Volunt or Volant? Ancients and Moderns on a Variant Reading of Verg. Aen. 1.150

Acta Classica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 222-230
Author(s):  
Javier Uría
Keyword(s):  
Variant Reading

KHALIFA OR KHALIQA A VARIANT READING OF SURAH 2:28

1934 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-186
Author(s):  
Nab?h Am?n Fāris.
Keyword(s):  
Variant Reading

scholarly journals Textual Criticism, Translation Studies, and Symmachus’s Version in the Book of Job

Textus ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Alison Salvesen
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Textual Criticism ◽  
Translation Studies ◽  
Second Century ◽  
Book Of Job ◽  
Early Christian ◽  
Variant Reading ◽  
Descriptive Translation Studies

Abstract The late second century CE translator/reviser Symmachus took a very different approach to the versions of his predecessor Aquila. His renderings do not appear to have survived in Jewish circles but were much admired by early Christian scholars, thanks to their preservation in Origen’s Hexapla. However, for textual critics of the Hebrew Bible Symmachus’ free approach has limited his value since his readings cannot be easily retroverted, unlike those of Aquila or Theodotion. In the case of the book of Job, although Symmachus’ “transformations” (to use a term from Descriptive Translation Studies) differ in nature from the freedoms observed in OG Job, while rejecting the narrow isomorphism of Aquila and Theodotion he nevertheless adheres quite closely to his Hebrew Vorlage. This offers the possibility of identifying elements significant for textual criticism in his rendering, including variant reading traditions or a different consonantal text.

The Text of Philippians 3.12 in the Gothic Translation: Paul Not Already Deemed Righteous?

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-379
Author(s):  
Ryan Kristopher Giffin
Keyword(s):  
Greek Text ◽  
Variant Reading ◽  
Scholarly Attention

The Gothic translation of Paul’s Letter to the Philippians contains a reading in which Paul claims he is not already deemed righteous (ni . . . ju garaihts gadomiþs sijau, Phil 3.12). In light of this, the Gothic version has been included as a textual witness to the so-called justification clause, a variant reading scholars have labeled “intriguing,” “very interesting,” “striking,” and “astounding.” However, no scholarly attention has been devoted specifically to the Gothic version of the justification clause of Phil 3.12. This article fills that gap. The author gives attention to this text as it appears in the surviving Gothic manuscripts and discusses two of its noteworthy features. Both features contribute to the wisdom of exercising caution before dismissing the reading as a representative of a secondary insertion into the earliest Greek text of the Pauline Letters.

Khotanese birre

1990 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-9
Author(s):  
R. E. Emmerick
Keyword(s):  
Variant Reading

In the Khotanese Sudhana story it is related that Sudhana will come upon a rākṣasī and must slay her with his sword. The Khotanese text reads at this point kāḍara jse vara ṣṭau raysga vīra jsanauña (Ch 00266.178–9 KBT 28) = kāḍąrinai vara ṣṭāṃ raysgi vī jsanñä (P 2957.118 KBT 37), which Sir Harold Bailey rendered “There he must promptly slay her with his sword” (BSOAS XXIX, no. 3, 1966, 512). MS. P. 4089a presents a variant reading for this line: kāḍara-birre raysaga vīra jsanauña (P 4089a.2–3 KBT 20). In his Dict. p. 287 Bailey renders it “with cut of sword, she must swiftly be slain”. In birre he sees a word attested only here and meaning “with cut”.

Eur. Troades 207: An Unobserved Variant Reading

1978 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 426
Author(s):  
Ra'anana Meridor
Keyword(s):  
Variant Reading

III. The Text

1973 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 7-8
Keyword(s):  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Good Sense ◽  
Variant Reading ◽  
Obvious Reason

Right at the start of Book II we are faced with the statement that the Thebans attacked Plataea ‘when the archonship of Pythodorus at Athens had two months still to run, in the sixth month after the battle at Potidea, and at the beginning of spring’. ‘Two months’ cannot be reconciled with ‘at the beginning of spring’, given the facts of the Athenian civil calendar, and ‘the sixth month’, though defensible, is not very easy to reconcile with the narrative of Book I. Many times in reading Thucydides, if we care whether what he says is true, or even coherent, we have to question, and sometimes reject, the text. Numerical words give the most trouble, for an obvious reason: ‘sixth’, ‘ninth’, ‘tenth’, etc. are all equally grammatical and may all make equally good sense until investigated more deeply than we can expect of a copyist; Polybius (xii. 4a) knew that. There are, however, difficulties of other kinds. Did Thucydides say of Gylippus in vi. 104. I ‘after negotiating with Thurii and renewing the citizenship given to his father’ or (a variant reading) ‘after negotiating with Thurii in accordance with the citizenship once given to his father’? It makes some difference to our notions about Greek grants of citizenship. And in vi. 88. 4 leaving of πολλοί or emending to ού πολλοί makes a difference to our picture of the balance of power between Syracuse and Athens.

scholarly journals Alexander's Metaphysics commentary and some scholastic understandings of automata

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-25
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Bowe
Keyword(s):  
Causal Reasoning ◽  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Variant Reading ◽  
Alexander Of Aphrodisias ◽  
Metaphysical Principle ◽  
Aristotle's Metaphysics

In this article, I argue that Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas read a certain passage of Aristotle's Metaphysics on the nature of metaphysical curiosity in a way that is inconsistent with the earlier reading of the same passage by Alexander of Aphrodisias. The passage has to do with Aristotle's use of mechanical automata as a metaphor for kinetic mimesis in his metaphysics. The result of the variant reading of the passage in question is that these Scholastic readings emphasize universal causality as a vehicle of “wonder banishment” in metaphysics at the expense of recognizing the key metaphysical principle that Aristotle is suggesting. Such readings actually turn out to be difficult to maintain with the example of mechanical automata that Aristotle employs. I argue that the absence of the availability of Alexander's commentary to Albert and Aquinas contributes to their variant and inconsistent reading. There are three main parts and a conclusion. Part I discusses the passage from Aristotle's Metaphysics in question, which I call the thaumata passage, as well as Alexander's commentary on it. Part II discusses the unavailability of Alexander's commentary to Albert, Aquinas and their predecessors. Part III discusses the variant scholastic readings of the thaumata passage and how these readings, which take Aristotle's mechanical automata as chance occurrences result in an emphasis on wonder banishment through universal causal reasoning that is inconsistent with the example Aristotle uses in the thaumata passage. By way of conclusion I suggest that even had Alexander's commentary been available to Aquinas, he would have understood the passage as more akin to remarks on magic than to metaphysics.

scholarly journals Menyoal Kritik Orientalis terhadap Qirā’at: Studi Kritis terhadap Pemikiran Arthur Jefrey Mengenai Ragam Bacaan Al-Qur’an

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-194
Author(s):  
Akhmad Roja Badrus Zaman
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Oral Tradition ◽  
Critical Study ◽  
Critical Studies ◽  
Variant Reading ◽  
Study Approach ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Diacritical Mark ◽  
Early Islamic ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

Arthur Jeffery (1892-1959) was an Australian orientalist who was quite influential in the 20th century. He is well known for his philosophical thoughts on the Qur’an. He even wanted to restore the al-Qur’an text based on Ibn Abī Dāwud al-Sijistānī’s Kitab al-Maṣāḥif which is thought to have recorded readings (qirā’at) in several counter-manuscripts - rival codices. This article examines his thoughts on the variety of reading (qirā’at) of the al-Qur’an. The method used is descriptive-qualitative. From the study conducted, it was found that the following results were: 1) Arthur Jeffery considered that the Mushaf ‘Uthmānī which had a dot and a diacritical mark was a factor in the birth of the variety of reading for the al-Qur’an. According to him, this is a free opportunity for readers to mark themselves according to the context of the verse they understand, 2) Arthur's thought is natural because he uses a text-critical study approach to the Qur’an - as a method. it was used by the Orientalists of the Bible. 3) the use of text-critical studies of the Qur’an as done by Arthur is a fatal basic mistake, because after all the process of transmitting the Koran in the early Islamic century was an oral tradition, so the accusations made by Arthur about qirā’at It is easy to argue with, 4) The use of the term variant reading - by orientalists including Arthur Jeffery is considered a failure by Islamic thinkers in representing the meaning of qirā’at, because it implies uncertainty about the truth of the qiraat itself. So that al-A’ẓamī prefers the term multiple reading, because it is more in accordance with the historical facts of the al-Qur’an transmission which accommodates many dialects of Arabic society.

Rule, Britannia': Variant reading

1907 ◽  
Vol s10-VIII (196) ◽  
pp. 258-258
Author(s):  
W. B.
Keyword(s):  
Variant Reading
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document