Hi John, just picking up a few of these points:
In some manuscripts, readers rubbed out the ἐν, apparently thinking that ἐνῆι was a mistake, that ἐκείνοις should not be the object of the ἐν-.
Three quick points:
- Did a reader really rub out the ἐν- (I presume you’re talking about the prefix to the verb here, and not the aspirated ἕν)? I’ve only had a quick look at Ross’ apparatus, who gives here ἓν ἐνῆι] ἦι n: ἐνῆι _n_². This implies to me that a corrector of Ambrosianus 490 (i.e. _n_²) has actually added in ἐν- as a prefix to the verb in the original manuscript (n), rather than rubbing it out. But I haven’t looked more closely into it than that, and so I could be way off (I’ve not tracked through Ross’ sigla here carefully, just an initial reaction). Either way, it doesn’t affect the next two bullets.
- I don’t take ἐκείνοις as a complement of the verb ἦι / ἐνῆι in any event: I take it as a complement of τὸ αὐτό.
- The reason for the correction in Ambrosianus 490 might not be on the ground you mention: “apparently thinking that ἐνῆι was a mistake, that ἐκείνοις should not be the object of the ἐν-.” There could be other reasons for the discrepancy: e.g. maybe the copyist of n suspected dittography in ἓν ἐνῆι, and removed the prefix, and the corrector in n² then added back in the prefix.
On the last bullet above, I have no expertise at all in textual criticism, but have read West’s book on it: not “intended solely for editors, but for anyone who reads Greek and Latin and desires some guidance on how to approach textual questions” (p. 9). West discusses dittography at pp. 24 and 133, and also notes that copyist’s corrections can often be mistaken “and this kind of corruption is often more insidious than inadvertent miscopying, being less easily detected afterwards” (p. 12) — maybe the corrector of n² thought that n made a mistake in leaving out the prefix?
Another possibility is that n itself was copied from other manuscripts which had the verb here without the prefix (i.e. perhaps any dittography correction occurred earlier in the tradition than n, instead of the copyist of n itself making the correction). Ross notes that n comes from a different family to the other four used by Ross for his edition (p. 89), and so it’s possible that the verb without the prefix goes back a way in that family, and then the corrector in n² added the prefix.
How to decide? No idea! Michael and others on this forum are the textual criticism experts, not me. Just calling out that there could potentially be alternative grounds for the discrepancy worth exploring.
Can ἐκείνοις be a dative complementing τὸ αὐτό?
Yep: see e.g. Cambridge grammar secs 32.14 and 30.40.
In “same as you,” “you” would be in the dative. (Right?)
This is one possible construction: ὁ αὐτός can also take other constructions instead of a dative complement, e.g. a relative clause with -περ (check out e.g. Cambridge grammar sec. 32.15).
Would “in all these” be in the dative plural in “same in these”?
I don’t quite follow this question, as you give two phrases, however “these” in both cases is governed by the preposition “in” (ἐν), which takes the dative — i.e. the syntax here is different to the syntax with τὸ αὐτό above.
Worth noting that the translation you give may need to be adjusted in light of the above.
Cheers, Chad
