08-16-2012, 02:06 AM
Quote:Anyone happens to have a scan of the point in question in the manuscript? Why the heck would anyone suggest "theiastae" if there is no (or little) clue as to the word missing? I guess that something in some manuscript has survived in order for anyone to propose such a word.I have not studied the manuscript tradition of the Ektaxis, but -- as far as I am aware -- all extant copies go back to a single archetype, the tenth-century codex Laurentianus. (Roos probably discusses this in his excellent 1967 Teubner edition, which I think is the basis of the TLG version.) It is this archetype that carries the reading θειασταί. The word has clearly been garbled at some point prior to the tenth century. I like the idea that some poor Greek-less scribe was attempting to copy the word "πελτασταί", but made a mess of it.
