, I'm not sure that this is not a "doublet" reading that arose from knowledge of the two Latin translations, and in that sense a "pointer" to a sort of available "variant." I'm also suspicious that it could have arisen in the process of manuscript transmission, from a copyist familiar with (and preferring) the "id est"reading. To put it another way, I doubt that it is an original gloss produced by your author unaided. Whether there may be some other significance to the "id est" explanation, I can't say. The preserved Greek has the plural "hands" in both parts of the verse (with the preposition "into" plus accusative, not "in" plus dative), while the preserved Hebrew has the singular "hand" in both parts. Would "in manibus" sound awkward or strange or ambiguous or inappropriate at some stage of medieval Latin development? I'm not the one to ask! Bob > Thanks to all & sundry. I'll follow the advice of Bob Kraft & > Theresa Gross-Diaz and take this reading as just a quick gloss, not > pointer to variant lectio, and take "id est" at face value. > > -- > Juris > > Juris G. Lidaka > Department of English > West Virginia State University > Institute, WV 25112-1000 > USA -- Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827 [log in to unmask] http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html